I had never even heard of this person Olbermann before, until I read about his site's cheating on the Weblogs Awards voting at wizbangblog. So then I watched his tv show for the first time ever on 12/7/04. Unbelievable! What planet does he live on! Thanks to you keeping watch, I won't have to watch that show again.

Mr. Cox et al:

You may continue to spin your subjective reality or examine the evidence. Saying "it ain't so" doesn't negate the facts which, when it comes to election fraud, clearly support Olbermann.

Since you zealously embrace Gorge W. Bush, you occupy a parallel universe where repeated lies become truth, so I don't expect you to actually seek out facts that support your vituperation of anyone who doesn't share your caustic opinions. It's much easier and less time-consuming to sling mud. As you relentlessly insult your opponents, you sustain the venom that has engulfed our democratic process.

Sure, get rid of the Olbermanns. Keep working toward a day when all media outlets suppport one theocratic political agenda. Get rid of dissenting opinion. Abolish free speech. Then we'll have an America truly worthy of your citizenship.

By the way, if holding these opinions make me a "loony lefty," then I'm proud to be one.

Paul,

If you can send me one proven case of vote fraud in Ohio (Olbermann's focus and hence mine) I will take down this site and replace it with a single page paying homage to the Great Paul Sonderman.

Otherwise, spin your subjective reality baloney right off of this site; go post in the BlackBox forums where you will feel right at home amongst your fellow conspiracy theorists.

RE: Keith Olberman,
When OLBY was reading sports for another network some time back, he regularly injected politics into his show. In the main they were knee jerk attacks against Republicans etc. which also included full blown support for Bill Clinton.
So I wasn't too surprised recently when OLBY laid this turd during his current MSMBC stint:

"Sinclair Television lost any shred of credibility or objectivity it might have had left. Shame on them."
The irony of such a blatant proclamation is that it's precisely the loss and shame that Kieth has earned and so richly deserves.
Yes, he earned it years ago during his Clinton-butt-boy days and the DNC OPs are probably still sending him free knee pads.

ps. There's something about the way OLBY sounds and thinks that reminds me of a friend of mine who never stopped smoking pot.
Has anyone else noticed this.

Mr. Cox,

As you know, several investigations are underway. When there are PROVEN cases of fraud, you and I will no doubt hear of them. I suppose in the meantine, operating on mere suspicion, we can wile away the days accusing KO and each other of being flaming lunatics, or worse. Better yet, YOU continue to do so, and I'll reserve judgement until I've seen that proof.

You indeed have the right to express your misgivings, as do I my exceptions to your rants. You're obviously a smart man. I wonder why it is that you must continue to attack anyone who disagrees with you?

Paul,

I know that being a blackboxer you just can't help but contradict yourself but see if even you can determine the flaw in your logic:

You wrote, "Saying "it ain't so" doesn't negate the facts which, when it comes to election fraud, clearly support Olbermann."

You then wrote, "When there are PROVEN cases of fraud, you and I will no doubt hear of them."

and, "I'll reserve judgement until I've seen that proof."

You see, for clear thinking people what is clear is that you made a claim that there were FACTS that SUPPORT OLBERMANN regarding claims of FRAUD. And now, when challenged to back that up by providing some facts that support your allegations you can't. In fact, you get on a high horse and attempt to imply that YOU are the one withholding judgement and I am the one making precipitous judgements. Nice try but this isn't the Democratic Underground, you are going to have to MAKE your case with hard facts not wild-eyed ravings about "fraud."

Mr. Cox,

First, I'm not a "Blackboxer" or a "wild eyed" raver. And I'm sorry that you feel I'm a pest. More attacks. Gee, I wish you could engage in polite discourse.

What I wrote was...Saying "it ain't so" doesn't negate the facts which, when it comes to election fraud, clearly support Olbermann...

What I SHOULD have written was...Saying "it ain't so" doesn't negate the facts which, when it comes to ALLEDGED election fraud...My mistake. Sorry.

To my knowledge, KO hasn't claimed election fraud. If I'm uninformed, I apologize. Please enlighten me.

What I HAVE seen and heard are KO's reports regarding sundry voting anomalies, now under investigation, that if authenticated, could support fraud claims. It's these--the reported incidents themselves--to which I intended to refer. Didn't mean to mislead.

Regarding your comment "In fact, you get on a high horse and attempt to imply that YOU are the one withholding judgement and I am the one making precipitous judgements."

If the shoe fits...

Paul,

PEST is something some shrinks came up with in Florida to justify treating patients who were upset about Bush winning (I'm serious). I think it stands for Post-Election Stress Trauma or something like that. I was not calling you a "pest."

