home

Countdown Update

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 07:23:33 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

For a campaign that has been declared over, and a candidate who has been declared dead, Hillary Clinton sure gets alot of attention from the Obama News Network (NBC), not to mention the Obama blog network (you know who I mean). I watched Countdown with Keith Olbermann for the first 15 30 minutes. After 10 minutes of bashing Clinton for firing Mark Penn (it seemed like that he was doing, to be honest, Olbermann was pretty incoherent), then 5 minutes of attacking Clinton on comparing her Iraq position with Obama's. Then 10 minutes of telling us that Clinton has no chance (begging the question, then why spend the first 25 minutes of your program blasting Hillary Clinton?

Olbermann wanted to attack Clinton on the Bachtel story, but it seems NBC got the memo that they were wrong (Olbermann graciously "gave that one" to Clinton) then attacked Clinton for an argument she did not make (but should) - that the Media LIED about the Bachtel story. Yes Keith, your Obama News Network spent the day LYING about Hillary Clinton's statement on Trina Bachtel.

More . . .

But Hillary Clinton would be wrong to even suggest your network and you, Keith Olbermann, are biased against Hillary Clinton. Suuuure. The man is Obama's O'Reilly. NBC is Obama's Fox Noise. But the kicker for me was Dana Milbank, who said well yes the Media got the Bachtel story wrong, but LIKE AL GORE IN 2000, it is Clinton's fault. The sad thing is I read the same thing at the so called "progressive" blogs now. We are through the Looking Glass - the "progressive" blogs who once saw their mission as countering the Media's bias against Dems like what happened to Al Gore. Now the cheer it on and indeed LEAD those charges. The progressive blogosphere is dead. Long live the "progressive" blogosphere!

< Rezko Lawyer Gets His Shot at Government Star Witness | Trina Bachtel Family: Clinton Told The Truth >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Countdown Update | 133 comments (133 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    you have my permission (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Turkana on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 07:25:21 PM EST
    to use my term for it: the great convergence.

    Combines premature celebration and a jackwad? (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by Ellie on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:09:45 PM EST
    Dang, what's that more precise phrase I seek? :-)

    Forgot how to say it without getting hit with a foul language-T and tossed from the game.

    Parent

    Ok, I'm gonna say it (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by andgarden on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 07:28:13 PM EST
    Remember after the 2006 election when Democrats were ascendant and Bush was going to be forced to withdraw the troops because he was so unpopular?

    This reminds me of that a little bit. Don't do anything to win, just celebrate the fact that you've "won."

    Whoops, hit the wrong reply to button (none / 0) (#63)
    by Ellie on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:16:20 PM EST
    My reply to Turkana upstream was meant to add to yoru point. Applies either way, though, with the constant of Olbermann showing himself to be a total jackwad,

    Parent
    Apparently (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 07:31:24 PM EST
    There will be a protest at NBC headquarters on Friday (4/11) at 8:00am.

    Link

    Wish I could go, but I live at the opposite end of the United(-2) States.

    I think I might go (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by stillife on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 07:43:27 PM EST
    I live and work in downtown Brooklyn, and I'll have to get up early and be late to work, but I feel very strongly about this.

    Parent
    Please go (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by nell on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:56:02 PM EST
    I don't live in NYC so I can't go...I feel so strongly about this that I almost bought a plane ticket, but I ended up not being able to get the day off work. Please go. This is so important. Not just for Clinton, but because the media are destroying so many progressive causes.

    Parent
    Well, I guess I am going (none / 0) (#125)
    by stillife on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 08:28:35 AM EST
    I told my husband, who thinks I'm nuts.  I reminded him that he mocked me when I went to a demonstration  for a recount in Florida back in 2000.  When will he learn to trust my superior judgment?  ;)

    I'll post about it on an Open Thread here after the event.

    Parent

    I too feel (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by americanincanada on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:16:33 PM EST
    strongly about this. I wish I could go on Friday. I hope thousands go.

    Parent
    Send a protest email (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by nycstray on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 03:00:43 AM EST
    if you want to go but can't, send them an email during the rally ;)

    Parent
    There's a sickening feeling (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by Lil on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 07:53:20 PM EST
    the first time I felt it was just before NH.  People rose up against it then. Maybe that will happen again only big time this time.

    Failure of the blogs has been the most... (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by Exeter on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:43:07 PM EST
    ...depressing aspect of all this. In fact, to a large degree, anti-Hillary blogs have been feeding the frenzy. It should be the other way around, with the blogs keeping them honest. I used to think that if blogs were commonplace in 2000, Gore would have never been filleted like he was, but now I wonder if the blogs would have only made it worse.

    Parent
    The Obama blog perfidy (none / 0) (#141)
    by cal1942 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:17:45 PM EST
    we're seeing now hasn't just depressed and enraged me; there's been another part of it that's bothered me that I couldn't quite identify until Exeter's comment.

    From where I sit the Obama blogs, in tone, sound a lot like the Greens in 2000. The Greens (individuals) pounded away at Gore and Democrats in general.

    I wonder how many of the Greens of 2000 are supporting Obama.

    Parent

    It's not a very cogent argument (none / 0) (#10)
    by Deadalus on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 07:55:24 PM EST
    that we should chose our leader based on backlash to unfair media bias. If that's the deciding factor, we're in trouble. Although, it never worked for Gore or Kerry--the media was ruthless and they didn't get any backlash empathy, so who knows, maybe she's onto something there.

    Parent
    We certainly shouldn't be choosing our leader (5.00 / 4) (#21)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:07:11 PM EST
    Based on who will be treated the best by the media.


    Parent
    Right on (none / 0) (#41)
    by Grey on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:30:04 PM EST
    Couldn't agree more, Edgar08.

    Parent
    Democrats MUST Breakup Big Media (5.00 / 6) (#35)
    by pluege on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:17:45 PM EST
    the media has been driving the Democrat's process this whole cycle (as it does most of the time.) They've already driven the Democrat's best and most competitive candidates out of the race; they've soft pedaled Obama waiting for him to get the nomination before trashing him mercilessly with lies and distractions; and they've coddled and pimped for mccain.

    There is NOTHING more important to salvaging America than breaking up Big Media.  

    Parent

    it is often that I hear that the media will turn (none / 0) (#88)
    by macondo on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:18:49 PM EST
    on BO if he gets the nomination. Many have said that once he was the front-runner the media would start scrutinizing him. But that has not happened and I'm beginning to get a sick feeling that they will forever give him a pass...

    Parent
    My guess is (none / 0) (#138)
    by nemo52 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:23:35 AM EST
    they;re waiting until the nomination is completely sewed up.  Then it will be McCain love, all the time.

    Parent
    I'm not sure which candidate (none / 0) (#107)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 11:09:44 PM EST
    had a husband in Congress in 1996.  Congress passes the laws, right?  They introduce them, pass them through committee, pass them through both houses.  All a prez can do is sign or veto them.

