Cecelia Calls This:

I can't make heads or tails of this blog anymore.

There's miles of white space, the shading of the fonts is so faint as to be unreadable, and there's all these ugly icons everywhere.
Posted by: Cecelia at March 29, 2007 4:07 PM

"...just non-political observations..."

That's funny, it reads a lot more like petty whining and complaining to me.

How and why has he avoided the Iran story? It's all over every other part of MSNBC's news coverage but not in Olbyland.

He doesn't want to offend his good friends in Tehran, that's why.

Brandon: "How and why has he avoided the Iran story?"

Have you tried picking up the phone and asking him?

How and why has he avoided the Iran story?

An AI's contestant's hair and old video are far more important in Olbyland, far more attractive to the key demo.

As far as the Iran situation goes, when you only can find 5 or 6 people to show up on your program and they all agree with the host what the hell would they talk about? The sad looking pancakes and grits the hostages were eating?

Olby will not have any of the Iran hostages from '79 on his show to explain how evil their captors were. Olby can't handle the truth.

Keith spewed "Houseboy" to Gonzalez
And "Monkeyman" to Chris Wallace
Mister Keith Xenophobe
Please remove frontal lobe
If you need a doctor just call us

I liked that one a lot, Ms. Turic. Well done.

Wrote down this bit of wisdom from the "conservative" Sullivan:

"If the war [Iraq] had been successul we were possibly on the way to a one party state because they [the Bush Administration] clearly were going to purge the government of all opposition."

There is zero - none, nada - evidence of this. And our intrepid reporter, Mr. Olbermann, somehow overlooked the need to ask Mr. Sullivan for such evidence.

Again: Purge the government of all opposition.

Ban the Democratic Party? And the Green Party, Libertarian Party et cetera?

Cancel all future elections?

In order to construct a one-party state, one must, of course, forbid the establishment of other parties. And cancel elections, et cetera.

Again, there is absolutely no evidence anywhere that the Bush White House had any such plans.

Mr. Sullivan is, frankly, a nut.

"Ban the Democratic Party? And the Green Party, Libertarian Party et cetera?"

I seriously doubt if that is what Mr. Sullivan meant.

"Mr. Sullivan somehow overlooked the need to ask Mr. Sullivan for such evidence."

Since when is it necessary or expected for an interviewer ask for 'evidence' when a commentator they interview gives their OPINION?

"an empty suit"

---------------------------------------------------------------

Keith Olbermann stealing from Michael Savage?

> Since when is it necessary or expected for an interviewer ask for 'evidence' when a commentator they interview gives their OPINION?

On OlbyPlanet, NEVER. Because the commentators he interviews give Olby's opinion.

I'd post a comment on the Countdown show blog but they don't allow any questioning or critique over there on that site.

4th place again? time to start attacking Nancy Grace?

"when is it necessary or expected for an interviewer ask for 'evidence' when a commentator they interview gives their OPINION?"

Seems to me that a good reporter would inquire as to how Mr. Sullivan came to such an opinion.

It's called news reporting. Challenging guests, probing their views, asking them to show how they form their opinions.

Mr. Sullivan has also stated that we live (right now) in a "thinly disguised military dictatorship."

A good reporter would ask Mr. Sullivan for evidence of such a dictatorship.

Things like, the arrest of political opposition members. The canceling of elections. The banning of political parties.

If Mr. Sullivan had claimed that the Democrats plan to establish a one-party state, don't you think a reporter should ask for evidence of such machinations?

Opinions without supporting evidence don't amount to much.

If I ran a website, I wouldn't let you on, Brandon. You said I used a bong.

On OlbyPlanet, NEVER. Because the commentators he interviews gives Olby's opinion."

Who said this was Olbermann's opinion....just because it was Sullivan's?

"I seriously doubt if that is what Mr. Sullivan meant."

How does one create a "one party state"?

Sullivan said the Administration planned to "purge the government" and create a "one party-state."

Historically, how have governments created such a political entity?

One party state means that you only have one political party in existence.

What less sinister explanation can there be? Mr. Sullivan is a learned person. Words are his livelihood.

He knows what the phrase "one party state" means. And it's clearly meant to be a smear againt the Administration.

