Keith Olbermann is just a jerk,
the reason he hates Fox News so much is because he wished he could work for them.
Oh well, Keith when you lose your job at MSNBC for low ratings, Al-Jazeera International is hiring.
If that doesn't cut it, Hugo Chavez's telesur is going to establish an English version.
Maybe you can interview your idol Maximo Lider Fidel Castro!

Yeah JDogg your right.
Deport Keith Olbermann!

Thinking back to when the port issue first appeared in the media, politicians from the Left and the Right came out firing of Scuds, then they actually RESEARCHED the issue and now they are scrambling around trying to hit the abort button. It sucks that our senators and representatives take their cues from the media rather than actually examining the issues themselves.

NOTE TO HILLARY: Don't take your cues from Olbermann. Unlike him, if you stick your foot squarely in your mouth, you may have to explain yourself to people other than those who parrot everything you say.

NOTE TO OLBERMANN- Dissenting opinions allow your audience to hear different points of view, which, gives you a better perspective of events. Unless of course, you know your right.

Then why bother?

All I really see Olbermann doing, when he calls out news casters as one of the worst persons in the world, is simply quoting back their own words at them, nothing wrong with that.

IN CASE YOU MISSED O'LIELLY TONIGHT, MR O'LIE ALSO QUOTED THE SAME CRUDDY POLL NUMBERS TONIGHT---34%. SO WHO IS LYING, AND WHO IS TELLING THE TRUTH? IS BUSH AT 34% AS MR. OLBERMANN HAD SAID? OR IS HE AT 34% AS BILL O'LIELLY SAID. JUST WONDERING??!!!! WELL DUH!!!!!!!

Every so often, Keith comes up with something worth mentioning. Tonight, he was sincere in his disgust at Buck O'Neill being left out of the Baseball Hall of Fame. Even though KO managed to work himself into a story once again, he at least knows what he is talking about when it comes to Baseball and it appears that Mr. O'Neill will be his guest on Wednesday night and that may prove to be an interesting segment.

Of course, he had to go and bad mouth Brit Hume. You don't think that because Brit got the exclusive interview with the Vice-President recently that anything to do with it, do you?

Olbermann sucks!

Keith Olbermann jealous about the exclusive interview with Dick Cheney. Oh WOW! A Fox "news"caster getting an exclusive with the Dick Cheney? That's just SHOCKING!!! I for one can't believe the Vice-President would do an interview with a media group (note my NOT calling them a news network) that is so remarkably friendly (a.k.a. biased) to him and his skewed agenda. I doubt Mr. Olbermann, or anyone else is either jealous or tremendously surprised. Surprise and envy among interviewers will only occur when Mr. Cheney does an interview with someone who won't lob him softball questions all night.

Since Buck O'Neill played for and managed the Miami Giants, perhaps he'll inform Mr. Olbermann on the difference between a terminal and a port.

And between leasing a terminal at a port and running the entire port operations.

Maybe if Harry Reid is listening, he'll learn something too.

Hume doesn't need to watch since he apparently understands the distinction.

A distinction that, at this point in this story, only a a third grader or a partisan hack doesn't understand.

SMG

Apparently oversampled? Why? 'cause Bush came out bad in the poll?

ROFL!

> You don't think that because Brit got the exclusive interview with the
> Vice-President recently that anything to do with it, do you?

Nope, it's because Hume is a putz.

Golria, you say Keith "worked himself into the story" about Buck O'Neill, some people here really like to label Keith as a bandwagon newsman. He covered the story last night as well (at the first possible time he could cover it), and he'll have Buck O'Neill himself on his show on Wednesday.

IN CASE YOU MISSED O'LIELLY TONIGHT, MR O'LIE ALSO QUOTED THE SAME CRUDDY POLL NUMBERS TONIGHT---34%. SO WHO IS LYING, AND WHO IS TELLING THE TRUTH? IS BUSH AT 34% AS MR. OLBERMANN HAD SAID? OR IS HE AT 34% AS BILL O'LIELLY SAID. JUST WONDERING??!!!! WELL DUH!!!!!!!

