What does it say about the agenda of the radical left that Altermann is questioning Olbermann's bona fides as a liberal? What would Olbermann have to do exactly to qualify? I shudder to think.

BTW Bob, you've got a ton of white space on this page. I had to scroll down so far to see the current posts that I thought there weren't any on the pages. The link throughs on the comments didn't seem to be working either.

This imbecile thinks Chris Mathews is a conservative?? Are you kidding me? He thinks Olberloon is a half hearted liberal? What? Who would he consider a main stream liberal? Joseph Stalin, Lennon, or Marx? Mathews worked for Jimmy Carter and just one month ago said he is "tired of these guys and their f---ing ranches being president." Olbermann practically plays the national anthem of the USSR before each show. Was this guy drunk when wrote this article. What a joke.

Well I'm not ruling out the possibility of alcohol beverages being consumed prior to that column being written but yes, that gives you an insight into the looney, liberal left.

Matthews is assuredly not a liberal. Whether that means he is conservative or not, I'll leave to your Pledge Committee. However, Matthews was most solicitous of Bush during his first term and even as late as Bush's rant about the Congressional investigation of Bush's lying Attorney General noted that the speech was "strong". Matthews really only left the Bush camp after membership became a liability. Bush lost what small measure of credibility he had left and the question of Bush's competence was answered in the negative. Matthews seemed to follow main stream or middle of the road Americans in the exit from Bush. He was certainly no Moses.

Since the majority of Olbermann's rants have been against the war, and presidential abuse of power, where does anyone actually get enough information to label this guy's politics.

Being against the war is not a 'liberal' position, no matter how hard many on the right keep trying to make it one. Being a defender of the constitution, and a critic of excessive presidential power aquisition doesn't strike me as a 'liberal' position either.

I personally suspect Olbermann IS a liberal, but I don't see how it can really be proven by the positions he has taken on his TV show.

Figures that The article Keoth's greatness is written by Imran Syed.
A Muslim.
What a coincidence!
Not!

Kieth Olbermann testifies in this video and is lying like the devil.

He won't be happy until ouir goverment can't function without asking permission to sneeze

"Matthews is assuredly not a liberal. ... Matthews was most solicitous of Bush during his first term and even as late as Bush's rant about the Congressional investigation of Bush's lying Attorney General noted that the speech was 'strong'."

Oh, I get it. If Matthews lets a flash of objectivity or good manners get in the way of his agenda, he can't really be a liberal! That does explain a lot.

Todays 83 degrees is the warmest ever for the month in Minnesota. The mercury also hit 83 on March 30, 1968 and March 23, 1910.

OK Let me Handle this one ! I can do it !

1910 Just some bad thermometers

1968 To many damn hippies

Today Global Warming

Brian,

I am not sure how today's temperature in Minnesota sheds any light on whether Alterman is right about Olbermann or Matthews but thanks for sharing.

I am also not sure how the temperature in 1910, 1968 and 2007 all being the same proves much of anything.

From the data I have seen the average global temperature has gone up about half a degree since 1975. Prior to that it dropped for about 40 years. The ice core samples that Al Gore featured in An Inconvenient Truth show a wide variability in tempratures over short and long periods of time.

The issue is not whether the average temperature has gone up since 1975 but whether that increase is the result of human activity or some other cause such as the burning of fossil fuels. There are many other issues related to this matter but a rather obvious statistical one is why measuring temperatures from 1975 has any special significance. If we were to measure the temperatures from 1945 there is NO change at all. Now, I can see no particular justification for picking 1975 as a baseline (other than it "conveniently" is the lowest point over the past 100 years) but I can see a logical justification for picking 1945 because that is the end of WWII and a date commonly used by economists and sociologist to measure "modern" or "post-war" activities. Of course, 1945 is decidedly "inconvenient" for the eco-fear mongers because if we use the 1940's as a baseline there is NO CHANGE in average temperatures and thus no basis for the current hysteria over temperatures.

Once you digest that perhaps you can explain why it is that people in Minnesota should be UPSET that they got a nice warm day in March? Instead of sitting in front of your computer bitching about it why don't you go ride a bike or take a stroll around the local park?