Not surprising that Olbermann let the smear go. It's his M.O. too.

Well today Giliani decided his wife I dont know if he meant the 1 hes got now or the 1 hell have in a couple of months or the 1 hell after that 1 to be in his cabinet & that just shows what kind of man he is every thing is about him remember when he asked to continue to be mayor after his term expired so he could continue to be the big hero strutting around saying no need to try to save those fire men we need to tear tha building down all the while starting a security company with known crooks & liars to bilk people out of money & even making money from Hugo Chavez a COMMUNIST dictator in S America & how he doesnt take care of his kids I guess cause that interferes with his marriages & strutting around like the cock on the wall & crowing & dressing up in womans cloths so he can get a few laughts on tv from other perverts & living with homos when hes between marriages & all the other immorals he does why cant we get a strong man like J Bush or Brownback or Thomson who loves the U S of America & will do whats best for it & not for himself & no we dont want your wife whoever she may be now, past or in the future what to do cause she doesnt make good choices does she & I think Nathan doesnt sound liike a Christian name any way if we dont stand for MORALS & values & give the Pres to some 1 but him woe be to us cause the DemocRATS will run the country the rest of our lives & well all be poor perverts then.

Man, you guys ... isn't it awfull having your whole entire universe revolve around the - the - this one solitary human being? I know he did more for your cause than George H. W. Bush and Ronald Reagen combined, but come on, find someone else. Anyone else. Please --- and find someone that will not embaress self infront of all mankind, like Ann Coulter.

Man, you guys ... isn't it awfull having your whole entire universe revolve around the - the - this one solitary human being? I know he did more for your cause than George H. W. Bush and Ronald Reagen combined, but come on, find someone else. Anyone else. Please --- and find someone that will not embaress self infront of all mankind, like Ann Coulter.

Posted by: Obama Watch Us Bicker Formerly in Technicolor at March 29, 2007 10:34 PM

_________________________________________

Sorry but Im confussed whore you talking about?

Man, you guys ... isn't it awfull having your whole entire universe revolve around the - the - this one solitary human being? I know he did more for your cause than George H. W. Bush and Ronald Reagen combined, but come on, find someone else. Anyone else. Please --- and find someone that will not embaress self infront of all mankind, like Ann Coulter.

Posted by: Obama Watch Us Bicker Formerly in Technicolor at March 29, 2007 10:34 PM

_________________________________________

Sorry but Im confussed whore you talking about?

I'm with Cecelia. The site is hard to use. I have problems with connectivity also. Perhaps we're just working with a limited budget.

"cause the DemocRATS will run the country the rest of our lives & well all be poor perverts then"

Damn....bummer! Not only will we all be perverts, but we're gonna all be POOR perverts to boot!

limba.

Why do Obama, Mike, et al come to this site? This is a site to pick on Olbermann. If you want to throw in politics, historical observations that have nothing to do with the subjects broached by Johnny Dollar's summations, be prepared for Rudy, Joker, et al. BTW, Olbermann isn't the only one spiking the Iran story. So is Matthews. (I have only seen Gonzalez Gate on Hardball. If he did cover the hostage situation, it was very limited.) He and Olbermann paired up the night of the President's speech and immediately pushed the theory that Bush was likely to provoke war with Iran. Now it looks like Iran is the one provocating. That doesn't fit in with their theory.

Limba: "A Loa Haitian Vondun who lived among rocks & eats passers-by."

Sharon: Rush Limbaugh was made tonight's worst preson in the world.

Mike: Add to that a nation of appostrophe forgeters.

How and why has he avoided the Iran story? It's all over every other part of MSNBC's news coverage but not in Olbyland.

Posted by: Brandon at March 29, 2007 9:10 PM
Those are obviously his allies, Ulbermahn defends Iran (by not reporting the hostage situation or anything that has anything to do w/Iran) and the Olbyloons defend him,but, they (loons) say they don't defend Iran. What?

"OLbermann isn't the only one spiking the Iran story. So is Mathews."

Viola! I believe you've got it now!

These two programs are primarily political news commentary shows, not all around hard news programs.

Mike: They can discuss Iran as discussion/commentary.