You have proven me wrong. You are not a blackboxer. No real blackboxer would come here and admit that they misstated their point ever. You are welcome here any time.

KO has never specifically alleged vote fraud so you are 2 for 2 now.

Here is where you go astray: KO is reporting "sundry voting anomalies, now under investigation, that if authenticated, could support fraud claims."

I am going to extend you the courtesy, just this once, of treating you to a straight-up analysis of KO's reporting on Countdown.

In case after case, Olbermann has reported on CLAIMS of anomalies made by people with little or no credibility. And, in case after case, these claimed anomlaies or irregularities have not panned out. The Volusia County claims, the Kathy Dopp statistical analysis of the five panhandle counties, The Berekeley Study, the Freeman study, the Arnebeck lawsuit, Bev Harris' video tapes, and so on. Meanwhile, every national media outlet and every "mainstream" local newspaper in Ohio has been looking at the various claims and repeatedly finds nothing to the claims. Olbermann himself is not actually doing any investigation himself, he is simple reporting the claims every kook with a gripe about the election. Take note that NBC is not dispatching NBC News correspondents to do original reporting. Also, that Keith is not interviewing anyone from the state's major newspapers. These are the "dogs that didn't bark."

There were PROBLEMS in Ohio - long lines, bad weather, lots of new voters who went to the wrong place, poll workers who gave out bad information. Yet these kinds of problems occur all the time in every state during every election.

I happen to agree that the U.S. election "system" is nothing we, as Americans, can take pride in. I would support a new approach to come up with a better, standardized system to register voters, to facilitate voting, to validate and count votes and to report out the results of elections. It is pretty big leap from to claiming that "Bush stole the election, again" as many of the folks on the left are claiming.

My specific gripe with Olbermann is that I believe he is deliberately, cynically fanning the flames of genuine but misplaced discontent felt by some on the side who lost the last election who were predisposed to find "fraud" if their candidate lost (or more to the point if Bush won). And I think there are real consequences to this cynical manipulation of his viewers. He has built a small but loyal left-wing fan base who adore him for being "their guy" on TV. Reporting every accusation of "fraud", no matter the source, no matter how flimsy the evidence, no matter how unlikely - and doing so with out even a modicum of fact-checking or applying the smell-test - may enhance their love for Keith but does real harm elsewhere.

RC,

Thanks for your patient, reasoned response.

PEST is something I can actually understand. I didn't know that what I was feeling had been institutionalized. I think I'll forego treatment. Perhaps activism is the best therapy. I'll try to be brief...I know you have a lot of reading to do.

As you've gleaned from my posts, I'm a Democrat. I've always claimed to be independent, but have found that not to no longer be true. I'm old enough to have protested Vietnam, Kent State, LBJ and Nixon. I voted for Reagan's first term, for Clinton twice, but not Gore. I've thrown my vote away twice on independents. I've never voted for a Bush. Senior seemed too sinister and W too dishonest.

Through the years, I'd become apathetic, apolitical. This election prompted me to get active again. I couldn't believe the outright lies. I know politicians have always lied, but in my lifetime, none have done so as unabashedly and incessantly as George W--and that TRULY bothers me. In life and death matters, I want truth. I'm no saint and don't pretend to be, but I want my leaders to be better and smarter than me.