Nobody is lying it's just what poll you quote. To be fair you didn't mention that Tony Snow mentioned a poll that was as high as 43%, either way less then 50 is bad. And does it matter why poll was used "O'Liely" gave a good point saying why the poll was low, because Bush doesn't tell America why he is doing what he is doing. It's probably Bush's biggest fault. I voted for the man but I hate how he just relies on people like Limbaugh and Hannity to tell people why what he is doing is good.

Well here's an update on the TV ratings. Apparently in the first quarter on the year Fox News' beat MSNBC in the ratings war by about 500%. Suddenly KO's 20% increase in viewership and O'Reilly's 6% drop doesn't seem all that big.

Preview for tomorrows CD: last night the big giant head told his viewers that MSNBC is dead last in the ratings, yea... if you don't count BBC, Bloomburg and C-Span. Geez O'Reilly stop patting yourself on the back. Bill O'Reilly tonights WORST PERSON IN THE WORLD! *throws papers in the air*

OLBERMANN STILL SUCKS!

I really wish I can run into Olbermann and knock his teeth out!

Keith Olbermann is such a pathetic waste of a Human.
If Aliens came down and saw him as the representative of Humanity, they would report back "No Intelligent Life on this Planet".
Then KO will blame Bush and Cheney some how.

I really wish I can run into Olbermann and knock his teeth out!

Posted by: JDogg66 at March 1, 2006 12:57 AM
----------
I really wish I 'could' run into Olbermann and knock his teeth out....COULD. While gramatically correct, JDogg, your threat leaves a bit to be desired, stylistically.

How bout - "I wish I would happen across Keith. I would knock his teeth out." or "If I ever bump into Olbermann, I'm going to knock his teeth out." or "Man, I'd like to knock Olbermann's teeth out."

Just a little constructive criticism. I'm sure you don't need it, though. When you're sober, I bet you are a fine writer.

I think Mike Tyson should be given Ko's time slot.
He's funny and is a very deep intellectual thinker.
He would give O'Reilly a run for his money!

Hey Nathan what's your Ideology?

Nathan's a hotdog!

Why do we even waste time about Keith Olbermann.
He's a loser!

Keith is great!

O'Reilly is scum.

Krazy Keith is his own worst enemy. Just look at what he did during this show:

#1. Leads with the Scooter Libby story soley to push his ideology. Immediately everyone who doesn't care or know about Scooter (the vast majority of people) tune out. Liberals and intrigued / confused non-liberals are left watching.

#2. Bashes Bush with Dana Milbank. Any curious Republican or initially confused viewer knows the score and either watches with a jaundiced eye or tunes out.

#3. Runs silly dopey Anna Nicole story with nasty comments under his breath and double entendres, appears mean and weird, loses more viewers, looks like a joke instead of a newsperson

#4. Worst Person in the World -- Keith attacks people just for the sake of attacking, anyone with a conscience left watching is annoyed or disgusted, his bias is apparent after the constant drumbeat of attacks on anyone right of Teddy Kennedy, and his audience shrinks further.

#5. The show often ends with a snarky sign off about "Mission Accomplished" (unsure if he did this on this show) and indeed it is -- Keith has guaranteed a limited audience consisting of mean and angry lefties and young kids who like to pretend to watch the news.

This is the scenario night after night. Keith's audience is basically stagnant, and always will be. If Kaplan can't see this, he is blind. I don't know how someone who failed at CNN can be expected to help MSNBC.

Hey Nathan what's your Ideology?

Posted by: JDogg66 at March 1, 2006 01:49 AM
-------------------

I'm an 11.5D, but sometimes I can see the argument for a 12.

"It was another OlbyAttempt to ingratiate himself with Howard Stern. Sooner or later Stern will have to go on Countdown just to stop KO from cable-stalking him. The CBS-Stern lawsuit was explicated by Tom O'Neil of InTouch magazine, and despite Olby's insistence on claiming that CBS was engaged in "legal entrapment" (!), O'Neil thought the blunder was Stern's."