    Parent
    My husband voted for Nixon (none / 0) (#129)
    by kenoshaMarge on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:35:12 AM EST
    and naturally that's all my fault. But then he isn't my husband anymore plus he's dead so maybe it's all moot now.

     What absolute and completely disingenuous drivel!

    Parent

    Agree 100% (none / 0) (#143)
    by cal1942 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:24:04 PM EST
    Breakup of the media is imperative but I hope no one holds their breath even if a Democrat does win the White House.

    But I also agree with pluege's point that the media made its choice regarding the Democratic nominees and Democrats went along without realizing that they were buying into the media's storylines.

    I nodded my head when I read Eric Alterman's comment following Edwards' withdrawal that the campaign could possibly be the subject of many future doctoral dissertations.

    Any such dissertation would discuss the media's role and perhaps the largest share of the study is why so many Democrats were sucked in by the media's narrative.

    The failure of the Edwards candidacy to catch fire (as it should have) would simply leave unanswered questions if limited to media related matters.

    A more telling study would have to be expanded enough to explain what's happened to the Democratic 'coalition' over time.

    It ain't what it used to be and I suspect that an uncomfortable percentage would have been Republicans but for the extremism of recent decades and to me that explains a great deal of Obama's support.

    Parent

    Here's what baffles me, BTD (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Charles Bird on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 07:56:15 PM EST
    Hillary gets busted on Tuzla (and rightfully so, I might add), but Obama has been way more untruthful in the last six weeks.  I counted seven Obama untruths here and three more from The Economist.

    You know (4.75 / 4) (#17)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:01:34 PM EST
    No one deserves to get busted on these things.

    Bosnia was a dangerous place.  Obama was a professor.

    He had a role in an asbestos issue.

    Women were important to the peace process in No. Ireland and Clinton was responsible for that piece of the puzzle.

    And guess what?  Al Gore really did invent the internet.

    And you know what.  I ain't foolin'.  I think he did.

    So, this is all just letting the MSM have their way and not focus on issues.

    Problem is Obama supporters are being stupid about this, so we have to respond with Obama's untruth's too.

    It's a defense mechanism.

    But none of this should be an issue.

    This is all pointless, and it's crushing the democratic soul.

    Parent

    Truth-telling has to be an issue (none / 0) (#27)
    by Charles Bird on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:12:23 PM EST
    There aren't major differences between the candidates on the issues, so what's left are matters of character, judgment and packaging.  Obama's untruths go to character, not to mention judgment because he is choosing to take this tack.  If Hillary supporters don't address this, you can be sure that McCain supporters will (actually, are).

    Parent
    Not to me (none / 0) (#39)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:28:37 PM EST
    scratch and paw over this minutia if you want.


    Parent
    It is minutiae (none / 0) (#99)
    by Trickster on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:48:40 PM EST
    But Obama brings it into play so long as his camp continues to press the same issue with Clinton, as they have done throughout the campaign.  He can't have his cake and eat it, too.

    Preference #1: it's not a campaign issue and never was.

    Well, guess what.  It's too late for preference #1.

    Preference #2: it's equally an issue for both candidates

    is better than

    Not a preference at all: it's a hyper-issue for one candidate and the other candidate can treat the truth casually with no repercussions

    Parent

    I'll disagree (none / 0) (#144)
    by cal1942 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:34:40 PM EST
    on the issues matter.  There are major differences.  The Devil's in the details.

    But when it comes to character I'll take Hillary over Obama any day and it's not just the untruths and his sleazy campaign it's his willingness to accept the legislative gifts given him while in the Illinois Senate, his direct solicitation of those gifts, his slimy treatment of his Illinois Senate predecessor (he still hasn't had the guts to face her after all these years) his sleazy undermining of his US Senate Democratic primary rival, etc.  It's a hell of a long list.

    Parent

    FYI... (none / 0) (#69)
    by kredwyn on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:42:27 PM EST
    I met the women who were part of the NIrish women's contingency.

    They were an amazing group.

    Parent

    Here, Here (none / 0) (#139)
    by BDB on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:31:16 AM EST
    In addition to working so hard to destroy the Clinton brand, which is the democratic brand since he was the last democratic president, it also sets up a standard that no human being - much less a politician - could ever meet.  Campaign for more than a year and never misstate a fact?  Not possible.  If Obama is the nominee, his own supporters have endorsed this standard - the same standard that has helped destroy the prior two Dem nominees, btw - that the media and GOP will apply to him and that he will fail.  In fact, as others have pointed out, he has already failed it.  It is only because of CDS that nobody cares right now.

    So once again we have the answer to BTD's question - do they hate Clinton more than they want to beat McCain?  Why of course they do.  

    Parent

    Linking to Redstate? (none / 0) (#14)
    by Deadalus on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 07:58:11 PM EST
    Is that what this has come to? Posters on TalkLeft linking to RedState? I wanted to view the Obama untruths, but I just can't stomach to view it there.

    Parent
    I asked something similar... (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by kredwyn on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:28:16 PM EST
    when Obama supporters were citing Bob Novak's reports as credible.

    Parent
    Or when (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by cal1942 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:49:01 PM EST
    Josh Marshall used Drudge crap for an attack on Hillary.

    Parent
    lol go over to MyDD (none / 0) (#16)
    by TruthMatters on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:01:17 PM EST
    ANY source is used now, heck Fox News is more a more trusted source then MSNBC.

    to me the day Dems start citing Fox News, I dunno.

    Parent

    FNC is more balanced (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:06:21 PM EST
    Than MSNBC.

    I don't know if it's fair, but it is more balanced.


    Parent

    define balanced (none / 0) (#23)
    by TruthMatters on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:08:59 PM EST
    because now I have no clue how we are defining Balance.

    if you mean, less bad media on Hillary and more on Obama sure.

    but I mean even Chris Wallace had to bring fox news to task on the Wright Coverage.

    so how do you define balanced?

    Parent

    They attack Clinton and Obama in equal measure (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:14:41 PM EST
    MSNBC does not.

    Parent
    Independent (none / 0) (#28)
    by waldenpond on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:13:14 PM EST
    agencies that look at equality of coverage... who gets covered (Dems/Reps) or (Clinton, McCain, Obama) the percent of negative coverage and the percent of positive coverage is reported.  Fox lists the numbers because they win. sigh.  CNN has been covering the bias also.  MSNBC doesn't.. guess how they place?

    Parent
    Why not? (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by Dave B on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:07:48 PM EST
    They have been using right wing smears against the Clintons at Daily Kos this entire election cycle.

    Parent
    And the Redstate post, (none / 0) (#36)
    by Charles Bird on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:19:46 PM EST
    written by yours truly, links to factcheck.org, the WA Post Fact Checker site, the San Diego Union-Trib, the Columbia Journalism Review, politico.com, ABC News, AP, and National Journal.  Granted, there are also links to Ed Morrisey, Tom Maguire and McCain's website, but even without those references, there's a compelling case that Obama has been crossing the line when it comes to truth-telling.

