How in the world did KO get over 800,000 viewers Monday night? I'm getting worried about the state of our country.

Foley.

Woodward?

another MoveOn "watch KO" campaign?

http://civic.moveon.org/mediaaction/olbermann/index.html

Maybe his show has just reached the tipping point and from now on he is going to be drawing a much larger audience?

Breaking out the champagne yet, Bob?

Olbermann and Olbermann Watch aren't going away any time soon... :D

All the olbyloons were probably huddled around their TVs on Monday night, waiting to see Keith pull out a conspiracy theory that somehow connects Foley to President Bush. But the comedians that write Keith's "special comments" couldn't come up with a plausible Krazy Keith Konspiracy that even the olbylovers would believe.

Keith has a konspiracy theory
So absurd you'll laugh 'til you're teary
Moonbat breath is bated
No host is more hated
His cheap shots and lies make one weary

The funny part of this poll is that almost DOUBLE the amount of folks voted on O'Reilly than Olbermann.

So you have to put into the equation that there was around 50% of people that didn't know who Olbermann was or just skipped right on by him.

Andy Dick on with Keith on Letterman last night eh?

I wonder if Andy Dick saves his IM'S?

How did you conclude "Most Americans dislike Keith"? The poll is not the least bit scientific. If you clear your cookies you can vote over an over. Lol, they must have outsourced the job to Diebold.

Keith's book sales are small (per Drudge).

No surprise there.

"How in the world did KO get over 800,000 viewers Monday night?"

Keith is managing to get the loony lefties to watch his show by channeling their rage. The angrier and crazier he gets, the more likely his angry and crazy audience will grow. The formula is simple -- it is the same one the DNC tries to use.

The problem with a show like keith's is that he has to rant to keep his audience, and he has to have a topic the audience is engaged in. Without Bush, Keith's ratings would be nonexistent.

While it is true that Keith has notice a bump from the BDS crowd, it will be temporary -- these people have no attention span. It is telling that Krazy has refused to do book signings. Imagine the lefty wackos he would have to deal with. It is hard to pretend to be "nonpartisan" when you are signing books in public for the Code Pink / Daily Kos crowd.

Perhaps as he gets more popular he will become a more responsible journalist and allow different points of views on his program.....

On second thought....nah.

At least we all get to look forward to more wonderful retorts on Olbermannwatch.com.......

Oh, but what about the rest of the money-loser MSNBC.....can it stay aloft?

By the way, looking at book sales:

Krazy Keith: 1,784 /week
Bill O'Reilly: 47,236 /week

In other words, of the total book sales for the two of them, 3% were for Krazy and 97% for O'Reilly. What "best seller" list was Krazy saying he was on?

This poll is so unscientific. As usual, I'm in the minority. I liked hosts that other people couldn't take and vice versa.

I love watching Countdown. I think Keith is funny as hell, but he is too liberal.

I can't believe that the majority couldn't take Paula Zahn. WTF is wrong with Paula Zahn?

I'm surprised that a majority found MSNBC too liberal. I'd be willing to bet more conservatives took the poll. At least a larger percentage thought CNN was too liberal, which I think is accurate.

Last night the O'Reilly Factor posted a picture of Mark Foley with a D for Democrat next to Fl. See it for yourself on crooksandliars.com

The O'Reilly Factor ran it in not one, but two segments and posted it three times. I can understand if FOX and The Factor made an error the first time, but to post it repeatedly should be a firing offense, The most watched show on FOX News has now labeled the former Republican Congressman Mark Foley, who is in the middle of a sexual predator scandal that has Hastert's career on the ropes —a Democrat. Was it an error or done by choice? I report–you decide.

I thought Mr. Foley was a democrat. My bad.

It is too bad that the terrorists did not land on the Faux news studios at 8.55 PM EST. on 9/11/01

It is too bad that the terrorists did not land on the Faux news studios at 8.55 PM EST. on 9/11/01

For shame, O'lielly!

"Last night the O'Reilly Factor posted a picture of Mark Foley with a D for Democrat next to Fl. See it for yourself on crooksandliars.com"

Hmmm. I wonder who is going to be the Worst Person(s) In The World tonight. ;)

Well.. at least guilty people would have died instead of almost 3 thousand innocents.

What did Greta Van Sustren ever do to you?

She would be collateral damage. Who really gives a flying..... about blondes from Alabama ?

Don't you mean "3,000 little eichmanns" O'Lielly? Get with your party's program. Nice to see you lefties would kill your own Alan Colms for the "greater good!" That is very Stalinesque of you.

As for the "D" label, at least they didn't flash a big "X" across the VP's face, or broadcast sounds of a potty break over a Presidential speech.

"As for the "D" label, at least they didn't flash a big "X" across the VP's face, or broadcast sounds of a potty break over a Presidential speech."

At least the "X" is blatant. The "D" label is almost subliminal.

KFK.. Ward Churchill is an a--hole who should be kicked out of a state school immediately. An X is not done in hopes of luring ill informed voters, you know the ones that Faux news attracts ? If you think that the bathroom was intentional I think you are a bit paranoid, what exactly did CNN stand to gain by having that particular speech screwed up by an open mic ?

"As for the "D" label, at least they didn't flash a big "X" across the VP's face"

Nah, all they did was tell millions of viewers that this sexual predator was a Democrat...no bias there. I'm sure Olbermann.com watch wouldn't even mention it if MSNBC happened to refer to that REPUBLICAN congressman from Louisiana who had 90,000K in his freezer, would they?