Funny how you don't claim O'Neil might be sucking up to Viacom, especially since O'Neil, presented as an employee from an entertainment magazine rather than an attorney, offered no knowledge of the Stern-Infinity contract.

It's also funny how you claim Stern will have to go on Countdown to stop "cable-stalking". As an alledged frequent viewer, surely you remember these words:

"We love Keith, because Keith Olbermann said horrible things about Rush Limbaugh on his show, which we appreciate because he's making sense and fighting back. And also said some nice things about me."

This was from the mouth of Howard Stern on the first day he was on Sirius. Funny how you don't mention that.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10788574/

It should also be noted that Mr. Olbermann, in covering Mr. Stern, doesn't seem to be beholden to his corporate masters, as is so prevalent elsewhere. Y'see, Mr. Stern is exclusively on Sirius Satellite Radio, the main competitor to XM, which carries MSNBC exclusively.

"I really wish I can run into Olbermann and knock his teeth out!"

Once again proving the extreme left is snide and sarcastic and the extreme right is violent and dangerous.

"#4. Worst Person in the World -- Keith attacks people just for the sake of attacking, anyone with a conscience left watching is annoyed or disgusted, his bias is apparent after the constant drumbeat of attacks on anyone right of Teddy Kennedy, and his audience shrinks further."

Mr. Olbermann named him WPITW not because of having a conscience but rather the more common pitfall: hypocrisy.

But maybe, after getting his title, Mr. Hume will respond, not by juvenile attacks that permeate Fox, but by a rational, logical discourse with a legitimate explanation of the reason why his use was acceptable and why one wasn't.

My money is on Hume getting juvenile.

Going to be interesting to see if Countdown lets filter through more and better particulars about the ports deal in the coming episodes!

Of course, the answer is probably no, they won't.

My prediction is that Countdown will give the story another shake or two -- like a dog shaking and worrying a chew toy -- and then drop it and walk off.

A deeper concern though is that the facts and correct insight into the ports deal are being waylaid.

This is still a golden opportunity to understand ports security. Especially for the administration to translate it into street language and reassure voters about ports security. *If* the admin could be questioned and heard over the noise that shows like Countdown do, which is difficult.

But the question is then, I suppose, who really watches Countdown for serious information anyway, I guess...

"The Truth" wrote:

"My money is on Hume getting juvenile."

Coming from someone who enjoys watching Olby call people "worst in the world" for false reasons or for absolute trivialities, you are one to talk about "juvenile" behavior. Olbermann acts like an irritable child on his show, throwing paper, screaming, complaining, making lude double entendres etc. Really, he is trying to do a show for teenagers forgetting that he is a 50 year old man. Hume is not about to respond to a loser like Olby.

Have you seen the overall ratings by the way? Fox has all the top rated news shows. At this point, the only cable "race" is the race for the bottom between MSLSD and CNN. I suspect the network that tries harder to win will eventually lose, since the people in charge at these networks can always be relied upon to do the wrong thing at the wrong time.

> Leads with the Scooter Libby story soley to push his ideology

I see Kreskin is still alive.

> Fox has all the top rated news shows.

All the nuts are attracted to the nut house...

Apparently people on this site don't have a sense of humor. The "Worst Person in the World" bit of the show started as a joke in response to all the "Worlds Best" or "Top 3 ______" trends going around. Olbermann doesn't name people worst person in the world just because he wants to, there is always a reason, and the reason for Hume is that he was being hypocritical.
---
I like how the first response nathan gets after his post is from JDogg asking what his ideology is. If he responds liberal then he'll be called a commie, if he responds conservative he'll be welcomed aboard.
---
Oh, and KfK, more people know about Scooter Libby than you'd probably think. Not only do many late night shows cover it and play off his name in jokes, but it's also national news. You'd probably be happy if less people knew about the Scooter story, but sorry, people are informed.

Oh yes! People are abuzz about Scooter Libby! It is front and center on the radar screen!

You are a TV fan. Have you seen "Jaywalking" or "Man on the Street" interviews? Most people don't know the name of the Secretary of State, and many don't know the name of the Vice President. Sure, hardcore lefties like you know Libby's name and what to regurgitate, as do the lefties who love the NY and LA Times, but there are 250,000+ million people out there. You can claim Olby is smart for leading with Libby, but the ratings say different.