Now, regarding your post...
In case after case, Olbermann has reported on CLAIMS of anomalies made by people with little or no credibility.
While that may be true, he's also reported credible incidents that deserve closer scrutiny. Other than on Countdown, I've seen very few national reports of incidents in the mainstream media. I agree that KO and his staff must verify what he reports as fact. So should Hannity, O'Reilly and Limbaugh. That any of them fails to doesn't excuse the rest.
And, in case after case, these claimed anomlaies or irregularities have not panned out.
I prefer to see if any do. And it's not just 'sour grapes' on my part. I need to know that our electoral process is one we can proudly present to the entire world as a model.
Meanwhile, every national media outlet and every "mainstream" local newspaper in Ohio has been looking at the various claims and repeatedly finds nothing to the claims.
I've not seen this. Here in Columbus, the Dispatch hasn't been active in this regard. I can't speak for the other major newspapers in the state, but also haven't witnessed this in the national press. That it's escaped me, however, doesn't mean it hasn't happened. If you could be so kind as to direct me to this coverage, I promise to do further research.
Olbermann himself is not actually doing any investigation himself, he is simple reporting the claims every kook with a gripe about the election.
Today's news anchors do less and less investigating, relying on their reporters to dig up and research stories. That's just the way it is these days. In this regard, Olbermann is no different than more prominent national news faces.
Keith is not interviewing anyone from the state's major newspapers. These are the "dogs that didn't bark."
Perhaps, but I prefer to wait before I?m convinced of this.
There were PROBLEMS in Ohio - long lines, bad weather, lots of new voters who went to the wrong place, poll workers who gave out bad information. Yet these kinds of problems occur all the time in every state during every election.
I've voted in Ohio for 34 years, never missing so much as a primary. I've NEVER seen conditions like we faced in this election. I know voting can be messy and expect it, but believe me, what I saw happen here was well beyond what I have come to expect as a life-long Ohio resident.
I would support a new approach to come up with a better, standardized system to register voters, to facilitate voting, to validate and count votes and to report out the results of elections.
Here, here.
It is pretty big leap from to claiming that "Bush stole the election, again" as many of the folks on the left are claiming.
Perhaps, but for Democrats active in this election, who saw STRONG evidence that we were succeeding, the cognitive dissonance of the outcome is hard to rectify and frankly, defies logic.
My specific gripe with Olbermann is that I believe he is deliberately, cynically fanning the flames of genuine but misplaced discontent felt by some on the side who lost the last election who were predisposed to find "fraud" if their candidate lost (or more to the point if Bush won).
If KO deliberately misleads anyone, I agree with you, however, I must ask how it is that you know his motivation? Has he told you? I can assure you that I wasn't predisposed to find fraud and in fact, was AMAZED at what I saw. I truly felt "it can't happen here" and will be thrilled if we find it DIDN'T.
He has built a small but loyal left-wing fan base who adore him for being "their guy" on TV. Reporting every accusation of "fraud", no matter the source, no matter how flimsy the evidence, no matter how unlikely - and doing so with out even a modicum of fact-checking or applying the smell-test - may enhance their love for Keith but does real harm elsewhere.
If he truly does this, I agree that it's indeed harmful and won't be enamored of him. If you have proof, please share it.
I apologize for the lengthy response. I appreciate your obvious commitment and passion. We all have a stake in making sure that questions surrounding this election are heard and answered. Rightly or wrongly, Olbermann has become part of this argument. If he's a liar, he's no better than Bush, just less dangerous. In any case, I appreciate your forum.

This site is OlbermannWatch. I am not going to concern myself with other "news anchors." The people you cite - Hannity, O'Reilly, Limbaugh - are not even news anchors so it is responsive to my point. I don't know what definition of "credible incidents" you are using but I have given specific examples of stories that Olbermann has reported that were later debunked. Can you share some specific incidents that, in fact, turned out to be provable cases of vote fraud. Remember, I offered to take down this site if just ONE were presented to me.

It is laughable to claim that beacuse the national media is not reporting on the various claims made by the blackbox crowd this indicates the validity of the claims. This is known as a "reducto ad absurdum, " an argument where the failure to prove the conclusion becomes the premise to prove the conclusion. The national media did look at the claims and found them to be completely unsupported; .

Your professed desire to be proud of our election system would carry more weight if had shown any interest in any other reports of voting irregularities in any other state, in any other election, ever. You have admitted that it was THIS election that prompted your concern, specifically, Bush winning. To the dispassionate observer it seems far more likely that your sudden interest in voting integrity has a lot more to do with unhappiness over the outcome of the election that concerns over our election system.

Let me educate you on Countdown. Olbermann has a staff of producers and one on air reporter but Keith writes the script for the show and is solely responsible for the content of the show. When other news anchors at NBC put a story on the air it is typically based on a report done by an NBC correspondent or NBC producer or someone affiliated with NBC news. If the story is from another source such as a newspaper or wire service or a polling service that will be noted at the top of the report. Olbermann has a history, in part documented on this site, of doing something called "rip and read" where he lifts information from non-NBC sources and puts it on the air as if NBC was reporting the information. Not only does he not give attribution for such stories but there are many examples where he has obviously not done even the most basic fact-checking. And the sources for some of these stories lack credibility - web sites, blogs, e-mail newsletters. When some of these stories turn out to be false or erroneous Keith rarely corrects the record (I know of just one on-air correction). This is VERY different than what other news anchors do at other networks.

Setting aside that your supposed concern about voting irregularies just happens to be narrowly focused on a state that your candidate lost which if he had won would have given him the election despite losing the popular vote by 3mm votes, it is my understanding that voter turnout in Ohio was unusually high and the percentage of first time voters was likewise high. The weather on election day was terrible in much of the state. Given the unusual conflux of factors, it is not surprising that what you experienced "was well beyond what I have come to expect as a life-long Ohio resident."