"Nah, all they did was tell millions of viewers that this sexual predator was a Democrat...no bias there. I'm sure Olbermann.com watch wouldn't even mention it if MSNBC happened to refer to that REPUBLICAN congressman from Louisiana who had 90,000K in his freezer, would they?"

Y'know, if I want a Big Mac, I don't go to Burger King. If you want to know how Bill O'Reilly screwed up, go to sweetjesusihatebilloreilly.com or Media Matters or Crooks And Liars. If you want to know how Keith Olbermann screwed up, come here.

"Maybe his show has just reached the tipping point and from now on he is going to be drawing a much larger audience?"

HAH! You can always hope Robert. Someday maybe you'll get that ticket out of this gutter of underemployment... into a much larger gutter.

I'm sure everyone on cable news got a big boost from the purient political interest story of the day. Personally, I actually watched a segment of "Nancy Grace" because my wife wanted to know what all the hubbub was about, and that's who had it on right then. Heard about her, but never seen her before. What a screetching right wing harpy! Every two minutes she was asking her guests why this sicko hadn't been locked up yet. How about for the same reason YOU are allowed to walk free and screetch like a lunatic, Nancy...he hasn't been charged with a crime under the law yet. You know--the law-- that quaint little custom that all of government seems now to be organized to demolish in favor of the whims of whoever is most frightened and hysterical? Well it turns out it still exists for now. So you better get more hysterical!

I can't believe an intelligent person looking for "the greatest threat the media has to offer" would keep pressing the chan^ button after scanning across this wild-eyed demagogic one-woman lynch mob. But then, I'm sure she "takes terrorism seriously."

Ick.

When I see Olielly picking up his welfare check this Friday I am gonna kick his ass.

?Screetch? ?Screetching?

Do you want Nancy Gracewatch dopey?

"Y'know, if I want a Big Mac, I don't go to Burger King. If you want to know how Bill O'Reilly screwed up, go to sweetjesusihatebilloreilly.com or Media Matters or Crooks And Liars. If you want to know how Keith Olbermann screwed up, come here."

Not a very good analogy. Someone else on this forum brought up the X to make a point about liberal bias. I was responding to it.

Oh, and votes Republican. Forgot that. I guess I get it.

Idiot typed: "The "D" label is almost subliminal."

Yeah -- everybody will be so confused! I mean, they are all too retarded to realize the guy is a Republican! One look at the media feeding frenzy and it is obvious the guy is not a Democrat.

O'Lielly: "I think you are a bit paranoid, what exactly did CNN stand to gain by having that particular speech screwed up by an open mic ?"

Hey dopey, did I say CNN did that stuff on purpose? Indeed, your statement serves to point out your bias. I believe CNN was at best incompetent and at worst the victim of a marauding idiot. Now you tell me why you believe Fox News was intentionally damaging its reputation ON PURPOSE. Indeed, you are a moron.

O'Lielly: "I think you are a bit paranoid, what exactly did CNN stand to gain by having that particular speech screwed up by an open mic ?"

Hey dopey, did I say CNN did that stuff on purpose? Indeed, your statement serves to point out your bias. I believe CNN was at best incompetent and at worst the victim of a marauding idiot. Now you tell me why you believe Fox News was intentionally damaging its reputation. Indeed, you are a moron.

"Yeah -- everybody will be so confused! I mean, they are all too retarded to realize the guy is a Republican!"

I think you must have missed the fact that this was Fox News. Your sarcasm is unwarranted.

"Not a very good analogy. Someone else on this forum brought up the X to make a point about liberal bias. I was responding to it."

Yes, and I agree with the spirit and sarcasm of your first sentence, but your second sentence was silly. It wasn't addressing the person that you were responding to, but, rather, was making a commentary on Olbermannwatch in general. Of course Olbermannwatch would point out such bias, but that is irrelevant to the original point.

Anonymous: "I think you must have missed the fact that this was Fox News."

I see! So when CNN placed an "X" over Cheney's face and aired a potty break voiceover during the President's speech, am I allowed to scream "conspiracy" and say, "I think you must have missed the fact that this was CNN"?

KFK,,, You are not worthy of an insult, however since Faux news watchers want to see the scarlett D next to the names of politicians they do not like there it was. Once you realize that the educational level of Faux news is considerably lower than other news outlets you will be able to see the point.. And in regards to your obvious question.. What makes you think that Faux viewers are less educated than others.. all you have to do is look at the percentages that think that Iraq was connected to 9/11. If you insist on setting up the bowling pins where they are so easy to knock down, I will.

"Yeah -- everybody will be so confused! I mean, they are all too retarded to realize the guy is a Republican! One look at the media feeding frenzy and it is obvious the guy is not a Democrat."

Well, if someone as simple-minded as yourself realizes this, I guess I stand corrected.

"can't believe an intelligent person looking for "the greatest threat the media has to offer" would keep pressing the chan^ button after scanning across this wild-eyed demagogic one-woman lynch mob. But then, I'm sure she "takes terrorism seriously."

Ick."

Well, with that logic, Mr. "I Don't Follow Olbermann or Even Read The Johnny's Blog Here at Olbermann Watch, aren't you hard-pressed to explain why you aren't elucidating in the comments sections of Free Republic, Lucianne, Little Green Footballs, or Michelle Malkins and/or some other site more influencial in, what would be to you, egrecious views?

None of those folks seem to differ much at all with Bob as to his views on terrorism and the price of tea in china....but here you are...defending Mr. Olbermann...though you say you don't think he's worth the time of a blog...

hhhhhmmmmmmm.....