"political news commentary shows"

Countdown is advertised - and Mr. Olbermann says it is - as a "news show" with "news anchor" Keith Olbermann.

You mean Countdown is a commentary show?

I'll be damned.

Quick, contact MSNBC and have them correct this innocent error.

Obama: And we know a nation of appostrophe forgeters would become pure 'hell', instead of merely he'll"

Keith Olbermann stealing from Michael Savage?

Posted by: Obama Watch Us Bicker Formerly in Technicolor at March 29, 2007 9:55 PM
Bicker, does KK ever come up with anything original? The 60 Minute Cyclone is about as original as white paint. I'll have to e-mail the Sav and inform him, he will like this one.

"You mean Countdown is a commentary show?"

Some of us remain obsessed with what they call the show....and some of don't"

I'm with Cecelia. The site is hard to use. I have problems with connectivity also. Perhaps we're just working with a limited budget.

Posted by: ObserverDan at March 29, 2007 10:40 PM

Yep. The content is as as good as ever. Johnny is as flirtation worthy as ever. The problem is that the place looks like it has been decorated by the mental/emotional equivalent of a chicken blogger contestant on Trading Spaces.

Mike,

For various nights after the President's speech where he gave some strong statements about Iran aiding and abetting the terrorists in Iraq, Matthews and Olbermann provided nightly shows on the topic of Bush forcing a confrontation with Iran. Now that this hostage situation has occurred, no mention of Iran. Are you that naive? This hostage crisis is an incredibly important development.

Who said this was Olbermann's opinion....just because it was Sullivan's?

Posted by: at March 29, 2007 10:10 PM
If it wasn't Olby's opinion, Sullivan wouldn't be on, duh.

royslking ...

A) Michael Savage always goes on rants on others stealing his phrases.

B) Joe Scarborough also stole "Hollyweird" from Michael Medved.

C) Michael Savage is probably a posig liberal magnifying liberal sentiments of conservatives through exaggerated stereotyping of some conservative traits. In other words, he is a phony conservative. It is starting to come out, now ---

"ill have to e-mail the the Sav and inform him"

I'm sure he'll be quite pleased to hear from his most loyal groupee. He might even send you a lolipop!

You mean Countdown is a commentary show?"

Some of us remain obsessed with what they call the show....and some of don't"

Posted by: Mike at March 29, 2007 11:07 PM

Commentary ....news analysis...especially when engaged in by professional pundit or journalist guests, .is certainly subject to questioning as in....what do base that opinion or deduction upon?....

"Some of us remain obsessed with what they call the show....and some of don't"

And some of us are concerned about dishonest journalism and some aren't.

Sharon to me: "are you that naive"

No, Sharon, not naive at all. Whats your point?

You're not joining the "he supports Iran because he doesn't attack Iran enough" crowd, are you?

No, Sharon, not naive at all. Whats your point?

You're not joining the "he supports Iran because he doesn't attack Iran enough" crowd, are you?

Posted by: Mike at March 29, 2007 11:15 PM

huh?

I don't know how Olbermann personally feels about Iran. For him to not ask any of his usual guests (such as Richard Wolffe) about the crisis indicates .... what Mike? If you follow the format of Countdown, the first few segments are not tongue in cheek but serious news of the day.

Sharon: We do know how he feels about Iraq: keep on distracting and distracting the nation with phony conspiracies so we can not make it out in one piece.

DAMN YOU MicroSoft_NBC!!
DAMN YOU SECULARIST PROGRESSIVES!!

IF K.O. REFUSES TO COVER IRAN! EL BILLDO MUST DO IT!!

>...
After the revolution, the Islamic authorities continued to draw on national resentment at more than a century of British interference, damning Britain as the "little Satan" (the US was the "Great Satan"). Such feelings were further fed by London's support for Saddam Hussein during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war, despite Baghdad having started the war and subsequently resorting to chemical weapons. London and Tehran were at loggerheads again in 1989 after the revolution's spiritual leader, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, issued a fatwa (religious edict) sentencing the British author, Salman Rushdie, to death for blasphemy over his novel, The Satanic Verses.