If Olby is so great, why does he get 1/8-1/10 of the rating of O'Reilly? The usual lib response is "people aren't smart enough to get it." I say it is the opposite. People know when they are being fed a load of crap. Some people, like you, enjoy the taste of crap and come back for more. The rest of the world spits it out and walks away.

Before someone posts an annoying correction, I meant to type "there are 250+ million people"

Wait--you're unhappy Olbermann reported on the Libby memory expert because it wasn't a suprise? Do you really believe only suprises should be reported on the news? If that's the case, why are you so unhappy about the amount of attention given to a sitting vice president shooting someone? That was definently a suprise.

You are absolutely right about Anna Nicole Smith; the piece wasn't that great and it's a terrible story to begin with. But I'm left wondering - when will I see your post attacking O'Reilly for covering the story? Admittedly, this is an Olbermann blog, but at least you can try and put things in perspective.

Finally, you are right to criticize Olbermann for only reporting the CBS numbers, but Rasmussen is not a large, reputable polling company. Media organizations and groups like Pew, Gallup, Roper, and Zogby are the numbers we should pay attention to. None of these groups have releaeased RECENT polls, but of the ones that came out ten days ago, some do show Bush around 40%. (It does appear CBS oversampled Democrats, but as someone who has conducted polling, you can't help who hangs up on you in a random sample.) And, as long as we're talking about polls Olbermann didn't present last night, how about that Zogby report that shows 72% of our forces in Iraq want to withdraw within the next year? If you feel suprises should be reported, I'm guessing you regret the fact that Olbermann didn't lead with that story!

-Nathan
Dartmouth College, NH

Apparently people on this site don't have a sense of humor. The "Worst Person in the World" bit of the show started as a joke in response to all the "Worlds Best" or "Top 3 ______" trends going around. Olbermann doesn't name people worst person in the world just because he wants to, there is always a reason, and the reason for Hume is that he was being hypocritical.

Except that it's always a conservative and never a liberal. Case and point Pat Robertson is given the title because he said the hurricanes were a punishment from God because New Orleans is a sinful city or something to that effect. Mayor Ray Nagin says the hurricanes were a punishment from God for invading Iraq. Not only does Nagin not get the WPITW award that comment wasn't even mentioned on the show. And why not, it's basically the same comment. Is it because Nagin is a democrat and Olby wouldn't dare make fun of a democrat? I believe so.

> Funny how you don't claim O'Neil might be sucking up to Viacom

Then why did Olby book a guest with such a conflict of interest? That's his fault, not mine.

> an employee from an entertainment magazine rather than an attorney

Again, you'll have to argue with Olby about that.

> This was from the mouth of Howard Stern on the first day he was on Sirius. Funny how you don't mention that.

Yes, downright hilarious. And shortly thereafter Stern gave his exclusive interview to O'Reilly, not Olbermann. Connect the dots.

> Mr. Olbermann named him WPITW not because of having a conscience but rather the more common pitfall: hypocrisy.

Har. He named him because Media Matters did. And they will reciprocate by giving Olby some free publicity. There's more hypocrisy under Olbermann's wig than in a dozen Brit Humes.

> Wait--you're unhappy Olbermann reported on the Libby memory expert because it wasn't a suprise?

I don't care if he reports on the memory expert. But is it the biggest news of the day? Only if you want to make it so.

> When will I see your post attacking O'Reilly for covering the story? Admittedly, this is an Olbermann blog

Hey, you caught that! This is Olbermann Watch, not O'Reilly Watch. But since you asked...O'Reilly's guest was an attorney and legal reporter. Bill didn't make juvenile smut jokes. He didn't show puppets. And he didn't ask questions about hair extensions.

> Rasmussen is not a large, reputable polling company

Oh, right. They're a small, disreputable outfit. I think you have them confused with the staff of Countdown.

