But actually the poster at HotAir have a very real point.

I truly never again will trust, not only Olbermann, who is a sh**ss h*k, but virtually anyone in the MSM to be fair to any politician. I really will and do wonder to what extent they have unfairly savaged not only Democrats, but Republicans in the past.

I know I vehemently disagree with Republicans and pretty much all they stand for, but it does seem to me that I could easily have failed to notice, or simply ignored, unfair smears on them in the past, because I had no motivation to pay attention to the facts, and an objective interpretation of those facts.

Really, this primary, and the disgraceful cheerleading the MSM has engaged in, is a lesson that doesn't get unlearned.

Keith Olberman is a professional who renounces or surrenders individual independence, integrity, belief, etc., in return for money or other reward in the performance of a task normally thought of as involving a strong personal commitment.

Etc.

Opportunism is what it's all about.  The corporate bottom line is what it's all about.  Not offending the entire web of corporate connections is what it's all about.

And it isn't even about facts and truth anymore - it's all opinion.  It's transcription media - what I like to call "post-factual."

It's about book deals for members of the media - which is where you find out all the stuff they knew, but never told the public about.

It's about the cocktail parties and access and their mistaken belief that we care whether the powerful regard them as friends, or that they breathe rarefied air they think we mere mortals can only envy from afar, through our TV screens.

It's about the powerful knowing that what the media want more than anything is to be in the in crowd.  One of the cool.  It's so much more important than asking the hard questions and remembering that we don't care who makes their legs tingle, but who sets off alarm bells.

Keith Olbermann comports himself as if he is a truth-teller of the first order, but this primary season has revealed him, and many of his peers, as opportunistic cowards who do not know the first thing about courage or character.

Just enter his name in google news and poke around--a fair number on the first few screens are about KO being a nutter.  Various sources, various authors.  

Though the words themselves are not yours, Armando posts here at your pleasure.  His writing is tacitly endorsed unless explicitly rejected (although the disclaimer at the end of his posts may soften that argument).  The same, to a lesser degree, can be said of your comments section, which you prune as you feel necessary.

 CNN, MSNBC, FOX (more egregious, but still), etc.   These are not "news" channels.  "News" requires more than shallow spin analysis.  

 I have never been much of a fan of any of these networks.  I force myself to listen to right wing radio every once in a while just to get a sense of what the crazy right is thinking, much in the same way I visit freerepublic.  I view the major networks as opportunities for the faux reform crowd to pay lip service to their laundry list of trivial complaints. Oh, and to tout their new books.

The ridicule owed him is the same as what I heard when Fox came out with it's 'Fair and Balanced' ads/meme.  He's not a news reporter.

Keith Olbermann's over the top criticism of and shamelessly slanted reporting of Hilary Clinton was beyond the pale.

It seems appropriate that Keith Olbermann does not deserve the normal constraints of dignity.

So, no account, beer track, bread and butter Democrat me takes satisfaction in calling Olbermann a shameless, irreconcilable hack.

Sometime very soon after that he was all man crush on Obama.

Does anyone know why Rachel Maddow made that same turn? I thought she was really well-based in her opinions until the whole of Air America and MSNBC went head over heels for Obama.

Seriously though, I love this place, but if Obama supporters like those on Kos and MyDD start coming over here and demanding retractions/apologies, they're not getting one from me.  In fact, they can kiss the fattest part of my *ss to be honest.  And I'll flame them so d*mn badly that their Great Great Great Great Grandkids will need burn salve just to feel human.  I'll be banned, but I'll have my dignity, which is something they lost long ago in their hypnotized state.

Sen. Obama may get my vote, but he has to convince me, not through fear of the Regressives but through a positive set of actual proposals instead of vague sloganeering about "Hope" and "Change".  Sorry, but I'm an actual adult who has seen a few elections, so pap will not cut it for me.  You see, if he wins, we will be his boss, not the other way around.  He is supposed to serve our interests, and not his own.  During this Primary Season, he has only cared about himself, using the vile, bloody hands of tools like Russert (and I can't wait to see Obama's face when The Great Pumpkin does a 180 on him, it'll be so rich that it will have to be fattening) to tear our party in half.  It is now HIS job to put Humpty Dumpty back together again, not mine, since I'm nothing but a stupid racist hick.

Olbermann lost all credibility with his RFK crap and the coordination of it with the Obama campaign.  If he actually believed what he was spewing out of that smirking sewer, then he is breathtakingly stupid.  If not, then he is fundamentally dishonest.  Niether is acceptable to me.  "Hack" is a nice four-letter word to describe him.  H*ll, it's a freakin' mash note.

Krugman criticized the substance of some of Obama's policy positions.

I suppose the main difference would be doing it on principle rather than on paycheck, but to a degree, the fact that the perspective gets out at all is worth something, I feel.

None of which is to say that I agree with everything he's ever said. Just as with much of the blogosphere, his approach to Hillary was extremely problematic, and as with any source of opinion pieces (opinion is, in fact, what he does, which is fine if acknowledged--and I think it's pretty obvious), pretty much nobody will agree with or like everything.

It was so refreshing to hear someone call bulls**t on the Bush administration.  I have to admit that I thought he was a true patriot and that I loved the "GN & GL" schtick.

It was early on when no one else had the guts to say such things, I thought.  Maybe that still is true.  But in retrospect I think he was just allowed or encouraged to ride the wave that Stewart/Colbert had started.

I kept encouraging my friends and family to tune into to KO.  I pestered them relentlessly until they finally did.....only to find him turning his vitriol on one of our own.

I was horrified.  I had touted the man as someone who spoke "truth to power" (won't use that phrase so cavalierly anymore).  I was faced with a crisis of conscience:  Is this man who I thought he was?  Whose moral compass is off here?

Being a good Democrat I subjected myself to a protracted period of self-flagellation.  I doubted.  I questioned.  I doubted some more.  Could I not be seeing the evil in this woman that KO sees?  How could I have believed in him?  How could I have believed in her?

Ultimately, it became clear to me:

He IS a shameless hack.

In order to call someone a name, you have to find some inaccurate label, and then apply it.

If you're simply identifying a subject, then it can't be name calling.  If you see a rod-shaped metal object with a bowl-like end which you use to eat cereal, it's called a spoon.  The spoon won't be surprised or insulted by this.

I have to think that Senators Feinstein and McCaskill and Schumer and Chairman Dean would have been perfectly willing to go on MTP, etc. and express their disgust with the sexist comments about Hillary, IF the Clinton campaign wanted them to.  

I'm sure they would have said yes to a request (even if they were Obama supporters, as is Sen. McCaskill).  Maybe someone even called up the Clinton campaign and suggested it.

I'm wondering if the Clinton campaign discouraged such efforts due to not wanting to "appear weak"  (not that I buy that theory, but it seems to be important).  Or, maybe they did not want to shine a spotlight on the disgusting comments, on the theory it was better to ignore them.

Jeralyn, are you still looking for music? I posted this on an earlier thread, but it got buried between conversations.