Tear Down THIS Wall is suspended. Do not respond to his comment as they will be deleted.

Then Keith and Schuster try to pin it on Hillary at the end of the hour, without so much as a shred of evidence.

Sadly, I was not able to watch Countdown the next day after it became known that all three remaining candidates' passport files were breached.

I am sure Keith apologized for his brazen conspiracy theory though, right?

Olbermann has always been a hater. It's just that your perspective has changed because of toward whom he is directing his hate.

The 'Salience' of Race

As we all know, there have been repeated claims over the course of this election season that the Clinton campaign has 'injected' race into the campaign in order to build up their voting advantage among white voters.

Let's start by setting aside whether that's true or not and focus on what it means and whether it actually would matter.

JMM, 3:50PM:

More Than Just Race

A number of TPM Readers have written in to suggest that in my posts today about racialized voting I seem to be treating it as an assumption that whites voting for Clinton are doing so because they're not willing to vote for Obama because he's black. So to dispel any confusion that's definitely not what I'm saying....

... if Barack Obama fails to make serious inroads with working class white Democrats in Pennsylvania that will mean that these voters actually refuse to vote for him either because he is black or because of the Wright issue, which is in many respects a proxy for the issue of race.

So in many respects it seems to me that Clinton is the one who in her current argument is reducing her candidacy to being largely about race.

Just mentioned on CNN.

Keith Olbermann is far from perfect (who isn't?) and chances are he is an Obama supporter, but seriously...the comments here are losing perspective.  No matter what I've heard from KO, he is no Bill O'Reilly, he is no Rush Limbaugh, he is no Glenn Beck, he is not one of the truly poisonous.

Go ahead and point out how you feel someone is slighting your candidate, distorting their record or platform, but please don't sink into the hole of all is lost if [my candidate] doesn't win the Democratic nomination.

And, for Randell to claim that Fox News has done "the fairest job [and] remained the most objective of all the cable networks."  That is ludicrous. They are still vile, hate-filled liars who distort the record of any and every Democratic (and any Republicans who don't agree with 'em--just give 'em a "D" after their names).

Support Clinton, I support you.  Support Obama, I support you.  Undermine the progressive movement, I will object.  And, if you think this is just because I'm some anti-Clinton flack, I've  stopped going to Daily Kos for pretty much the same reason.

Believe me or not, this lifeling liberal (an ACLU member no less) has never been a fan of KO.  He mocks, ridicules, shames and smears; and yes, I guess it is not so hard to take when he is doing his routine against someone I disagree with, say any Bush administration fellow. I am nevertheless very uneasy about how easily it is for him to  personally disparage another person, including the POTUS.  I didn't like it when it was done to Carter or Clinton, out of sense of fairness, I don't like when it is done to anyone.

When I would watch occasionally, I detected a particular level of ridicule towards women.  This became more apparent with his nightly Brittany Spears mockfest.  I know she is no Marie Curie, and I know she is celebrity who has deliberately sought attention; but still, she is a human being (and parent of two small children) and she was (is?)clearly a very ill person.  Watching somebody's life fall apart is not pleasant for me; laughing at someone else's misfortune is beyond the pale.  It was like watching a beast of burden get whipped to death after it stop plowing the field.

KO did (and so did so many others in the media) the same thing to s slew of female celebrities, like Anna Nicole Smith.  Where was the mocking of the men?  He would have female guests on the show (like Dee Dee Meyers or someone), but he never engaged these female guests fully; he was polite and perfuntory.  And when someone would disagree -off to exile.

It is clear KO thinks he is superior to everyone else, esp. women.  That is why he can sit on his throne and announce to the world who is good and who is not, who we should hate and who should adore.  If he stuck to the ideas or the actions of another - then maybe I could watch.  But for him, everything is personal.  

The fangs really came out for Hillary btwn Iowa and NH.  That is when I stopped watching.  The papable contempt was too much.  A letter of complaint to his email went unanswered -actually I'm suprised he didn't do a segment and what a horrible human being I am b/c I - oh horror of horrors - have the audacity to disagree with him.  Or maybe he did, and I missed it as a result of my boycott.

The pretense of "balanced journalism" is really a fairly recent concept in the human experience, and it was never anything more than a pretense.  What "balance" there might have been since immediately post-WWII America was always really a pro-conventional-wisdom bias -- in other words, groupthink.

Or have you just never read his arguments about how journalists reinforce the bias of conventional wisdom?

Have you never read "Manufacturing Consent?"

We are all biased.  We all see the world differently.  

If Hillary was winning you would watch KO and laugh.  She isn't and you don't.  As your Big Tent becomes a Pup Tent, the world closes in and the teeth come out.  

nothing could be more painfully obvious.

Check out this blog post for instance The Reaction

Now Clinton is "sucking up to right wing media"?  Everyone knows Fox is what it is.  Rendell dropped that "you hate both our candidates" comment in for a reason.  Because it's true, they do hate them both.