Hey Nathan,

Congrats on Dartmouth. Perhaps you would like to post a resume as well? I hear the liberal studies and Taliban appreciation majors are the best up there. You have to transfer to Yale to meet a real Taliban though. I demand you clarify, however -- you are a student (or faculty) and not a campus janitor, right?

You wrote:

"Wait--you're unhappy Olbermann reported on the Libby memory expert because it wasn't a suprise?"

How you come to the conclusion that I think all news items should be a surprise is beyond me. I was saying that the Libby case is not the NUMBER ONE or even NUMBER TEN story out there right now, and Olby covered it to continue his all-out assault on the people he hates.

Nathan, you are Olby's target audience. Young, naive, and educated beyond your means, you will accept snark as wit and obfuscation as depth. The Great Libby Case is a PERJURY CASE for God's sake! Not a spy drama, not a conspiracy drama. He is charged with obstruction and perjury, he will argue faulty memory, counter the prosecutor with his well-crafted defense, and this will all end with the Fitzgerald sitting on his thumbs.

As for Val Plame and Joe Wilson, they are opportunists and she was in NO WAY undercover during or 5 years before all this happened. Nobody was charged with outing her for that simple reason. If Joe Wilson doesn't lie in his NY Times Op-Ed in the first place, none of this happens. The rational person realizes that countering Joe Wilson's absurd claim that Saddam didn't try to get uranium from Niger was the reason for disclosing that the ADMINISTRATION didn't send him on his mission but rather his WIFE lobbied the CIA to do so. Of course, Olby, like Michael Moore, preys on the limp minds of the young and stupid, invents a conspiracy, plays fast and loose with the facts and VOILA -- Nathan from Dartmouth is spewing propaganda on Olbermannwatch!

There's an old saying which goes "The people get the government they deserve". KFK says, "Have you seen 'Jaywalking' or 'Man on the Street' interviews? Most people don't know the name of the Secretary of State, and many don't know the name of the Vice President", clearing attempting to use "Jaywalking" and other late-night t.v. segments as a representative sample of the population. Perhaps KFK is right when he says that most people don't know who "Scooter" Libby is (I would disagree as I'm an optimist and believe there IS a large segment of the population that is actually informed as to what's happening in our country, but that's another argument). It's also pretty obvious that anyone with even HALF of a clue would know that Leno and others are not going to show the many people who ARE informed, as that doesn't really make very funny late-night viewing (It's much funnier to show the 25 year old who doesn't know who Thomas Jefferson was). But let's say that KFK is right and that IS a representative sampling of the American populace. That certainly explains everything... including why President Bush was elected twice. We truly do get the government we deserve.

Ah! peppin, I have heard that argument before!

After the eclection, the NY Times and other lib media outlets all blamed the ignoramuses in the "flyover states." Typical lefty intellect-supremacism -- you must be stupid not to vote for a genius like Kerry (never mind the profound lack of character and flip-flopping).

I do agree that all political problems in a Democracy like ours can be traced right back to the voters. High taxes, voracious lawyers, hostile regulations on business -- in the end the voters are responsible for allowing this to be the norm.

I was not trying to say that the "Jaywalking" segment is statistically significant. I was just driving the point home that most people who work or don't pay alot of attention to the news will not know who Scooter Libby is, and if they do they will not think he is the #1 story out there. In the end, the proof is in the ratings.

"Then why did Olby book a guest with such a conflict of interest? That's his fault, not mine."

Worthless, factually-challenged, needlessly argumentative.

"Again, you'll have to argue with Olby about that."

Actually, no I don't. I stated an observation on the presentation.

"Yes, downright hilarious. And shortly thereafter Stern gave his exclusive interview to O'Reilly, not Olbermann. Connect the dots."

Unnecessary, irrelevant tangent.

"Har. He named him because Media Matters did. And they will reciprocate by giving Olby some free publicity. There's more hypocrisy under Olbermann's wig than in a dozen Brit Humes."

Libel without evidence. Not impressive. Please try harder next time.

"Coming from someone who enjoys watching Olby call people "worst in the world" for false reasons or for absolute trivialities, you are one to talk about "juvenile" behavior."