O'Lielly: "Once you realize that the educational level of Faux news is considerably lower than other news outlets you will be able to see the point"

Hmmmm. . . once I arbitrarily decide to make something up and believe it with no evidence provided I will be able to see your point? That seems a long way to go to understand you O'Lielly. How about you decide to take anti-psychotics, drop the conspiracy mongering, and join all of us. It seems a bit crazy to ask everybody else to throw away rational thought just to provide you with some company. But then again, you are nuts, so it is expected.

"It wasn't addressing the person that you were responding to, but, rather, was making a commentary on Olbermannwatch in general. Of course Olbermannwatch would point out such bias, but that is irrelevant to the original point."

I would recommend going back and taking another look. The person I was responding to was insinuating that the D next to Foley's name was minor in comparison to the X or the bathroom audio. I disagreed with said poster and put forth a hypothetical that Olbermannwatch.com would probably not see the incident as minor if the situation was reversed. If you disagree with my conclusion, that's fine. But suggesting my post should be made at an anti-O'Rielly website instead of this one doesn't make much sense since my post was in response to someone who posted here at the Olbermannwatch web site. If said poster had posted his comment at an anti-O'Rielly web site but I decided to post my response here for some odd reason, you would be correct, I would have posted on the wrong site.

I never suggested that you post to an anti-O'Reilly site. I thought that it was silly to suggest that it would be wrong for Olbermannwatch to indicate when Countdown would identify a corrupt Democratic congressman as a Republican, which is what I believe that you did.

Maybe Foley was a closet gay and a closet dem??

Former Rep. Gerry Studds. He was censured for sexual relationship with underage male page in 1983. Massachusetts voters returned him to office for six more terms.

Just think a short twenty years ago this type of behavior excited your base support. Wonder if the dems will vote for foley.

Maybe we can get Foley to switch political parties real quick and turn this thing around on the Dems before the november election.

The party affilliation means nothing to me... sexual deviants come from all types of life. It is the hypocricy that bothers me, and again hypocrites come in all shapes, sizes, races. He is a hypocrite that is what he is.

Cato wrote "I never suggested that you post to an anti-O'Reilly site"

This is simply false. You wrote above early today in response to my post:

"Y'know, if I want a Big Mac, I don't go to Burger King. If you want to know how Bill O'Reilly screwed up, go to sweetjesusihatebilloreilly.com or Media Matters or Crooks And Liars. If you want to know how Keith Olbermann screwed up, come here."

So there you see you did suggest that I go to an anti-O'Rielly site.

I never told you to post there.

Anyway, this is becoming childish. What I was trying to say and what you thought I was trying to say are two different things. I thought that you were criticizing Olbermannwatch for potentially doing its stated purpose and nothing else. Forgive me if I was mistaken.

What is really stupid about all of this is that I agree with you. Fox News should be criticized for puting a "D" next to Foley's name. I said as much in other posts.

KO got 800,000 viewers on monday? Wasn't he on Letterman?

Well your quote is right there in front of you Cato, suggesting I go to sweetjesusihatebilloreilly.com to discuss the issue, when all I was doing was responding to another poster. As I mentioned before, I mentioned the hypothetical that Olbermannwatch.com probably would not treat the incident as minor if the situation was reversed. in order to counter the contention that the D was a minor thing.

The party affilliation means nothing to me... sexual deviants come from all types of life. It is the hypocricy that bothers me, and again hypocrites come in all shapes, sizes, races. He is a hypocrite that is what he is.

So does the olby hypocriy bother you. Don't bother to ask for examples because you have been around here long enough to see them documented

Smegma Olbermadd MUST GO

No. You are wrong. I was suggesting that if you wanted to see someone criticize Bill O'Reilly for having a "D" next to Foley's name, do not expect Olbermannwatch to do it. That's what I meant. I never told you to go away nor did I ever intend to. I am sorry that you took it that way. I was only responding to your hypothetical and nothing else.

Go Keith! Love that show. He's the greatest. I always forget to watch, though. Thanks for reminding me!

I like a good poem as much as the rest
You think he's a liar, You think him a pest
You don't like his tan and you know he does test
Your patience and nerve when he tells you the truth
You think back to the good time in the days of your youth
When Reagen was prez and it all seemed so right
Bush was still drinking and drugging all night
His old man was waiting to take over the job
Ronnie did Nancy and the poor working slob
He fired the strikers and tore down the wall
They got hired at Wendy's and a store in the mall
The georgie took over and kicked sadams ass
Then the hearings went down and he gave North a pass
His lips you did read, and your vote went to Ross
Then it all went to hell when you found out the cost
Slick Willy was comming with his wife and a grin
And boy were you happy when you caught him in sin
But he brought down the budget and he left us in black
He left us the better with a knife in his back
Like Oswald at the window you took aim and shot
With Russ, Sean and Coulter and the bullshit they brought
Now along comes the younger and he brought Nixons crew
They cut us in half into red states and blue
As a witness to Jesus the president led
Make the taxes go down and the terrorists dead
Just a dam paper, constitution in hand
On with the fight with the war Cheney planned
It didn't go well, no flowers for us
Just a trip down to hell with a bomb on a bus
Our soldiers do die and bleed every day
But we must cleanse our country from the socialist way
Don't pay no attention while they're blown up to bits
Let the sissy's and fairies all have hissy fits
Hard work fighting wars with that all knowing grin
He makes you feel safer he's so sure that we'll win
But you know he knows better than to listen to dad
It must make you happy, but it makes me feel sad
Russ was in rehab and Coulter's a Dan
Sean is an a--hole disguised as a man
Colbert, Keith and Stewart make you all ill
It must be so hard to swallow that pill
Thanks for this site, I do think it's fun
I've said too much here, so I'm gonna run

Later

Spelling error allert!
Russ is supposed to be Rush.