I am sorry to see that after a fairly reasoned comment you then undercut your entire point by making a statement which contradicts your claim to not being predisposed to the idea of fraud taking place in Ohio. You state that you (and others) saw "STRONG evidence that we were succeeding" and that "the cognitive dissonance of the outcome is hard to rectify [reconcile?] and frankly, defies logic." It seems to me that once you start from the premise that Bush winning "defies logic" then you are susceptible to every claim of voter fraud as a way to make sense out something you are stuggling to comprehend - Bush won.

I don't KNOW Keith's motivation which is why I said I BELIEVE it to be true. I believe it based on the evidence I have presented throughout this web site. I intend to explore that point of view by monitoring Olbermann and making my case here on this web site.

RC,

Your points are well taken. Please note, I never claimed Hannity, O'Reilly or Limbaugh to be anchors. I wrote "KO and his staff must verify what he reports as fact. So should Hannity, O'Reilly and Limbaugh." I didn't mean to imply that the latter are anchors. In truth, if what you describe is true re "Countdown," KO's more of a "commentator" than a true "anchor." I'm not as familiar with the show as you, having just started watching it several weeks prior to the election (and not daily).

As far as "credible incidents" are concerned, I can only go by what I saw and heard. In one of my early posts (my 1st or 2nd, I believe) I mentioned that in my prodominantly Republican precinct, the BOE had added two machines and I had just a 20 minute wait.

I voted early, then went to the phone bank where I called voters for nearly 5 hours to encourage turnout (we were NOT pushing Kerry, just asking people if they'd voted and if not, if they planned to). This phone contact was one element of the "cognitive dissonance," I mentioned. Among those I called, unsolicited comments favored Kerry 3-1. Granted, I didn't know the origin of my list. After supper, my excitement grew as exit polls seemed to bear out what I'd experienced. Later in the evening, of course, all hell broke loose.

I watched local reports from the Linden area here in Columbus, (urban, predominantly black pricincts) showing whole families waiting on line for up to 10 hours. I've since heard reports of sworn testimony from these precincts that states they had fewer machines there than in previous elections. Local news reported that another Columbus poll didn't open until 10AM because the fellow who had the key overslept. At Kenyon College, in Gambier, Ohio, over 1500 students waited past 2AM to cast their votes on just 2 (count 'em, 2) machines. This was again reported yesterday in the Capitol Hill "Winter Voter" hearings. By midnight, the tide had turned. I stayed up as late as I could, finally turning in with Bush the unofficial, clear winner. At the time, I dismissed the reports of other voting abnormalities as anecdotal, but the reports continued to mount to the point where are enough of them to warrant closer scrutiny.

Thanks for the education on "Countdown." The "rip and read" process you mention is far from uncommon in the broadcast world, especially for late-breaking stories. In print, stories are typically attributed, but in radio/TV, not so much. Even so, accuracy is "encouraged".

In the old days, the only news small market stations got was from the wire. Granted, MSNBC isn't WRTL in Rantoul, Illinois. Still, attribution is optional (at least it was back when I was trained). Granted, this is ancient history.

Regarding my relative predisposition to the idea of (election) fraud taking place in Ohio, I really never thought it would happen here. And like I said, there was so much to indicate that Kerry would win, I dismissed it. One of your contributors menioned that (paraphrasing from memory here)"winners tend to not be be overly suspicious of the results." That describes me on election day. When I thought we were ahead, it was easy to dismiss reports of irregularities. Please understand that based on what I saw, coupled with "conventional wisdom," (heavy turnout favors the Dems...performance rating less than 50% -- bad for the incumbent, and many other indications) I truly felt Kerry would prevail. This is why Bush's win, to me seemed so illogical. (And I did mean to use "reconcile," not "rectify," thanks--every writer needs an editor).

Given this, I can see why you're so suspicious of those of us who want full exploration of these claims. Yes, Bush won. And if he won fair and square, it'll be easier for those of us who didn't support him to accept his leadership. But as long as clouds of suspicion surround his election, so will dissent over his "right to the throne".

When I see or hear PROOF, I'll let you know--but I doubt that you'll not get wind of it first.

Thanks, again.

BC,

Again I beg your indulgence. I wrote that 1,500 students at Kenyon College voted on just 2 machines. As you know, it was actually 1,300, but one of the machines was out of commission for 2 hours. I should have read your rough notes--I hadn't taken any and shouldn't trust my memory.

Thanks

Paul,

Rather than me take a whack at your response I would invite a few of my clear thinking readers to respect your effort to be reasonable and give you a reasoned reply to your recent post. I would just note that you are raising two distinct issues - Olbermann's behavior and what occurred in Ohio.