I can think of one occasion when Mr. Olbermann made a false statement causing a WPITW nominee. The next show, Mr. Olbermann made himself a nominee for the mistake. If you can provide evidence of other false reasons, please cite URL's of imparial sources

"Hume is not about to respond to a loser like Olby."

If there is no response, then the label of hypocrite stands. A poor strategy for Hume.

My apologies: I meant "impartial".

But you can't have it both ways. If most people don't know what's going on, then can you truly say these same people made intelligent or informed choices when visiting their polling place? Which is it? If these people give are ANY indication at all, then that explains voting for President Bush. If these people aren't any representation at all, then you shouldn't hold them up as an example of whether most people will (or do) care about Libby.

On top of that, I'm seeing the ratings argument used over and over on this site. "O'Reilly has great ratings, so he MUST be the informed one", seems to be a common theme. However, when new poll numbers are released that show President Bush at anemic levels, those "ratings" are somehow skewed and biased.

By the way, I never once said that people who voted for Bush were stupid, however, I know that's a typical way the right likes to frame their arguments against the left: "The left thinks we on the right are dumb". While yes, many are (there are some fairly dumb folks on either side of the political spectrum), most are simply hardworking people who unfortunately are misinformed.

> I say it is the opposite.

You aren't smart enough to get it either.

Peppin I presume?

The discussion focused on whether people know who SCOOTER LIBBY is. Focus my friend. I brought up "Jaywalking" as an illustration of the fact that many will not know who SCOOTER LIBBY is. Just because people don't know who Scooter Libby is doesn't make them incapable of knowing who Kerry and Bush are. People watch Presidential debates and generally pay attention if they plan to vote. Fact is, many of the truly uninterested and stupid people DON'T VOTE -- hence the victory for Bush. After all, if all the 18 year olds in the "vote or die" campaign bother to vote, Kerry wins! Focus Peppin, stay wityh me, look away from the lava lamp!

As for ratings, Olby has multiple problems. He talks in run-on sentences and stammers. He covers boring topics up front. He then switches gears and covers absurd topics last. In essence, he gears the first part of his show for insane lefty bloggers, and the second part of his show to Paris Hilton's boyfriend. How the Hell can a schizophrenic show like that draw numbers. Olbermann is BAD ENTERTAINMENT and BAD INFORMATION hence the BAD RATINGS!

Local Governments and Congress tend to be the real disaster, since people pay less attention in these races and special interests (like unions) can effect outcomes more easily. After all, Bush wants to reform social security and cut taxes. Lefties like Boxer, Reid and Pellosi are the ones that kill all attempts at reforming our tax and spend, iou-based governance.

Peppin, you tend to tie yourself in mental knots and it is painful to witness.

Swashbuckler,

Stop wasting pixels and go play video games

> If you can provide evidence of other false reasons, please cite URL's of imparial sources

Sheesh. Read through some of the past entries on this site. Just a little while ago he slammed Bill O'Reilly for criticizing MSNBC's coverage of that judge in Vermont. O'Reilly said no such thing! The transcript of what he says proved it. And that's a virtual replay of an incident in 2004 when Olby lifted an O'Reilly quote from a blog but never checked it out. Turned out to be another careless blunder by an obsessed sports guy too eager to slam his more successful competitor.

We wrote MSNBC, we posted audio and video and transcripts to prove Olby was wrong, and we got word that Olby was aware that he was wrong. On both occasions. He never retracted or corrected.

Just the tip of the Olby iceberg.

> Stop wasting pixels and go play video games

Nah, I don't want to be like you.

Swashbumbler, KO sucks get over it.
Even if he gets kicked off MSNBC there's always Al-Jazeers International!

Anonymous writes:

"On top of that, I'm seeing the ratings argument used over and over on this site. "O'Reilly has great ratings, so he MUST be the informed one", seems to be a common theme. However, when new poll numbers are released that show President Bush at anemic levels, those "ratings" are somehow skewed and biased."

Well, if there is an argument backed with data to suggest that Olbermann's poll ratings are "skewered and biased", I suggest you make it... Otherwise, you're comparing apples to oranges...