"I was suggesting that if you wanted to see someone criticize Bill O'Reilly for having a "D" next to Foley's name, do not expect Olbermannwatch to do it"

You misunderstood my post. I did not say I expected Olbermann watch to do it. I merely pointed out my belief that this web site would would focus on the issue if the situation was reversed, and I noted this to point out that this was not a minor issue in my opinion. I did not suggest it was Olbermannwatch's obligation to report factual errors or misinformation coming from other TV shows besides Olbermann's.

Great! So we misunderstood each other. I am glad that we are in agreement.

Does anyone miss riverdog?

not really

> I merely pointed out my belief that this web site would would focus on the issue if the situation was reversed

In fact, when Olby was taking a slam at Neal Boortz, and erroneously put up a picture of Max Cleland identifying it as Boortz, we didn't focus on the issue at all. Olby corrected the mistake on his next show, just like O'Reilly corrected the mislabeling of Foley without even waiting for the next show, but doing so on the next airing of the same show.

So your belief is incorrect.

Yeah, but I'm reloading. I won't miss him next time.

By the way, that was a joke.

"put up a picture of Max Cleland identifying it as Boortz, we didn't focus on the issue at all."

I haven't seen this segment or read about in its context, so I cannot comment to any great extent, but assuming the picture was not used to portray Boortz committing an action he did not commit, such as aiming a gun at a baby, I would ask, how is this the same situation as falsely identifying a disgraced Republican as a Democrat (and doing so multiple times I might add)?

If people knew what Boortz looked like, then they would immediately know the error. If they didn't know what he looked like, the picture wouldn't have an affect on them one way or the other. However if someone turns on the TV and sees Foley labelled as a Democrat, if this is the first time they sat down to really pay attention to the issue, they could walk away saying "oh I thought it was a Repubican but I guess not, this must be just another example of another Democrat violating the public trust." Sure, you and I are familiar with all of the details about this issue so we caught the error, but many Americans only pay brief attention to the news. You have to remember, a lot of uninformed people questioned ABC's integrity when this story broke because they (the uninformed) didn't have the knowledge that saving an instant message conversation was possible.

The D/R error has an impact on peoples' beliefs about the situation, where as a mistaken picture of someone does not. Again, I have not seen the picture you spoke of, so if the picture portrayed Boortz doing something that would affect people's opinion of Boortz, then my statements would not apply. But assuming the picture did not, I have to say I find it very amusing that you would even mention Cleland's picture after your party had the gall to morph his face into Bin Laden's. Talk about "erroneous".

Well he was naming Boortz 'worst person in the world', and showed a picture of Cleland. I can assure you Cleland didn't appreciate it.

Mistakes happen. I call out Olby when he's deliberately lying about something, but I don't jump down his throat when some guy in the control room puts the wrong graphic on the screen. After all, it was obvious who he was actually talking about. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and a mistake is just a mistake.

> after your party had the gall...

And what would my party be, and how would you know what it is? Are you violating privacy rights by digging up personal info? Fact is, you have no idea what party I belong to, if any. So, in true Olbermann style, when you don't know what you're talking about, just make something up!

"And what would my party be, and how would you know what it is?"

You advocated yourself as being part of and speaking on behalf of the Olbermannwatch.com website. I had said Olbermannwatch would probably take issue if the situation was reversed (the D next to Foley's name) and to counter that you brought up the Cleland picture and said:

"we didn't focus on the issue at all."

You used the word "we", meaning the website Olbermannwatch.com, as opposed to "they", which would have seperated the website from you and your statement. If you do not run Olbermannwatch.com or have the capacity to speak on the site's behalf, then please correct the record.

So when I refer to "your party", I speak to the partisan leanings of the Olbermannwatch.com web site which you spoke for. If you want to claim your not Republicans that run this site, that's fine, but your biases easily show their face in your daily writings.

If you did not mean to speak for the Olbermanwatch.com website and merely meant to speak for yourself, next time use the word "they" to seperate the views of the website from your own personal views.

> but your biases easily show their face in your daily writings.

Fine, then cite them to back up your claim about what my "party" is. I post every day that Olbermann broadcasts. You have a lot to choose from. It should be pretty easy for you to pick out where I reveal what my "party" is, so have at it.

"Fine, then cite them to back up your claim about what my "party" is."

Please go back and read my post. Apparently you skipped over everything I wrote. Do you or do you not have the capacity to speak for the Olbermannwatch.com web site? Are you affiliated with the site or not? If yes, then my statement that this web site is partisan toward conservatives is correct in my view and I will gladly provide some quotes from the site to back up the claim. If you are not affiliated with this site, please explain why you attempted to make it appear that way in your above post where you said, in response to my post about the Olbermanwatch.com web site:

"...we [olbermannwatch.com] didn't focus on the issue at all."

If you are not affiliated with the Olbermannwatch web site, why did you use the word "we" as if this was a response from an Olbermannwatch staff writer?

Did you ever hear of the editorial "we"? Please go back and reread your textbooks from high school writing classes, assuming you completed them. I always use the editorial "we" in writing articles. Sometimes it creeps in during posts as well.