    Parent
    I'll take your word for it. (none / 0) (#38)
    by Deadalus on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:26:05 PM EST
    Where's your post detailing McCain's lies regarding Iraq? They are much more harmful than any of these petty things in the Democratic primary. I'm really not into the "gotcha" lying game unless it's something actually important. (i.e., not decade old memories).

    Parent
    Mr. Bird (none / 0) (#97)
    by Trickster on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:42:20 PM EST
    is a leading Redstate commentator.  IMO he's quite welcome here so long as he knows where he is and acts accordingly.  Knowing him pretty well from commenting with him at the old Tacitus blog--at times quite contentiously, I might add--I will say that I doubt he is here to troll.  He has known BTD for a while.

    Parent
    I feel (none / 0) (#130)
    by kenoshaMarge on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:37:19 AM EST
    the same when when linked to Huffington, kos, or TPM.

    Parent
    Other posters complained (none / 0) (#24)
    by waldenpond on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:10:06 PM EST
    it was a Redstate link, but they didn't note that Redstate is linking to ABC/Politico etc.  I guess ABC and Politico are up there with Fox now.  They are true but some like the Selma story aren't true.

    It remains to be seen if the media keeps treating Obama the way they have or if he gets 'Clintoned'

    Parent

    "(begging the question, then why spend... (5.00 / 6) (#25)
    by pluege on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:11:06 PM EST
    ...the first 25 minutes of your program blasting Hillary Clinton?"

    ANSWER: misogyny.

    And pure (5.00 / 4) (#32)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:15:19 PM EST
    unadultered hate.

    Parent
    Misogyny means hatred... (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by pluege on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:34:41 PM EST
    hatred of women

    Parent
    I meant (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:37:51 PM EST
    hatred...period.  They hate Bill too.

    Parent
    That's ridiculous (none / 0) (#34)
    by Deadalus on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:16:51 PM EST
    That is not the only explanation. You know it; I know it; we all know it. I've been against Senator Clinton for a while now, for reasons that many have articulated and have nothing to do with misogyny. Let's put the identity politics aside.

    Parent
    Not to get too picky (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by RalphB on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:45:25 PM EST
    but if you put identity politics aside, Obama would have been out of the race long ago.

    Parent
    Amen (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by pluege on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:53:35 PM EST


    Parent
    True for both of them. (none / 0) (#58)
    by Faust on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:59:11 PM EST
    And in another sense only relevant to the degree we all (and by we all I mean we ALL) make it so.

    Parent
    Speak for (none / 0) (#146)
    by cal1942 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:08:32 PM EST
    yourself.  Don't pretend that you're privy to EVERYONE's criteria.

    Parent
    Maybe... (none / 0) (#67)
    by Alec82 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:35:15 PM EST
    ...although I have to say I sure as hell didn't vote for him because he is half black.  That was my initial hesitation, in fact, because I had my eyes on November.

     But...the attempts to downplay his candidacy by Pres. Clinton (SC), the decision to remain on the ballot and argue for MI to be counted AS IS after that election, the decision to vote for the Iraq war, etc...that was what turned me, and a lot of lefties, off of Senator Clinton.

     So you can discount his campaign as identity politics run amok, but you're only hardening people who do not consider the Clinton presidency the wellspring of liberalism it has been reimagined to be. The Iraq vote said a lot. But go ahead, call us misogynists.  

    Parent

    That is a new one (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by bjorn on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:53:45 PM EST
    for me.  Don't vote for the dem who wants the votes to count. Go with the guy who doesn't want to count the votes or do fair revotes.

    Parent
    Okay, if you insist. (none / 0) (#131)
    by kenoshaMarge on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:38:19 AM EST


    Parent
    How bythe in discounting misogyny (5.00 / 5) (#51)
    by pluege on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:51:30 PM EST
    There's nothing "ridiculous" about abusing a media megaphone with the specific intent of trashing a highly competent, intelligent, energetic, high profile woman as Olbermann has done.

    There is nothing indisputable about Olbermann's and others apparent misogyny - it is more than a likely explanation, it is a probable explanation.

    What Olbermann does has NOTHING to do with differences in opinion over policy. It does have everything to do with his personal, visceral otherwise unexplainable hatred of a person that has worked intelligently and tirelessly in the public sphere to the best of her considerable ability for most of her adult life. Whether or not one agrees or disagrees with Clinton's policies, her work ethic and dedication is obvious and indisputable. Anyone who can't recognize that clearly has problems beyond mere differences.  

    Furthermore, if anyone in the media had given Obama the same treatment Olbermann gives to Clinton every night, like say the slob limbaugh singing Barack the magic dragon every night, people would be in an uproar over the racism. But sexism, misogyny is apparently much more acceptable in America.

    Parent

    oops (none / 0) (#65)
    by pluege on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:18:29 PM EST
    "bythe" of course should be "blithe"

    Parent
    This is very destructive (none / 0) (#74)
    by Deadalus on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:56:31 PM EST
    If you want to counter Olbermann's criticisms of Senator Clinton, then crying foul over sexism that cannot be substantiated is not the best way to go about it. I hate to condescend, but sexism exists, yes, and will play a role in the election in November if Senator Clinton is the nominee. Responding to criticisms that cannot be shown to be based on sexism with a crying foul on charges of sexism make it appear that your candidate has only one response to criticism--that it's sexist. This isn't productive or helpful.

    Parent
    breathtaking (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by pluege on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:35:40 PM EST
    Olbermann has a prime time cable news show with hundreds of thousands of daily viewers in which EVERY night he spends copious amounts of time senselessly, and WITHOUT facts or evidence trashing Hillary Clinton for no other apparent reason than his misogyny - because he has not given any reason - no rational cogent reason for his endless emotionally-charged bashing that he brandishes on no other Democratic politician. And you think this little blog discussion is "destructive"... Whoa, that is just breathtaking (in respect for Talk Left rules I'll say no more)

    Parent
    You're missing the larger point (none / 0) (#104)
    by Deadalus on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 11:02:39 PM EST
    You didn't respond to my criticism.  Yes, Olbermann is being destructive too, but that doesn't mean this exercise isn't destructive as well.

    My point is that you should refute criticism with objections grounded on fact.  Dismissing criticism as the result of sexism is not sufficient in our world, or any that exists.


    Parent
    and David Morris too... (none / 0) (#114)
    by NO2WONDERBOY on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:28:36 AM EST
    This megalomaniac Morris exudes his infinite hate for the Clintons but especially for Hillary. His contempt for anything and everything Hillary is repugnant, and it sheds a light on himself. To hear him talk, HE MADE BILL, but he can't take the credit for MAKING HILLARY the "python", according to him. He was on Hannity tonight saying he introduced Penn to her campaign, Hmmmm. Did he do it, introduce Penn, without nefarious ulterior motives since anyone who hears Morris cannot come to any other conclusion that he would have Hillary 6 feet under if he had his way.