The antipathy resurfaced most recently in June 2004 in an incident with uncanny parallels to the current stand-off. Then, eight British sailors were seized and paraded blindfold on state TV after allegedly straying into Iranian waters in the Shatt al-Arab waterway, where the 15 currently in detention were intercepted and arrested last Friday. On the previous occasion, the Britons were released following an apology from the foreign secretary at the time, Jack Straw.

The Anglo-American invasions of both Iraq and Afghanistan have once again brought British troops to Iran's borders. Although Iran opposed the invasion of Iraq, it gave the occupation forces few problems in the early years, as it built up its influence in the Shia areas controlled by Britain in the south. That has all changed in the past year or so, as Iranian-backed militias have increasingly challenged the British occupation forces, both politically and militarily.

The British RAF personnel and marines in Iran's captivity may well be oblivious to the long-accumulated resentments that have provided the backdrop to their detentions. Perhaps they are learning something of this tortured history from their captors.

more:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,2046290,00.html

AND THERE YOU HAVE IT!!

THE LBURL MEDIA IS MORE INTERESTED IN GONZO-GATE BECAUSE THEY HATE PRESIDENT BUSH!!

DAMN YOU MicroSoft_NBC!!
DAMN YOU SECULARIST PROGRESSIVES!!
EL BILLDO URGES HIS VIEWERS TO BOYCOTT!!!
BOYCOTT ARUBA NOW!!

Cecelia, regarding the Sullivan interview: He should have asked: "what do you base that opinion or deduction on?

I just heard the Sullivan interview, and I did not deduct that he meant Bush would have tried to outlaw other political parties at all.

I clearly took to mean all other parties were well on their way to being made irrelevant and ineffective by the political climate of the day...AND....by Bush's determination to purge his administration and party of all other influence.

Andrew sullivan is no radical, nor is he a liberal by any measurement. In fact, unlike me, he USED to support the war.

I don't know how Olbermann personally feels about Iran. For him to not ask any of his usual guests (such as Richard Wolffe) about the crisis indicates .... what Mike? If you follow the format of Countdown, the first few segments are not tongue in cheek but serious news of the day.

Posted by: Sharon at March 29, 2007 11:18 PM

Yeah...no problem doing stories on how Bush wants a confrontation with Iran, but when Iran does something truly confrontational and the only "commentary" then is............then it's "Oh, Countdown is just all fun and games and little ole personal opinions"....

Objectively, you are right Obama. I could not come up with a charitable explanation as to why Olbermann would spike a story concerning a subject (Iran) that not long ago, was an obsession. I thought Mike might have one. Being the human rights watchdog that Olbermann is, do you think he is concerned about what is happening to our fellow human beings? One of the Iranian hostages said that their captors probably took the food away as soon as the cameras quit rolling.

clarification- a hostage held in 1980 (not sure of date)

"I just heard the Sullivan interview, and I did not deduct that he meant Bush would have tried to outlaw other political parties at all."

Well, if Olbermann had followed up his comment with a question asking him to expand on that claim, we wouldn't be confused as to what Sullivan meant.

Would we?

What do the words "purge" and "one party state" mean to you?

To me, they imply a dictatorship where political parties are banned.

After all, historically how has a "one party state" been created?

By banning opposition parties. I know of no other way to establish such a unitary polity.

Instead of asking Sullivan to flesh out his charge, KO just went merrily along without any idea that possibly - just possibly - a followup question was necessary.

And why did he fail to do this? Because he's a hack journalist who runs a hack "news show".

You know damned well that if a guest claimed that Pelosi planned on creating a "one party state" he would have challenged that guest.

As he should.

Sharon: I can't explain or even defend the lack of coverage of the Iran story, except to say it's not really a political story....yet!

However, I don't believe it is nearly as major a story as you apparently do. If we were to over-react to the situation, or if Iran were to escallate the situation, only then WOULD it become the major story...in my opinion.

C) Michael Savage is probably a posig liberal magnifying liberal sentiments of conservatives through exaggerated stereotyping of some conservative traits. In other words, he is a phony conservative. It is starting to come out, now ---

Posted by: Obama Watch Us Bicker Formerly in Technicolor at March 29, 2007 11:10 PM
Bicker, I hope you are being sarcastic. If not, how could you think this?