But you were addressing ME in a comments thread when you made reference to "your party". So I ask again, for what, the second time, or the third? Whatever. Cite what evidence you have regarding what party I belong to. Remember, you were responding to one of my posts, not one of the OW articles. But I invite you to scour all the articles I wrote, and the ones on my own blog. Explain how you think you know what my party is, and what you base it on.

If you can't back up what you say (what a shocker that would be) then I'll know you're just making it up, and won't have to waste any more time with you.

> If you are not affiliated with the Olbermannwatch web site, why did you use the word "we" as if this was a response from an Olbermannwatch staff writer?

This is getting more and more surreal. I used the word we because it is true. The Olbermann site did not focus on that issue. The article I wrote did not focus on that issue. Get that? It's a statement of fact, evident to anyone who looks up the article in question. Sheesh.

This really is not that difficult.

Once again, when I said "your party", I spoke to the partisan leanings of the Olbermannwatch.com web site which you included yourself a part of. You asserted you were apart of the olbermannwatch.com website and had the ability to speak on it's behalf. I have outlined this twice previously, it would really help the situation if you would bother to read my posts before responding.

Here's a simple example:

Let's say you and I are discussing the HP scandal on a tech blog. I could write:

"We really screwed up. We should not have done what we did. We owe our stockholders an apology and we should be held legally accountable."

Or I could write:

"They really screwed up. They should not have done what they did. They owe their stockholders an apology and they should be held legally accountable."

Now are you able to see the difference between "we" and "they"?? Is it really that hard to see the difference between these two words and how the sentences read very differently depending on which word is sued?

In the first example, a reasonable person would obviously conclude I was affiliated with HP and was speaking for the company, where with the second example it would be obvious that I was an outsider commenting on how I felt about the situation.

So once again, for the third and FINAL time, you gave the appearance that you were part of the Olbermannwatch.com website and clearly said that "we" (the website) chose not to respond to the Cleland picture error. I then responded to "you" (the website) with a claim about party leanings.

I don't know who you are and don't care who you are now- based on your wording you made it appear you were speaking for Olbermannwatch.com and therefore my response was to Olbermannwatch.com and my statements about the site stand.

If you are now admitting that you have no authority to speak on behalf of this website and are not apart of this website, and your views do not necessarily represent that of the web site kindly correct the record and admit as much, and quit trying to spin this back around on me. And next time remember that if speaking for yourself and not a website, do not use the word "we".

Wow. It's amazing I had to go to so much detail to explain something seemingly so obvious.

Only I WAS speaking for the site when I said we didn't focus on the issue. Because we didn't. The site didn't. And I didn't. All three of us didn't. I'm surprised I have to keep explaining this stuff.

And you still don't have the foggiest notion of what my party, if any, is. As is evidenced by your refusal to cite even the merest modicum of evidence.

Bye.

Nice try at backpedalling johnny, but it just doesn't fly. I initially addressed the Olbermannwatch.com website, in order to counter me your responded to my post by giving the appearance you were affiliated with the site, and so I said "your party", referring to the party leanings of the site and now it comes out you are not affiliated with the site. Okay, so my initial claims about the partisan leanings of this site still stand. In regards to your personal politics or writings, I have never read them and based on your inability to comprehend the most basic fundamentals of the english language, I have to say I don't think I ever will. But thanks for the offer.

I dont care about your party affililation johnny, and never did. I commented about the partisan leanings of this site, which you claimed you were a part of. If you meant neither you nor Olbermanwatch.com commented on the pictures, that's all you had to say. There was no reason to lump yourselves together to give the appearance you were speaking for the web site.

In regards to your own personal party affiliation, since it is now clear you are not affiliated with this web site, once again I have to say I dont care what it is, though I really hope you are not a Democrat. That would not bode well for the future of said party.

J$ is fully authorized to speak for OlbermannWatch.com any time - so let's clear that up first.

Second, regular OlbyWatch readers know that I grew up in a family of Democrats, registered as a Democrat when I turned 18 and remained one until I left the party in 1994 over my unhappiness with Clinton's feckless foreign policy.

Today, I am a registered in independent - not a Republican. That said, I fully support President Bush's foreign policy and will support any Presidential candidate who I believe is more concerned about advancing American interests in the world than worrying about what UN or "Old Europe" think. Offer me a Democrat nominee for President who is going to kick ass and take names and I will consider voting for them.

> In regards to your personal politics or writings, I have never read them

Bingo! You've never read my writings, which means you've never read any of the nightly summaries I post here at Olbermann Watch. And despite that, you draw conclusions about the "partisan leanings of this site"!

Case closed.

Well if the person is authorized to speak for this web site, then my initial statement stands. The party which your web site supports was responsible for morphing Cleland's face into Bin Laden's. This site certainly does show Republican leanings in my view. Do johnny and/or Robert Cox refute this? I can't imagine so, especially from reading Mr. Cox's last statement about Bush, the UN, and allegedly 'kicking ass', all which mirror RNC talking points. You can claim you do not support the Republican party, but the past threads on this web site suggest otherwise.

Johnny it's really simple. I will type this very slowly for you.

ARE YOU OR ARE YOU NOT AFFILIATED WITH THIS SITE?

If you are, then I will come back here with several examples to demonstrate the partisan nature of this web site. If you are not affiliated, then go register for an online english course so you can learn what the definition of the word "we" is.

Good luck trying to communicate, Sandy. As you can see, most replies are contrarian for their own sake, disingenuous, and pretty darn muddled. Like a lot of the thinking.