    For a person who was so close to the Clintons, and who according to him, was the power behind the power, then many of the dirty things he tacks on to the Clintons, it was he who masterminded them! Morris has never stated nor has he been prodded by the media about WHY THE HATE? It seems to me that a person who consented, and connived with another for so many years, would not throw them under the bus. It tells me he is as dirty as those he accuses. The Axelrods and other former Clinton staffers/collaborators now turned Obama's right-hand men have been cut out of the same cloth as Morris.

    Parent

    No, you're knee-jerk defensiveness (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:56:12 PM EST
    on the obvious hatred from KO is ridiculous. If you are so certain it's not motivated by sexism, then please do explain why KO and most of the MSNBC boys have gleefully bashed her relentlessly in such an over-the-top manner.

    Good grief, all you have to do is look at the video posted on the other thread here or check the public watchdog groups like Media Matters.

    You're in denial. Why? Why does it bother you to admit how much sexism has occurred? I thought progressives were supposed to fight against sexism and other forms of bigotry.

    There is no way that the quality of the discourse directed at Hillary Clinton during this campaign has not been sexist and completely different than what the other candidates have received. Something has to explain that.

    Parent

    Can you please make a cogent case (none / 0) (#75)
    by Deadalus on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:57:20 PM EST
    Why KO is sexist? Instead of attacking his criticism or responding to it, you've just called him a sexist without substantiating that at all. Until you make an affirmative case for KO's sexism, it sounds ridiculous.

    Parent
    You don't need or want a 'cogent case' (none / 0) (#122)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 06:18:47 AM EST
    If you can't see his sexism, then you're blind to sexism. Wow, what a surprise - like that isn't prevalent.

    Every night, even before the primary season, KO did his little dumb blonde girl segment, the paris hilton watch, the gleeful demean-all-the-little-girls segments that made me feel like I need a shower. His treatment of Hillary has been so sexist that no credible person can deny it. His smirking along with Chris Matthews when they described her pantsuits and appearance, his nightly personal rants against her, his defense of Shuster and the network (yes I know he apologized once for Shuster, but that was a lie - he followed that later by defending him) - he's just disgusting.

    IMO, Keith is a pig - he and his twenty-something girlfriend and is largely misogynistic audience can take a hike. It's just another example of what digby long ago identified as the white liberal male's blindess and condescending uncaring values when it comes to sexism

    Parent

    Not Sexism? (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Exeter on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:37:22 PM EST
    When there isn't a single candidate that has been treated so shabbily in the mondern political era and that person happens to be the first woman, its sexism.

    Parent
    It's not your identity (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by MichaelGale on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:50:57 PM EST
    that in under attack. It is ours - women.

    And enough is enough.

    Parent

    Please (none / 0) (#76)
    by Deadalus on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:58:17 PM EST
    My identity is under attack more than women's, by and large, as a gay person. But I've also learned that pointing fingers and laying charges of homophobia wouldn't get me, or my agenda (yes I have a gay one) anywhere.

    Parent
    more than women's? (5.00 / 0) (#108)
    by LHinSeattle on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 11:12:20 PM EST
    give me a break.  


    Parent
    very interesting (none / 0) (#81)
    by andgarden on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:06:42 PM EST
    how did you feel about the "embrace the change" concert series?

    Parent
    Precisely... (none / 0) (#83)
    by Alec82 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:12:25 PM EST
    ...even in CA anti-gay polemics are tolerated in political discourse.  There is no other minority or group, save perhaps Muslims, who are openly attacked as viciously or as frequently.  Indeed, the GOP built its most recent majority on such attacks.
    The only reason I even mentioned my sexuality on this site was because I was confronting the lie (or misunderstanding, if you wish) that Senator Obama's church was homophobic, an assertion that pops up every once in a while and is never corrected by site administrators or other Clinton partisans, while the sexist meme lives on.    

     

    Parent

    I disagree (none / 0) (#85)
    by Deadalus on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:15:01 PM EST
    I think older people and overweight people are perhaps unfairly attacked more. Although they aren't denied institutionally challenged--but the venom is particularly bad towards them.

    Parent
    I wouldn't dispute the unique challenges (none / 0) (#90)
    by lilburro on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:23:09 PM EST
    of being gay (I am), but at the moment, no gay person is running for the President of the United States.  So on this particular subject, your identity is not directly under attack by the media.  

    As far as advancing agendas, that's a whole different can of worms IMO.  

    Parent

    It's not under attack directly (none / 0) (#92)
    by Deadalus on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:27:06 PM EST
    but it seeps through. Remember the "John Edwards is a f@g" week? Just sick. Also Hillary is a lesbian stuff has floated around. Also disgusting. Anyway, identity politics just isn't effective at this point, so I'd say that Clinton supporters should not engage in crying "sexism" when there are real objections to criticism that could be raised--these are far more effective.

    Parent
    I don't know if identity politics is effective (none / 0) (#96)
    by lilburro on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:37:27 PM EST
    I mean, it clearly is, in some sense.  Obama and Clinton are benefiting from voters that identify with their race or gender.  Identifying sexism is always important.  The identity politics has gotten very ugly though.

    Skex below brings up a point about the bile directed at Brazile and Pelosi.  There are definitely suggestions here that attribute Pelosi's motives to identity politics or jealousy, etc.  I have been disappointed at times.  But the level of bile here does not compare to the bile people direct at Clinton and the words they are so freely willing to use.

    I don't know precisely what you are talking about vis a vis Edwards although I recall the absurd criticism about his appearance.  The lesbian stuff is pretty bad.  Sometimes I try to picture what a gay candidate for President would have to do.  It's a difficult picture to draw.  I hope I will have the opportunity to support Jim Neal this fall in his run for Senate.

    Parent

    It's not ridiculous (none / 0) (#57)
    by Faust on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:57:46 PM EST
    It's speculative. There is a big difference.

    And it's only speculative on a case by case basis.

    If you look at the big picture there is, in fact, EVIDENCE.

    Parent

    confusion (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by moll on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:16:28 PM EST
    I don't think the Obama campaign and its supproters realizes that the tactics they are using are making the problem worse. At least if the goal is a party that can come together and win in November.

    I have moved from voting "whichever one gets the nominee" to actively opposing Obama. At this point, I don't feel he's a real Democrat - he's someone trying to hijack the party. Look at those who vote for him and those who don't. He isn't proud to be a member of this party - he's proud to NOT be a member of the party, but can't say so outright.

    The more he and his supporters talk, the more I get a sense that what he really stands for is dirty politics, disenfranchising voters, bashing on women, insulting longstanding Dem party members - in short, I don't hear anything coming out of his camp that I can embrace.

    Sorry if that's too negative a thing to say. But I really feel that I can't vote for this man if he gets the election. It's more like the party I thought I belonged to has stopped existing.