Too, Olbermann, himself, makes his rating an issue on his own show when he crows about some 20% increase in his viewership as compared to some large decrease for O'Reilly and about the median age of O'Reilly watcher.

That someone would respond to Olbermann's remarks shouldn't be too difficult for even an Olbermann fan to undertand...

How I miss Bob and his rating system of old.

That's no slam to you, Johnny. You know I'm your biggest fan.

It's just that it would be nice to have folks like Curious George, who really is a "waste of pixels", properly labeled as such.

C --

You wrote:

"Well, if there is an argument backed with data to suggest that Olbermann's ratings are "skewered and biased", I suggest you make it... Otherwise, you're comparing apples to oranges..."

And so it begins! Let me tell you 'bout a radical right-winger named Nielsen, who controlled the ratings system for television and skewed the results in favor of Fox News by undersampling college campus dorms and the homeless.

Kfk,

You're just skimming the surface.

I hear this Nielsen fellow is a third cousin- twice removed of Karl Rove.

Nathan writes:

"(It does appear CBS oversampled Democrats...)"

Well, then what in heaven's name are you going on about?

Cecelia
Harvard College, MA
(It's not like you can verify this... :D )

Do people honestly expect pollsters to get an equal sample of Republicans and Democrats?! It doesn't happen!

Even if Democrats were oversampled, the rating the President is at still sucks.

I believe there was another poll done by another pollster who showed that the drop from Bush's approval is 8% from last month, in the CBS poll it was the same.

"His supporters and allies would be foolish to dismiss those polls.." -Katie O'Beirne from the National Review

In order to get A-Mess NBC to fire Olbermann, why doesn't anyone organize a boycott of the companies that buy commercial time on his show?

Nonfactor,

What do Olbermann fans who come here to argue eat on a daily basis? Is there some type of new kiddie cereal out there that impairs abstract thought and makes you folks as concrete as a patio?

The point was that it would have been better for Olbermann to have aired several polls, as Chris Matthews just did, than to choose the one with the worst numbers (not to mention the one there's a public hue and cry over). That's particularly important for a "news" show...

But you're right... the headline that would have better represented Countdown and Keith is your's.... "the rating the President is at still sucks." ...cue commercial...back...Let's play Oddball....

The President has taken a hit for his stand on the port deal. He pissed off his base by saying he was behind the deal and threatening a veto (his FIRST veto, no less) of any legislation against the deal. This will be a temporary hit.

My question is, how many times will these polls be thrown in our faces when Bush is not up for re-election? Maybe they give some people pause about Bush campaigning for them, but who really cares? Why the non-stop focus on these poll numbers? The answer is these polls are just a club to bash Bush. Olby chose the biggest club with the best grip (e.g. the lowest number). That is the real point here.Anyway, the ratings ate realclearpolitics tell the story more accurately:

http://realclearpolitics.com/polls.html

The clear outlying poll is the CBS poll.

Unfortunately for all these libs, Bush is not going anywhere, and he is not running for election again. Hillary and somebody else will be, and Hillary's numbers (which are really relevant) stink. I don't watch Olby that often, so I don't know if he made Hillary his number one story when the following came out:

"By a margin of three to one, Americans say they would "definitely" vote against Hillary Clinton for president, a CNN/Gallup poll released Tuesday has found.

While just 16 percent say they had made up their minds to back Clinton when she seeks the presidency in 2008, 51 percent say there's no way they want to see the former first lady back in the White House.

Men are the most vehement when it comes to the prospect of another Clinton presidency, with 60 percent telling Gallup they would vote against Hillary for sure."

How about looking at a potential candidate for higher office instead of a lame-duck prez?

I'll tell you why the numbers are important, and why they're out there (by the MAINSTREAM LIBERAL COMMIE MEDIA, and the Sweet Honest Right Wing FOX Media as well): Because he's the President of the United States! It's kind of important to see how many people think he's doing a good job, or what people think of him.

And don't worry about Hillary, people just aren't ready for anything other than a white male as their president, but don't count her out, she is still a strong politician.