Here are a couple of pieces of evidence I pulled from your recent threads that this site leans partisan toward the right:

Using an unscientific poll to bogusly conclude that "Most Americans dislike" a popular news anchor whose views do not subscribe to the views of the mainstream GOP. If you folks are not partisan, why use a bogus poll to make a claim that may not be true? Do you hate Keith's success that much that you have to try and smear him as disliked by most of America when you really have no idea whether or not it's true?

In your thread COUNTDOWN WITH KEITH OLBERMANN - SEPTEMBER 28, 2006 you reiterated Republican talking points about habeas corpus without mention that left wing concern is about the rights of American citizens not foreigners. You make it appear (another right wing talking point in 3..2..1..) that the left is very concerned about protecting the rights of terrorists and that their desire to protect citizens in unprecedented in wartime. If that is your belief, fine but don't come back here and tell me this web site does not have right wing partisan leanings.

Whoop- I stand corrected. Upon further review this site is nothing more than a left-leaning blog with authors who love the Democratic party but hate Keith Olbermann. Yeah, that's it. No Republican leanings on this site. Sorry for wasting everyones time folks. If you'll excuse me, I am going to go to read what my favorite liberal Michelle Malkin had to say today.

Colbert, Keith, and Stewart are fools
They get paid like a whore to be tools
John Stewart's a schmuck
Colbert's gig did suck
And Krazy Keith has no family jewels

The party affilliation means nothing to me... sexual deviants come from all types of life. It is the hypocricy that bothers me, and again hypocrites come in all shapes, sizes, races. He is a hypocrite that is what he is.

"Second, regular OlbyWatch readers know that I grew up in a family of Democrats, registered as a Democrat when I turned 18 and remained one until I left the party in 1994 over my unhappiness with Clinton's feckless foreign policy."

That's interesting Robert, because that's around the time that I became a libertarian, but it was Hillarycare that pushed me over the edge, not foreign policy.

"Today, I am a registered in independent - not a Republican. That said, I fully support President Bush's foreign policy and will support any Presidential candidate who I believe is more concerned about advancing American interests in the world than worrying about what UN or "Old Europe" think. Offer me a Democrat nominee for President who is going to kick ass and take names and I will consider voting for them."

Well, I don't fully support President Bush's foreign policy, don't care what the UN or "Old Europe" thinks, and want to vote for somebody, anybody, who will kick ass and take names, provided that they know whose ass to kick and that they can actually get the job done. IMO, Bush does not qualify and I begrudgingly voted for the SOB in 2004.

Why would anyone base their vote on someone who will kickass ? Sort of like pulling for the bully in the schoolyard.

I would not mind knowing how, on this blog that allegedly does not lean to the right, why you folks decided to post outright that the AOL poll concluded "Most Americans dislike Keith".

That's a pretty strong statement to make about someone. I would not make a statement like that myself about anyone if I did not have facts to back it up, even if I beleived it could be true. The "poll" you cite is not only unscientific, but nowhere does it say anything about being restricted to "Americans". That AOL webpage is available to people worldwide, anyone with a web browser and an Internet connection can vote.

At best, all the poll shows is that a majority of the people in the world who came across this page and took the time to vote do not like Keith Olbermann. Even this statement is suspect because as I pointed out earlier, all one needs to do is clear one's cookies and one can vote over and over. So we don't even know if a majority of people who voted dislike Keith, all we know is that a majority of the votes were cast were unfavorable. It is possible Keith saw the poll and instructed his staff to sit there and vote for him over and over just to make it appear that some people out there like him. It is equally possible that a group of OlbyHaters sat there and voted repeatedly all day to make him look bad. The bottom line is you folks have no idea what percentage of people like or dislike Keith, nor do you have any clue how many people who voted are even American.

So in the spirit of your nonpartisan and honest nature, will you revise or correct this thread to remove your claim that says the poll concludes "Most Americans dislike Keith" when it is impossible to draw that conclusion from the poll data?

Sandy wrote "nor do you have any clue how many people who voted are even American".

Perhaps you need some help with remedial math. Let me help you out...

If you check the poll results that I linked you will see that 15% of the respondents "liked Keith". Based on data from the poll that was not released to the general public we know that
98% of those are foreigners. The other 2% of the original 15% of Keith Lovers is .00003% which, based on the sample size, come out to be 4 people which just so happens to be precisely the number of adults that can fit inside a phonebook. Now it is a well-established fact based on analysis by the White House Press Secretary that you can fit all of Keith's friends inside a phone booth and therefore it an indisputable fact that most American dislike Keith.

Hey ass hat AOL is for people who dont know what RAM is. I'm guessing you fall under that.

Hey ass hat AOL is for people who dont know what RAM is. I'm guessing you fall under that

Read the note Dumb ass

NOTE: Poll results are not scientific and reflect the opinions of only those users who chose to participate. Poll results are not reflected in real time.

"Based on data from the poll that was not released to the general public we know that
98% of those are foreigners. The other 2% of the original 15% of Keith Lovers is .00003% which, based on the sample size, come out to be 4 people which just so happens to be precisely the number of adults that can fit inside a phonebook. Now it is a well-established fact based on analysis by the White House Press Secretary that you can fit all of Keith's friends inside a phone booth and therefore it an indisputable fact that most American dislike Keith."

So in other words, you mostly just make this stuff up as you go if it looks like it will make Keith look bad? I gotcha. BTW, I would enjoy seeing four adults trying to fit in a phonebook. Have you attempted that feat before?

the disclaimer is not mentioned by Mr. Cox's article which unequivocally concludes that "Most Americans dislike Keith" despite the lack of evidence to support this claim.