    I worry about this, because I am concerned for what is going to happen downticket. But I don't know what to do about it. 'Shut up and do as you're told' is really just not an option for me, but neither are any of the alternatives.

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by nell on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:03:51 PM EST
    I have already made the decision that I will not vote for Obama if he is at the top of the ticket. His behavior during this campaign should not be rewarded. I will write in Hillary Clinton or not vote for the presidential race, but I will vote down ticket for Dems...

    If Obama wants this, he will have to do it without me. He and his supporters have made it pretty clear with their arrogance that they think they can do just that. Fine, go ahead.

    Parent

    Your Vote (none / 0) (#78)
    by Deadalus on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:59:29 PM EST
    If you are basing your support for a candidate on what online posters do, then that is very silly indeed. It reeks of sour grapes, by the way, especially since the economy is in such turmoil with the war and all--the stakes are high.

    Parent
    Think This Through (none / 0) (#84)
    by pluege on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:13:34 PM EST
     1) Obama's supporters have been far more reprehensible than Obama

     2) Is anything Obama could do even close to the colossal disaster of mccain as an even more violent and psychotic than bush, third bush term?

    Not voting for the Democrat is the same as voting for mccain. It is just not responsible or rational to not vote for either Obama or Clinton, and it is completely callous of the untold death, destruction, and suffering that will ensue from a mccain victory.

    I didn't want either Obama or Clinton. I despise how many on the left have treated Clinton. I will suck it up without hesitation and vote against mccain by voting for either Obama or Clinton whichever eventually gets coronated. There is just too much at stake to do otherwise.

    Parent

    Me too! (none / 0) (#98)
    by felizarte on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:45:07 PM EST
    Clinton or no one for me.

    Parent
    Ironically... (none / 0) (#106)
    by Alec82 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 11:08:53 PM EST
    ...I don't know of many posters on this site who favor Obama who would vote for Senator McCain out of spite if Senator Clinton won.  So much for the "true Democrats" meme.

    Parent
    this is when we need to (none / 0) (#116)
    by NO2WONDERBOY on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:49:33 AM EST
    have a mounted decisive effort to help stop this, I don't know what to call it, baragge, nasty, low-down disrespect for Hillary. It is an offense to all women. Doesn't anybody have an ounce of decency and civility any more?
    The media that we've been talking about here, and the Obama warriors' slanderous bashing is reprehensible, unacceptable and it must be stopped. She is not only a woman, she is a Senator of the UNITED STATES, and a woman who has shown her genuine solidarity with the voiceless and disenfranchised of this country.

    Parent
    I watched some of the show tonight- (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by kenosharick on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:20:51 PM EST
    why do I put myself through the torture? It was an orgy of Hillary-bashing by my FORMER hero, KO.
    What would he do if she actually won the primary?
    They (NBC/MSNBC) parse every sylable out of her mouth (and everyone she ever met)while Barack gets a complete pass- it is outrageous and time for the American voter to rebell against it.

    The best thing you can do (none / 0) (#44)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:36:59 PM EST
    is avoid giving them ratings.

    Parent
    This show was a big part of my day (none / 0) (#46)
    by kenosharick on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:43:08 PM EST
    for a long time and it is hard to give up- though Keith is like another person (Invasion of the Body Snatchers- all across the left). I still enjoy "worst person in the world" segment.

    Parent
    Mine too. (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:00:08 PM EST
    However, if you simply think of the show as "cancelled," it won't bother you as much. Is it really the same show?  No.  So the Olbermann I watched has been cancelled.

    Parent
    Monkey See, Monkey Do (none / 0) (#56)
    by pluege on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:56:58 PM EST
    too bad Olbermann should be picking himself for "Worst Persons in the World" on a fairly regular basis.

    Parent
    Me too Rick (none / 0) (#133)
    by kenoshaMarge on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:47:05 AM EST
    7pm here in Kenosha was "Olbermann Time". And then, as you say, he fell asleep and the podpeople got him. RIP KO. We miss you.

    In the meantime, 7pm here in Kenosha is now either reruns of CSI or amazingly to me, Lou Dobbs, who at least seems to give a crap about the voters in FL and MI instead of the sacred roolz.

    Parent

    The fallacy of David Axelrod's comparison of the (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by TomLincoln on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:46:53 PM EST
    Penn incident of working for the Colombian government at odds with Hilary's position on the trade deal, and the incident of an Obama adviser going to Canadian authorities to tell them "wink, wink, don't believe what Obama is saying about NAFTA, that's just for the campaign" -- and then calling the Clinton campaign hypocrites, is that there is no evidence that Penn was telling the Colombian government that Hillary was really in favor of the trade deal. There is a big difference, even if KO cannot see it.

    You're wrong (none / 0) (#79)
    by Deadalus on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:02:35 PM EST
    First of all, the NAFTA thing was debunked. Let's examine a comparison. 1. Penn is a paid member of Clinton's staff (in fact, the top member). Obama's advisor, Goolsbee, is not paid and is not an official member of the campaign. He is an advisor who works at a university. 2. Penn was HIRED by the Colombians to LOBBY for a trade deal. Goolsbee was invited for a tour of the embassy. He did not receive money or a job from the Canadians. 3. Penn had two jobs--one to lobby for Clinton (against the FTA) and another to lobby for the Colombians (for the FTA). This is a conflict of interest that would have any lawyer disbarred under well-established ethics conflicts.

    Parent
    Penn is loathsome (none / 0) (#111)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:15:58 AM EST
    and should have been fired long ago, or never hired.

    That said, first of all, you're behind the times.  No surprise if you get most of your info from Obama blogs, which barely mentioned that the NAFTA thing was ultimately confirmed by the Canadian investigation.  There was a small headline on TPM when it happened, so you could probably find it there.

    Secondly, you're totally missing the key difference.  Penn behaved badly, but he did not say privately to the Colombians that Clinton would go for the trade deal she has publicly opposed.  He didn't meet with them on behalf of Clinton or the campaign.  Goolsbee, on the other hand, told the Canadians Obama wouldn't be as harsh on NAFTA as his campaign rhetoric.

    Major, major difference.


    Parent

    Penn was not hired (none / 0) (#117)
    by facta non verba on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:50:43 AM EST
    by the Government of Colombia, the firm of Burton-Marstellar was. If Mark Penn believed that working on the lobbying effort then he should have excused himself from this client. Your assertion that there was some ethical breach is overstated.
    The Colombian FTA is hardly a cornerstone of any campaign.
    I would think Americans have more to worry about than a trade deal with Colombia.

    The fact is that this FTA opens the Colombian market to American industry and agriculture. For the Colombians, it will make little difference as Colombian products already enter the US with preferential tariff treatment. Colombia already has considerable access to the U.S. market under the Andean Trade Preference Act. The suggestion that this FTA will lead to an exodus of American jobs to Colombia is laughable. Colombia can't compete wage-wise with the Far East. Nor is this FTA an extension of NAFTA. It is a bilateral agreement, not a multilateral.