Andrew sullivan is no radical, nor is he a liberal by any measurement. In fact, unlike me, he USED to support the war.

Posted by: Mike at March 29, 2007 11:24 PM

That would make Sullivan extremely worthy of being challenged with his former statements of support for the war, etc.

Professional pundits and especially journalists should certainly be challenged to back up the basis of their opinions with reasoining based on evidence. You seemed to imply otherwise.

Well, Mike. Madeline Albright seems to disagree with you. SHe views this as extremely serious. (caught a little bit of Larry King).

"You know damned well that if a guest claimed that Pelosi planned on creating a "one party state" he would have challenged that guest."

Actually, I don't 'know' that at all. I've never heard Olbermann 'challenge' anybody during an interview.

Besides, how do you know Olbermann took Sullivan's comment the same way you did?

Keith Olbermann is not a true human rights anything. At least not to that vessel of trapped English mariners --- nope. What they are are political foder worthy of starting a war between Great Britain and Iran, and they may not come home in one piece if things turn grim. Then it will be a world wide story, then Keith Olbermann will do his show on the subject and do his little innuendo segues. "Those submariners may not be the only ones in deep. Pictures surfaced..." or "Speaking of close calls, the commander in chief had a close call --- with CONSERVATIVES!!!..." It is the same tired tirade, and we get Ol' Big Macc by now.

These two programs are primarily political news commentary shows, not all around hard news programs.

Posted by: Mike at March 29, 2007 10:59 PM
You mean the Iran hostage situation isn't political? Wow.........olbyapologist.

"Besides, how do you know Olbermann took Sullivan's comment the same way you did?"

You're right. Unlike me, Olbermann just accepted the claim.

You seriously think that KO wouldn't have challenged a guest who claimed that Pelosi wanted to establish a one party state?

Really?

Geez, he would have named that person the worst person in the world on his next show.

Sharon: I can't explain or even defend the lack of coverage of the Iran story, except to say it's not really a political story....yet!

However, I don't believe it is nearly as major a story as you apparently do. If we were to over-react to the situation, or if Iran were to escallate the situation, only then WOULD it become the major story...in my opinion.

Posted by: Mike at March 29, 2007 11:31 PM

You're kidding...right?

Royalking: The reason that I think that is primarily because he donated to the cause of some liberal saying that "you pick a winner." What an excellent reason to trade sides --- because they are "winner"s. Huh ha ha !!!!!

Additionally, Mike. I view the Brits as good friends. I am concerned that 15 of their honored service people have been captured and are being held hostage with no progress being made for their release. Especially when you consider that threats have been made to kidnap British and U.S. soldiers in retaliation for the defection of some of their people (whom the Iranian government claimed were kidnapped).

These two programs are primarily political news commentary shows, not all around hard news programs.

Posted by: Mike at March 29, 2007 10:59 PM
A.K.A. propaganda/bull sh-t.

I am going to go now. Don't worry Mike. The anons are due to come in soon, support you, call everyone else vile names, you know the routine.
(you know you lost this one purely on the facts)

Goodnight!

You're not joining the "he supports Iran because he doesn't attack Iran enough" crowd, are you?

Posted by: Mike at March 29, 2007 11:15 PM
Attacking and mentioning are entirely different. You have to mention something before you can actually attack it, I'm pretty sure, anyways....

Yeah...no problem doing stories on how Bush wants a confrontation with Iran, but when Iran does something truly confrontational and the only "commentary" then is............then it's "Oh, Countdown is just all fun and games and little ole personal opinions"....

Posted by: Cecelia at March 29, 2007 11:28 PM
This, also, is known as apologizing/apologist. Also, denial.

>These two programs are primarily political news commentary shows, not all around hard news programs.

EL BILLDO WILL AGAIN INFORM HIS LOYAL SUBJECTS, EHR, VIEWERS:

IT IS CALLED "INFO-TAINMENT"

WITH SO MANY NEWS OUTLETS, 24/7, IT IS HARD TO MAINTAIN THE OUTRAGED SANCTIMONY HARD-ON LONGER THAN 3 HOURS!

THAT'S WHY EL BILLDO DOES 2 HOURS IN THE MORNING, THEN EL BILLDO TAKES A BREAK, THEN RETURNS HOLIER AND FULLER OF OUTRAGE FOR ONE MORE HOUR.