Sounds like the folks around here can't deal with a guy who chooses to tell the truth about this country and the crooks and liars in Washington. To bad there aren't more people in this country like Keith!

Seems we'd have a hell of a lot less problems, or wars, or misuse of power, loss of constitutional rights.. and the list goes on!

You Olbermann bashers who can't handle the truth.....maybe you should check into "rehab" too?

Oh, and I have no party affiliation either. So I am neither leaning to the left, right or falling off of my chair.

To me there is only one political party......."the TRUTH"!!

Of all the silly and inane crap that's ever been posted on this site to make it look like there's more stuff on this site — this takes the cake.

Consider the source, hypocrite Rob-bob and hypocrite John-jon: AOL. As in AOL-TIME-WARNER. AOL Time-Warner is the parent company of CNN, competition of MSNBC.

And, lest we all forget... who the hell has AOL in 2006? It's not 1996 folks, we're a decade removed from the boom period of that service's subscriptions. After all, "PC World rated AOL as the worst tech product of all times" (source: http://www.computergripes.com/Aol.html ).

This is priceless! We have a correction of a false ratings claim made by NBC, contrasted with a claim that "63 per cent of Americans dislike Olbermann" based on a stupid internet poll. I mean, you treat it like it's a story, for cryin out loud! Stop it, you're killing me! This is reality-based journalism?

Look, if you want to stop being a joke, here is what you do. You watch Olbermann's show, you research his factual claims, and prove them untrue, with documented credible sources. If you can't do that, you really ought to hang it up.

No, you're in Denial. Have you not read JD's nightly summaries of Olbermann's show? Have you not taken a good look at this blog and seen the many, many, many documented lies of Olbermann's? If YOU want to stop being a joke, you'll stop taking everything that Keith Olbermann says on face value.

And perhaps you might want to tell your buddy Olby that he needs to stop pulling his "facts" from blogs while you're preaching to other people about what they should and should not do.

Brandon: why would anyone take anything this site says at face value? You challenge others to look at "documented lies" of Olbermann but you ironically do so in a thread that is headlined by a documented lie. I pointed out this issue to the thread author yesterday and instead of a correction there was only a sarcastic response.

Perhaps before insulting others, you should practice what you preach and ask the site operators to correct or pull the flat out false statement that the poll above concludes that "Most Americans dislike Keith" when the poll comes to no such conclusion. If you fail to do so, you are admitting to everyone that factual inaccuracies only matter to you when they come from one side of the aisle (see also 'hypocrisy').

CHENEY: THOUSAND YEAR RIGHT WILL RETAIN CONTROL OF CONGRESS

-- The Empire To Be Victorious in November Midterms, Diebold Willing --

ABOARD AIR FORCE TWO -- In his first public remarks on the burgeoning congressional scandal, Vice President Dick Cheney told The Washington Examiner that fellow Republican Hastert should reject calls for his resignation from the conservative Washington Times. Cheney also flatly rejected predictions by pundits that Democrats will take control of the House and Senate in November. "It's been pretty well established that the imminent threat to the United States from the democrat party is in its last throes and that The Empire will be greeted as liberators and retain control of its thousand year majority ... er, I mean permanent majority."

Sandy,

Do you believe that the Republicans "stole" the 2004 election by using DieBolt machines in Ohio? How about the "pending indictments" against Karl Rove in the Valerie Plame non-story? Were you on board when Krazy Keith was blaring that as his lead story for days and days?

Just a couple of examples of the fraud and deception that your boy Olbermann trades in on a regular basis.

Poster Hank- Apparently you seem to be just another OlbyHater riding the OlbermannLied(TM) bandwagon of the right wing in a thread headlined by a documented fabrication. Doesn't anybody appreciate the irony? Doesn't anyone want the Olbermannwatch.com site operators to correct the record here or are lies only important to focus on when they come from your political opposition?

Sandy: You are FORNBICATING PECANS in spades doubled!

Sandy,

What EXACTLY is your beef here? The poll found that 60% of those surveyed said they "can't take" Keith. MSNBC is aired primarily in the U.S. and the poll itself was on AMERICA online. Are you saying that 60% is not high enough to constitute the finding the MOST Americans dislike Keith or most AMERICANS dislike Keith or most Americans DISLIKE Keith?

Robert Cox: as previously explained, your headline outright states that the poll concludes that most Americans dislike Keith. The headline of your thread is this statement:

AOL Poll: Most Americans dislike Keith

However, as I have noted multiple times, you have no evidence this statement is true, and the poll itself certainly comes to no such conclusion. As I explained above:

"The "poll" you cite is not only unscientific, but nowhere does it say anything about being restricted to "Americans". That AOL webpage is available to people worldwide, anyone with a web browser and an Internet connection can vote. You have made the assumption that most people who voted are American, but you have no factual basis for that belief.

At best, all the poll shows is that a majority of the people in the world who came across this page and took the time to vote do not like Keith Olbermann. Even this statement is suspect because as I pointed out earlier, all one needs to do is clear one's cookies and one can vote over and over."

For all your readers know, you and some friends sat at your PCs and voted thousands and thousands of times to change the results of the poll. Or perhaps some Democrat voted over and over for Keith to help him look better. I myself voted twice just to see if it was possible. Who knows how many individuals really voted and who knows what a majority of them believe? If I conduct a poll and ten people vote once for Olbermann and one person votes 10 times against Olbermann, my poll would show a 50/50 split even though 91% of the people actually voted for Olbermann. So you can see the poll you cite cannot possibly come to any legitimate conclusion.