I didn't say the polls are completely irrelevant. I said "how many times will these polls be thrown in our faces when Bush is not up for re-election?" When these polls come out, they dominate the news cycle (especially on shows like Olbermann's) well beyond what is relevant. The constant harping on the numbers seems a waste of time to me. Maybe I'm wrong, and people want to see the same polling data seven nights in a row in case they missed it the first six times.

As far as "worrying about Hillary," I won't, because Olby and people like you do enough of that for us all.

Well, evidently poll numbers mean all in the political arena but are of no significance in the television industry.

Nonfactor should inform the NBC shareholders...

Nonfactor,

So you're rock sure those ole reactionaries in flyover country would never vote for Colin Powell, huh...

Little George, you suck. Accept it and try to make something out of your pathetic existence.

KfK, if you wanted a serious number about how many more times you'd see the poll numbers, sorry, I can't guess what's in the minds of the media, I did however give you a reason why they are being thrown out there considering you don't seem to know why.

And no, I'm not worrying about Hillary; you can turn to FOX news to get all the worrying you want.
---
Cecelia, if you don't know the difference between poll numbers of approval towards the President vs. the number of people who watch a certain show, then something is very wrong with you. And yes, I am positive that they wouldn't vote for Powell. Even if he made it past the primary he would be assassinated before the election.

Oh, and Cecelia, Olbermann's show is where I saw other polls, he didn't just have the worst one, but all of the polls out showed the President at a drop of atleast 5%+ in each since January.

Nonfactor writes:

"And yes, I am positive that they wouldn't vote for Powell. Even if he made it past the primary he would be assassinated before the election."

Don't you think you're being too hard on Hillary?

(and someone wondered where the term moonbat came from...)

From NBC's First Read: "A new national Quinnipiac poll... has Bush's approval rating at 36% -- his worst rating in this particular survey."

It's no Gallup, Roper, Pew, Zogby, or major news organization, but university polls are the next wrung down (and Rasmussen the one below that, followed by internal corporate polls). CBS, I think, is too low, but until one of the aforementioned big names comes out and shows me wrong (which is entirely possible), I'm going to assume Rasmussen is a little high. Bush is somewhere in the mid-upper thirties, I think. Nevertheless, CBS has more resources than Rasmussen, so why the blogger would want to put the two on equal footing is beyond me. Now, if Washington Post/ABC showed Bush at 40, THAT should be compared to CBS' numbers. But they didn't.

To the earlier stuff. I'm a student. Texan@dartmouth.edu is one of my e-mail addresses, that's about as much verification as I can give. Please don't take this as arrogance - in no way am I implying that folks who went to other schools aren't as qualified as most of the folks here (there are nitwits everwhere, I'm not saying this place is perfect or anywhere near it). Most of my friends are North Idaho College and the University of Idaho. And so you know, Dartmouth is the most conservative of the Ivies - the Dartmouth Review was the first big conservative college paper, and the economics department is almost completely conservative. This is New Hampshire, so all the presidential candidates (including Republicans) come through; Laura Ingraham, Paul Gigot, and Dinesh D'Souza are all alums. Not that I'm proud of that. Robert Reich and Dr. Seuess, on the other hand, I am proud of. :-)

To KFK, I'm wondering - how do you define "propaganda"? Anything you disagree with?

For Nathan,

Dartmouth is not the best school out there by a longshot. Many of us have been to the "best" schools and have "advanced" degrees, but would never wag our credentials around on a nameless, faceless blog.

As for your question:

Propaganda is a specific type of message presentation aimed at serving an agenda. At its root, the denotation of propaganda is 'to propagate (actively spread) a philosophy or point of view'. The most common use of the term (historically) is in political contexts; in particular to refer to certain efforts sponsored by governments or political groups.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda

Defending Olby's fake newscast in which he both cherry-picks the lowest poll numbers and uses Scooter Libby as a political tool makes you Olby's propagandizing pal by proxy.

I wasn't trying to wag my background in people's faces. I apologize if it came across that way.

New poll numbers: Gallup has Bush at 38%. So like I suggested, CBS was an outlier, but Rasmussen is too high. Those two are the edges.