    As a Colombian, I find all this rather sad. It makes me wonder who exactly is my ally. At some point, Latin America is just going to say enough is enough and move closer to the EU.

    Parent

    And I agree that Obama campaign plays dirty (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by TomLincoln on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:51:41 PM EST
    and would rather not vote for him (even if I could) in the GE. He has played along with the MSM on their dirty tricks against Hillary, so Hillary supporters should let him fend for himself come the GE. Some lessons need to be taught to this fellow. And if he blames Hillary, as he will, who cares?

    I stopped watching MSNBC (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by white n az on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 11:28:25 PM EST
    and stopped listening to Air America and stopped going to DK and other supposedly 'left' places some time ago.

    They lost me.

    I don't care whether this bothers them or not.

    do privacy rights expire upon death? (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by cpinva on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 04:32:30 AM EST
    i ask because the hospital gave out the data, absent a court order, to the media, ostensibly to "defend itself" from the false charges not actually leveled by sen. clinton. yes, i know that appears to make no sense, probably because it doesn't. go figure.

    i would think the girl's family might well have a case against the big mouthed hospital, but i could be wrong.

    sen. clinton will survive olberman, she's survived them all for 16 years now, he barely shows up as a ripple on her scope.

    bear in mind, as bob somerby continues to remind us, NBC is the house that jack welch built. he stocked it with all manner of pretty boys (and girls) who will say anything to show how horrible those "inauthentic" dems are, truth is not now, nor has it been (for a long time) an issue.

    I completely missed this yesterday (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 08:06:18 AM EST
    No mention of any of it on CNN this morning.  It's almost a grief reading about the whole mess this morning.  I used to think that blogging was a good thing, healthy for the discourse, I suppose it still is in the long term but boy have the Obama blogs messed up the short term.

    You do realize the difference (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by kayla on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:08:12 AM EST
    between criticizing Hillary on how she voted or her stance on reproductive rights and criticizing her on how chubby her legs are or how much cleavage she has or wondering whether she has a split personality, right?

    The problem is not that she's being criticized.  I would accept Keith, or Chris or any of the rest of them if they made more statements critical of her record.  The problem is that they reject fair critique for unfair, sexist critique.

    Get it?

    I like this site.  And it bothers me when some comment about how we shouldn't complain about the media because some people just don't like Hillary.  We are not stupid.  We know that some people don't like Hillary for substantive reasons, just as there are substantive reasons to like Obama.  But the media isn't reporting either.  You can't watch cable news as a Hillary supporter and learn what we should like about Barack beyond, "He's a brilliant man!".  As an Obama supporter you can't watch cable news and find a reason to dislike Hillary besides "She's a pathological liar!"  There is a line that shouldn't be crossed and it is crossed all over the place in the media.  This is not just unfair to Hillary or her supporters, it is reckless and irresponsible reporting.  What happened to the news?  Don't you see that that is a serious problem?  That's why I love TalkLeft.  If I didn't come here, I would have thought that Hillary completely fabricated the story of the pregnant woman.  If it weren't for the Obama supporters who visit this site and who are free to make their case for Obama, as long as their not insulting, I would not understand that he wants to take a more realist approach when it comes to foreign policy.  These are things that are just not reported by our news networks.  Part of it is sexism, some is kool-aidism, some is hyper sensitivity to racism, some is that good old Hillary hatred.  It's a lot of things.  But it does exist, whether you think it's justified or not, it's a complete disgrace.  And it's awful that it's allowed.  All of this incompetence is allowed.  When I was younger I wanted to be a journalist.  I used to invent these senarios for myself and pretend I was apart of this big time news network that was striving to go out and get the facts right honestly and relentlessly.  Take Hillary's Shame On You rant for example.  Instead of reporting what NAFTA was, how it came about, it's effect on our current economy, then explaining what was in the fliers, and what bits of it were true or not, and then discussing the dynamics of both campaigns evenly and fairly they instead talk about Hillary's tone.  "Why is she so angry?  Wasn't she just being nice to Barack a few days ago?  My, has her personality changed!"

    I mean... really?  Are these people for real?  Am I the only one who has noticed that Barack is completely cold and aloof in one on one interviews and totally warm while on the stump?  Why aren't they going after him just as nonsensically?

    An utter joke.

    If NBC Got A Memo (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by flashman on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:22:33 AM EST
    The tweety didn't know it.  He spent much of his show on the story, and repeatedly accused Hillary of lying.  At no time did he tell the truth about it.  

    Maybe tonight.

    let me see if I got this straight... (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by white n az on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:06:24 AM EST
    you replied to my 3 sentence answer about misogyny being part of criticism of Pelosi and Brazille with this massive diatribe that has nothing to do with misogyny, Pelosi or Brazille which concludes with a suggestion that we might want to cool down the rhetoric a bit.

    Can you bit a little bit more absurd?

    It's Not Personal. It's Just Business (none / 0) (#5)
    by Petey on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 07:46:28 PM EST
    Y'know, CBS, Time-Warner, Disney, and Fox all get over 90% of their income from various forms of media and entertainment.

    General Electric gets over 90% of their income from various forms of non-media and entertainment.

    GE's bread and butter isn't NBC.  Their bread and butter are things like GE Healthcare and GE Financial.

    Is it any wonder that every election cycle, General Electric is against the candidate in favor of universal healthcare and defending Social Security?

    Is it any wonder that Tim Russert single-handedly created the Social Security "crisis" in the late 90's?

    General Electric is the second largest corporation on Earth, and they've had a policy of trying to malignantly shape American political debate towards their economic concerns for many, many decades now.

    Breakup Big Media (none / 0) (#60)
    by pluege on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:01:30 PM EST
    Another good reason why the most important thing to salvaging America is to Breakup Big Media...so moneyed behemoths like GE and Rupert Murdoch don't have the inordinate, insidious influence they currently do.

    Parent
    Sure (none / 0) (#66)
    by Petey on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:30:16 PM EST
    "Another good reason why the most important thing to salvaging America is to Breakup Big Media...so moneyed behemoths like GE and Rupert Murdoch don't have the inordinate, insidious influence they currently do."

    While this is all true, in the meantime, it's worth remembering just how unusual General Electric is among the Big Media.

    For whatever their various sins, CBS, Time-Warner, Disney, and Fox are all primarily media companies.  Whatever agendas and biases they have tend to be a function of their leadership.

    But General Electric is not primarily a media company.  They have embedded corporate agendas and biases.  GE Healthcare would be hurt by universal healthcare.  GE Financial would benefit from a partial privatization of Social Security.

    While CBS, Time-Warner, Disney, and Fox have agendas that shift over time as different people lead them, General Electric has unshifting agendas and biases to help their non-media businesses that they pursue on a time-period that extends over decades.

    Parent

    A response (none / 0) (#6)
    by Deadalus on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 07:48:01 PM EST
    This post has some truth to it, however, I believe Olbermann is right for bashing her for the Mark Penn fiasco.