Not only is the poll unscientific, but anyone can vote over and over and they don't even need to be Americans. So your outright statement that the AOL poll concludes "Most Americans dislike Keith" is simply a false statement as the poll does no such thing.

Good luck trying to talk some sense into these guys, Sandy.

I just wanted to clear something up for Cato (I think it was him). It seems as if he has built up some profuse hatred towards CNN because of some technical malfunctions. I'll clear the air so you don't have to continue using your ignorant examples. When the red X flashed over Cheney's face it was a technical problem. Red X's flash in the control room to queue editing, somehow it showed up in the broadcast. With the bathroom break a mic was left on. It isn't a vast left wing conspiracy orchestrated by CNN to subliminally smear Republicans. Get over it.

DNA-MATCH FROM CONDOM IMPLICATES BILL CLINTON

see, I used the same attention getting - and deceptive - trick as this post? It looks like I'm the only person who actually TOOK the AOL poll (really) since - though I have several websites but don't do the technical stuff myself - I'm spoiled by AOL's universality in the market. As I was taking the poll I consistently thought of how totally stupid and meaningless it was (as most of them are): The poll was framed as a "Fox Anniversary" piece - wildly skewing the likely respondant demographic, AOL poll-takers tend to slant to the right substantially, I recall the median sample size being in the 60-70K range for later questions, and then there are the many obvious points Sandy and Cato spell out.

Sandy, I like your liberal views but your contrarian bickering is annoying to me and I wish we liberals didn't act like this - still I agree with your politics and preference for Keith. Site "affiliates" (which are SO lamely not pointed out as per Sandy's challenge) COMPLETELY lost all legitimacy when claiming the number of Americans voting could fit into a phone-booth...

A VERY typical rhetorical tool of the right - when cornered - is to drop all rationality and bully, fully aware that if you're called on it you can always say with rightious indignation "I was only joking." Well it's a stupid joke, this is a stupid thread bereft of much meaningful discourse at all (except ironically, Cato the non-affiliated libertarian had some interesting comments), etc.

But so your bullying attitudes don't feel hostility and want to go murder some liberal commie f@gs or "islamofascists", please trust me when I say that in the end, no poster here was stupider than ME, for reading all of this total crap that didn't make my life a bit better - like "we" turn to witness a bloody accident or sexy woman (assuming one is oriented toward women - which I doubt of the posters, since, as if on cue from Grover Norquist they've made sure to divert the topic from Mark Foley or Bob Woodward's book, or to equate pedophelia reflexively with homosexuality, a sign of a very drafty closet).

Peace out Sandy, good ideas but I hope you'll stop being so picky and go for the discourse rather than the fine print; nice job Cato (though libertarians - I grew up as one - I think are nutty); and thank you to the organizers (whose names I guess they don't dare to associate with the site) for providing this forum - though obviously you both annoy me more than enough to waste further time posting this, it is your site and your work, so thanks for making it happen). It's been fun (not), and I hope you're all talking about something more useful in the future.

Tim2CB...

Hmmmm....I am not sure where I put forth my liberal views, it just annoys me when web sites criticize others for false or erroneous statements yet freely engage in them themselves, such as here with this AOL poll which does not conclude what the thread author says it does.

In regards to my "contrarian" bickering, what you term "fine print" was a significant part of that person's writing. They wanted to change the subject of the issue at hand by claiming I had made political assumptions about them the individual, when they knew full well I was addressing the views of this web site. This technique is more commonly known as a 'smokescreen' used by people who want to change the subject and put someone on the defensive. I refuse to play this game, and pointed out why.

These posts are obviously unmoderated. (See the previous post).

Keith Olbermann speaks for me...the voice of the true conservative who wants to conserve our constitutional liberties and conserve truth. Neocons seem to want to exercise line item vetoes on certain constitutional provisions, but Olbermann keeps pointing up their hypocrisy and distortions, which must make them pretty uncomfortable.

Many folks having posed as conservatives for years are waking up to the facts that their leaders are promoting the very programs they thought should be opposed: a bloated, fiscally irresponsible government snooping into their private affairs and presuming to tell people how they should conduct their lives.

The historical reality is that the American political system was founded by people with outrageously liberal ideas for their era, such as separation of church and state, freedom of speech, representative government, etc. and it is this liberal program that has made America the success it has been to date. What American conservatives must seek to do is to conserve this tradition of liberal government and defend the Constitution and rule of law against any infringements. The neocon program we have seen enacted over the past 5 years must be turned back if the American experiment in majority rule government moderated by inherent rights of people is to be perpetuated.

These posts are obviously unmoderated. (See the previous post).

Keith Olbermann speaks for me...the voice of the true conservative who wants to conserve our constitutional liberties and conserve truth. Neocons seem to want to exercise line item vetoes on certain constitutional provisions, but Olbermann keeps pointing up their hypocrisy and distortions, which must make them pretty uncomfortable.

Many folks having posed as conservatives for years are waking up to the facts that their leaders are promoting the very programs they thought should be opposed: a bloated, fiscally irresponsible government snooping into their private affairs and presuming to tell people how they should conduct their lives.

The historical reality is that the American political system was founded by people with outrageously liberal ideas for their era, such as separation of church and state, freedom of speech, representative government, etc. and it is this liberal program that has made America the success it has been to date. What American conservatives must seek to do is to conserve this tradition of liberal government and defend the Constitution and rule of law against any infringements. The neocon program we have seen enacted over the past 5 years must be turned back if the American experiment in majority rule government moderated by inherent rights of people is to be perpetuated.