UP NEXT!

THE LBURL WAR ON EASTER!!
WHY ARE THE PROGRESSIVE SECULARISTS HELL BENT ON DEBAUCHERY DURING HOLY WEEK?

(-What's that? It's called Spring Break?)

CUT OFF THE MIKE!! CUT OFF THE MIKE!! CUT OFF THE MIKE!!

Sharon & Cecelia: If you'll both review, I never said the hostage taking wasn't a very serious situation, nor did I offer that much of a defense for their lack of coverage, but it is not yet a political story...not on the American political scene anyway.

I for one am hoping that cooler heads prevail, but my fear is that some on the Neocon side are looking for an excuse to attack Iran...and for them, this might be exactly what they are looking for.

We have had these kind of things happen periodically involving Americans, and the situations were usually defused without resorting to war. Two similar situations that come to mind immediately are the Pueblo incident with North Korea, and the more recent siezing a US plane by China. If my memory is correct, we never even got the ship and plane back.

Actually, I don't 'know' that at all. I've never heard Olbermann 'challenge' anybody during an interview.

Besides, how do you know Olbermann took Sullivan's comment the same way you did?

Posted by: Mike at March 29, 2007 11:35 PM

Well, doesn't that FACT make Johnny's list revealing the number of Democrats and known liberals appearing on Countdown as well as the knock that the few Republicans appearing are all criticising the Administration, just that much more significant?...

Royalking: The reason that I think that is primarily because he donated to the cause of some liberal saying that "you pick a winner." What an excellent reason to trade sides --- because they are "winner"s. Huh ha ha !!!!!

Posted by: Obama Watch Us Bicker Formerly in Technicolor at March 29, 2007 11:38 PM
lol

Mike writes: "Sharon & Cecelia: If you'll both review, I never said the hostage taking wasn't a very serious situation, nor did I offer that much of a defense for their lack of coverage, but it is not yet a political story...not on the American political scene anyway."

Mike, when the narrative has been that Bush is agitating for war in Iran, how can British soldiers being held prisoner with threats of trials, NOT be a "political" story?

Let me correct what I stated --- he did not donate to a "cause", he donated to acandidacy. Mark Levin Fan has the dirt.

"Don't worry Mike, the anons are going to come out soon, support you, call everyone else vile names, you know the routine."

Sharon, if you are actually inferring what I THINK you are inferring, then all I can say is that I THOUGHT you were a better person than that! But, hey....thanks for setting me straight on that point.

"(you know you lost this one purely on the facts)"....absolutely not. Thats merely your opinion.

Can't resist one last comment. This is a political story, Mike. Even if you don't believe it is, why wouldn't it get a mention on Countdown at least? Is American Idol a political story? How much political impact does the Anna Nicole Smith story have in our lives? How many times was that covered? You are in denial if you can't see that Countdown has a political agenda. He could at least have said "And a story that my producer is making me cover, ... "

Cecelia: The answer to your question at 11:57 is that Bush is not yet reacting to the situation in an aggressive manner.

Mike: He should ride this one out ...

Let me correct what I stated --- he did not donate to a "cause", he donated to acandidacy. Mark Levin Fan has the dirt.

Posted by: Obama Watch Us Bicker Formerly in Technicolor at March 29, 2007 11:57 PM
He donated to a local Democrat who is not a far leftist whom I won't name.

I have no idea what you are talking about Mike. Anyone who has been here in the wee hours knows what happens when the anons come out. Grammie hasn't been here today but she knows. The personal attacks, name calling,, etc. I really don't know what you were referring to.

royalking: Have not you learned anything from Olbermann Watch .com !?!? You do not support phonies !!!

Cecelia: The answer to your question at 11:57 is that Bush is not yet reacting to the situation in an aggressive manner.

Posted by: Mike at March 30, 2007 12:02 AM

What do you mean by "aggressive manner"? Bush has condemned Iran's actions now just as he condemned Iran's actions and rhetoric as to its nuclear ambitions. If Bush's remarks were worthy of conjectures on Countdown about Bush wanting to expand the war into Iran, why aren't they now?

Can't re