    1. Penn hasn't really been fired. He was on the campaign conference call this morning and has made statements (detailed at Huffington Post) to the effect that he's in the same role with just a changed title.

    2. Penn represents Uribe and met with him last week--Enough Said.

    3. Uribe came out criticizing Obama for opposing the trade deal with Colombia but did not criticize Clinton, even though she opposes that trade deal as well. One wonders why.

    BTD, after going to bat for the Clinton campaign over Mark Penn's dismissal yesterday, I believe you should own up to the fact that Penn's dismissal is a misrepresentation and does not reflect a true severance of ties with him.

    As a Colombian (none / 0) (#19)
    by facta non verba on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:05:42 PM EST
    I can tell you that Uribe's criticism was of both Obama and Clinton calling on them both to be "objective and reasoned." That's what El Tiempo, Bogota's daily newspaper, reported yesterday. If Obama was singled out it was because in his speech in Philadelphia last week, Obama incorrectly gave the number of trade unionist killed in Colombia as some 200+ per year. In the past year, 26 have been killed. No one in Colombia denies that there remains much to be done but Obama's statements on Colombia and his willingness to sit down with Chavez without preconditions does not sit well with me nor with my compatriots.

    I understand that the FTA is now bogged in the American political debate over free trade generally but over Colombia itself there should be no reason to defeat it. The ignorance of Colombian realities among even learned Americans is frankly appalling. On TPM, the Huffington Post and Crooks and Liars, Colombia was disparaged either as a land of cocaine or Juan Valdezes. In more than one comment, Uribe was painted a some sort of Pinochet when nothing could be further from the truth.
    Asperions of Uribe do not sit well with me nor with any of my other 44 million Colombians. Uribe is well educated, honorable and he has left the FARC on the verge of defeat and the Colombian people appreciate the fact that we are no longer hostages in our own homes.

    Parent

    I do not believe (none / 0) (#31)
    by Deadalus on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:14:57 PM EST
    your Uribe apology is accepted by the American left, for many reasons.
    More than 600 trade unionists have been assassinated under Uribe's watch. Attacks on reporters have made Colombia the most dangerous country in the hemisphere for journalists, too. Al Giordano - Uribe's Attack on Obama Narco News Bulletin 3 Apr 08
    I do not recall Obama saying 200+ had been killed. It wasn't reported in the WSJ article, but this statement was:
    "I think the president is absolutely wrong on this," Obama told reporters on his plane Friday morning. "You've got a government that is under a cloud of potentially having supported violence against unions, against labor, against opposition."
    Furthermore, the WSJ claims that the assassinations did top 200, in 2001, but have fallen in recent years. True, a fall is progress, but I don't think that this removes the "cloud of suspicion" over Uribe.

    Parent
    All you need to know (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by facta non verba on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:42:04 AM EST
    is that Alvaro Uribe is adored in Colombia, a 70% plus approval rating. He won re-election in 2006 with 62% of the vote, the highest ever in Colombian history.

    In 2001, the year you are citing as Andres Pastrana was President not Alvaro Uribe. Pastrana is a member of the Conservative Party and Uribe, technically is a Liberal, though he ran an as Independent and first elected in May 2002. Previously from 1996 to 2000, Uribe had been Liberal Governor of the Antioquia department.

    Furthermore, these are not trade unionists, they are militants of the FARC or the CP. You are tell me what is going on in my own country. You have some nerve to talk about "cloud of suspicion." 600? Hardly considering that according to AI, 2,245 trade unionist have been killed since 1981. Try more like 200 during Uribe's tenure (August 7, 2002- present). 26 in the last year. You can believe FARC propaganda or try a more impartial observor like AI. And you're suggesting Colombian government complicity in this. What do you know about Colombia? Colombia has signed more ILO treaties than the US.

    After a 40 plus year insurgency that gets its financing because the US has an insatiable appetite for drugs, Colombians are sick and tired of attitudes like yours.  Colombia is on the right path and we will continue doing what we need to do regardless of what the "American Left" thinks.

    You are choosing to make up falsehoods as is Obama. You are both wholly not conversant with the reality in Colombia. You are painting Uribe as if he were Pinochet or Videla. I am disgusted by this. Colombia is a democracy. We have a higher voter turnout than you do. A Socialist is Mayor of Bogota, the second in a row and these followed a Progressive Liberal. Another Socialist, and former M-19 guerrilla, is Governor of the department of Narino. On just about every metric, Uribe and others have accomplished miracles. Bogota now has the lower homocide rate than Sao Paulo, Washington DC or New York. In the late 1980s, it stood at just over 42 murders per 100,000 inhabitants, now it is 23 per 100,000. That's a 50% decline for the 4th largest city in Latin America. Colombians are actually returning to Colombia, there has been a net gain of immigrants for the first time since 1940s. The ignorance of Americans simply boggles the mind. Take a trip down there and see for yourself. Here is a story on Bogota's ciclovias.

    http://www.streetfilms.org/archives/ciclovia/


    Parent

    Thanks (none / 0) (#128)
    by Emma on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:31:25 AM EST
    for the info.  Maybe when there's another open thread, you can talk more about this and Colombia/U.S. relations.  I'd like to hear more of what you have to say.

    Parent
    As would I. (none / 0) (#134)
    by kenoshaMarge on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:50:29 AM EST
    Nice to get info from someone that truly knows what they're talking about. Thank you.

    Parent
    For Another Viewpoint (none / 0) (#137)
    by squeaky on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 10:51:14 AM EST
    From a Columbian journalist here.

    Parent
    The McCain clip was awesome (none / 0) (#7)
    by Deadalus on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 07:51:24 PM EST
    and I wish it wouldn't be lost in all the hullabaloo over Clinton v. Obama. This is why the campaign dragging on poses a threat to the Democrat's chances in November. This is why he spent 25 minutes on the candidate who has no realistic chance to win the contest. Because the stakes are high, and the cost of continuing (in his estimation) is real. I'd rather not get into the details of this argument, but you do know that it exists, so it's disingenuous for you to say
    Then why spend the first 25 minutes of your program blasting Hillary Clinton?
    Exactly (5.00 / 9) (#13)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 07:57:26 PM EST
    Clinton made KO spend 20 minutes bashing Clinton.

    Parent
    That woman (5.00 / 6) (#18)
    by stillife on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:03:49 PM EST
    will do anything in her ruthless quest for power.

    Parent
    And in her ruthless quest to force Keith.... (5.00 / 8) (#40)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:28:48 PM EST
    ...Olbermann to relentlessly bash her. And you know how much it pains him, it really does. Why won't she just quit so he can stop?

    Parent
    Just like she forces (none / 0) (#140)
    by nemo52 on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 11:31:58 AM EST
    Chris Matthews to get all atingle when he listens to Obama

    Parent
    Once again (5.00 / 4) (#29)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:13:52 PM EST
    it's all Clinton's fault.  

    Maybe Olbermann should just move on off the primary, if it's over, hmmm?

    Parent

    concern trolling... (none / 0) (#102)
    by white n az on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:55:57 PM EST
    yeah...it sucks that the rules are designed so that a convention is required to nominate a candidate.

    It would have been much more convenient for Obama if everyone had quit after Iowa.

    Parent

    saying they lied is a bit strong (none / 0) (#9)
    by TruthMatters on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 07:54:25 PM EST
    from what i have seen, the truth is not fully known, Hillary made some mistakes with this, and so did the Media,

    but to use the word "lie" here, but not call the whole bosnia thing a "lie", thats just hmmmm I mean even the HRC Campaign didn't know if it was the truth or not, hence when it first came out they didn't defend it, THEY didnt even know if it was completely true or not, but the Media lied?

    I think you are being a bit harsh on this one.

    I mean are you going to say the media "lied" when it said Penn was fired? or will that one just be a confusion of facts or what not?

    That's a very good point (none / 0) (#12)
    by Deadalus on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 07:56:57 PM EST
    The media has been pretty partial to Clinton in the Penn fiasco--they didn't rail about his connections to Union-busting and Union-assassinating clients. Nor did they ask Clinton today the hard question: Is he really fired? Or is this just a PR stunt? That will happen tomorrow hopefully, since Huffington Post is reporting it. We'll see.

    Parent
    Isn't he being kept on a short (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by hairspray on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:44:07 PM EST
    leash so he doesn't become another Dick Morris?

    Parent
    my point was (none / 0) (#15)
    by TruthMatters on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 07:59:52 PM EST
    using the word "lied" there but not in ANYTHING else that has happened in say the last month?

    and this? when we still don't even know the full truth, all we know is the hospital she died at is NOT the one that turned her away?

    but was her turned away at a hospital? the family says so but notice how no one still knows which hospital? wouldn't the family know this then?

    I just think saying the media "lied" is a bit strong

    Parent

    The media lied because they called (5.00 / 6) (#42)
    by Joan in VA on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:31:50 PM EST
    her a liar without even getting the story straight. The hospital who denied the story wasn't even named before and wasn't the first hospital she went to. The first turned her away because she didn't have the $100 they required. So she left and didn't receive any medical care until she went to the second hospital but by then it was too late. So the media just went with the indignation story of the second hospital and didn't check any further. She got the story originally from a deputy and friend of the woman inquestion. His story rings true.
    If you don't like the word "lied" then call it something else. Facts remain the same.

    Parent
    To verify it, I would talk to local officials (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Cream City on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:10:49 PM EST
    who would know about local deaths, like a local sheriff.  Oh, that's right, that's who told her the story.

    I don't get all these cries of outrage that Clinton ought to have checked out the story.  With the laws about medical records, hospital privacy, etc., she DID talk to the source you'd use to check out the story.

    Parent

    Without running afoul of HIPAA (none / 0) (#26)
    by Fabian on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:11:55 PM EST
    How would you verify any facts of the case?

    That's a real problem with health care stories.  Without medical records or testimony under oath, what you have are stories which may be largely unverifiable outside of "So-and-So said...".

    Parent

    So...a..where's Alan Goolsbee? (none / 0) (#77)
    by MichaelGale on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:59:15 PM EST
    Why hasn't he been fired?  The man actually interfered in international politics and allowed a foreign country to get involved in an election.

    So why hasn't he been fired?


    Parent

    This is Ridiculous (none / 0) (#80)
    by Deadalus on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:04:03 PM EST
    This comparison is so far out it's not even funny. 1. Goolsbee is not a paid member of Obama's campaign. Penn is the chief architect of Clinton's campaign. 2. Goolsbee did not accept a job lobbying for NAFTA for the Canadians. Penn accepted a job lobbying for the FTA for the Colombians. See the difference?

    Parent
    Obama's cunundrum (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by MichaelGale on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:54:40 PM EST
    ' said it but didn't really mean it' via Goolsbee to the Canadian government on behalf of Obama was unwarranted interference in the both countries internal affairs.

    I don't care what his title is; he represents a candidate in a US election. Dismiss him.

    Parent

    The truth about that episode has come out (none / 0) (#103)
    by Deadalus on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 11:00:37 PM EST
    There's been so many assertions and retractions you can't say you know what happened with a straight face.

    Parent
    No. (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 12:18:56 AM EST
    Penn was not speaking for the Clinton campaign to the Colombians.  Goolsbee was speaking for Obama to the Canadians.

    Penn was off on business of his own that was unrelated to Clinton.  Goolsbee was representing Obama and spoke directly of what Obama would do as president.

    You really have to take your blinders off because they prevent you from using any kind of logic.


    Parent

    a point... (none / 0) (#100)
    by white n az on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:49:14 PM EST
    but few of us have said anything about Pelosi. My complaint with Pelosi is obvious...declaring impeachment off the table.

    Donna Brazille is not someone that I commented on heretofore but she is deeply involved with the punishment of FL and MI and ultimately has to answer for that.

    What I will say is that I find her talking head on various network news shows to be uninspiring and I'll leave it at that.

    Well (none / 0) (#123)
    by sas on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 06:27:34 AM EST
    if you want to see a sleazy low-brow campaign...

    let's cry racism at the drop of a hat when our opposition uses anything remotely related to black people in a sentence...

    (btw, it's ok when our side does it..McCaskill - people don't see Obama as a black laying a victim, Kerry-he can negotate better ith others in the world, because he is, after all, a blcak man)

    It's started: (none / 0) (#132)
    by Molly Pitcher on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 09:44:56 AM EST
    the Republican attack on Obama.  Got an email today (from WVa, btw):McCain's story of the Vietnam prisoner who made American flags so his fellow prisoners could say the pledge.  Naturally it was followed by THE picture.  It ended:

    Barack Hussein Obama's photo (that's his real name)......the article said he REFUSED TO NOT ONLY PUT HIS HAND ON HIS HEART DURING THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, BUT REFUSED TO SAY THE PLEDGE.....how can a man like this expect to be our next Commander-in-Chief

    (Tho I'd think if the repugnants want BO to be their opponent, they'd let him win in WVa.)

    Huh? (none / 0) (#142)
    by kayla on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 01:19:36 PM EST
    I don't know anyone who thinks this is Obama's fault.  Sure, it can only work to his benefit, but I haven't blamed it on him specifically.  His campaign has certainly brought certain stories to their attention, but it's up to the media to decide whether they should run with it or not.  I even said in the post you're responding to that the media could do a better job at reporting the good stuff about Obama.

    I'm glad you don't take the media seriously and don't watch it too often.  I think more people should be that way.

    Keith Olbermann is funny.  I never really liked him.  He's really melodramatic.  And then I started to be appalled by him, but every now and then I'll peep into an episode to see what he's talking about and I can't help but laugh at him.  

    Countdown Update | 133 comments (133 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment