HA HA! Closet-gay, hat-affecting Matt Drudge calls someone else "campy". That;s truly rich.

But who will watch Olbermann if he places Bush's America circa 2007 in its proper historical context?

In the world of the internet and talk radio and cable television, sensationalism and hyperbole have to be used if you've got nothing else.

And Mr. Murrow, Jr., has nothing else to offer.

For all of the shortcomings of talk radio - and they are plenty - Olbermann, like the other leftists who've tried it, couldn't last more than a year hosting a program.

His hyperbole and hysteria would be challenged and corrected again and again and again. All he could do is to retort with his smarmy high school smears of callers.

No substance, no facts, no evidence. No Media Matters or ThinkProgress to provide him material.

No, scratch that. He wouldn't last 6 months, not a year.

Welcome back Johnny!!!

" Bill Maher's Real Time, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart "

Yep, you'll get the straight news from these sources.

Impeccably researched and sourced.

About as trustworthy as talk radio.

But, to be fair, Stewart acknowledges that it would be dangerous and wrong to use his show as a source for news and information. As he admits, "We just make it up sometimes".

"Boston Legal and a host of others."

Oy.

This poster relies on Bill Maher, Jon Stewart and Boston Legal for his information.

And his (or her) vote counts as much as mine.

As Churchill said, democracy was the worst form of government ever created. Except for every other system.

But if the poster above is representative of the democratic voter, I'm not sure old Winston was right.

Double oy.

Very sad to think people rely on dope head's like Maher and Stewart for "news." Does the word "comedy" mean anything?

"I wonder if he's making up the film of Bush and republican comments ?"

Yep, he says that they will take the comments/clips out of context and add different context to make them more humorous. Edit the comments, cut statements short.

It's like what Slate does with the Bushisms where they cut or eliminate parts of his comments to make them sound ridiculous. Or even more ridiculous since Bush will often sound silly.

To be fair, Stewart does this to Democrats too.

But that's because he's a COMEDIAN. It's a COMEDY SHOW. It's not a NEWS SHOW.

The standards - if there are any - for a COMEDY SHOW are not the same for a NEWS SHOW.

Unless the show is Countdown where there aren't any standards.

My god, people actually think Stewart is giving them straight information.

Comedy shows, TV shows: this is where people think they're getting the real world.

Wow.

Wow.

"Plus did I say I only get my news from these sources?"

Did I claim that you said you ONLY get your news from these sources?

You said that those shows reveal the abuses of the evil Republicans.

I said that these shows are fictional shows. Comedies, dramas that disseminate fantasy.

You use them, you said, as a basis for revealing the wrongdoings of the evil Bushco.

For anyone to use FICITIONAL SHOWS as a basis for anything other than ENTERTAINMENT is just silly.

Here, write this down:

1. Comedy shows = laughs and humor

2. Dramas = entertainment and fiction

3. News shows = news and information.

Try to get this straight.

If you ever watched the Daily Show, which apparently you haven't, you 'd see what a mockery( it's not hard to do)

Yes, it's a mockery/comedy show NOT a news show.

As anyone over the age of about 10 knows, you can take clips of someone talking and by editing them out, make the person sound like he or she says something completely different than they actually did.

Stewart - as a comedian - and his staff - as comedy writers - take comments and statements by people (all kinds) and make fun of them.

They take them out of context, they selectively edit, they leave out parts.

Stewart admits they do this.

Because, again, he's a comedian doing a comedy show.

If you can't follow this, if you can't see the distinction between fact and fantasy then you need help big time.

And no one here can help you out. You need to sue your teachers for failing to educate you properly.

Jonathan Stewart on 60 Minutes two years ago:
"We don't consider ourselves equal opportunity anythings, because that's not - you know, that's the beauty of fake journalism. We don't have to - we travel in fake ethics," says Stewart.

Fake journalism. Fake ethics.

From Wikipedia:
"The show's writers often repeat the fact that The Daily Show is a comedy program and not a reliable news source by itself. The show does not follow normal rules of journalistic integrity....."

"According to Pew Research Center on their 2004 campaign survey, those who cited comedy shows as a source for news were among the least informed on campaign events and key aspects of the candidates' backgrounds.....

This should end this silly debate.

But silly people believe in silly things.

So it won't.

According to Pew Research Center on their 2004 campaign survey, those who cited comedy shows as a source for news were among the least informed on campaign events and key aspects of the candidates' backgrounds

"This joker thinks it;s all fiction no matter what source is used."

Lie. I never said such a thing. Liar.

"Every single fucking day there is valid information on the failed policies and bonehead moves of this administration."

So, it's okay for Stewart to make things up? He's still reputable even though he admits to practicing "fake journalism" and his producers admits to not using the normal stands of ethics?

As long as he gets that evil Bushco, facts don't matter.

More evidence of Bush derangement from the reality based community.

Who needs facts? Just get Bush.

Wow.

Wait a second: Jonathan Stewart admitted two years ago that his show uses "fake journalism" and it uses "fake ethics" and people still believe that his show is accurate?

Even though HE admits it isn't?

So, someone tells you they're pulling your leg, that they make things up, and you still believe them?

That's just dumb.

You do have to admit that Jeff's idiotic tirade againt every major, credible news source tells us a great deal about him, how he got in his thinking to the place he is and how unlikely it is he will ever recover.

A key difference between a Jeff and a person Jeff thinks he is slandering by labeling liberal, is that the liberal has some understanding of informational sources. No liberal believes that Stewart, Colbert are anything but satirical. No liberal takes that as hard news. But the delusional Jeff thinks they do. If any dedicated liberal watches Olbermann, he or she knows that what is offered is commentary. But, the demented Jeff thinks the liberal believes he is watching hard news.

And, liberal turn to an entire universe of sources and analyze. Jeff needs to learn how to analyze, but he probably needs analysis even more.

So, is it any surprise that Jeff thinks that Drudge, the man who "called" 2004 for Kerry midafternoon on election day, that Hannity, who offers repeated "white girl gone missing" stories with occassional references to the "fact" that Saddam had WMD's offer hard and accurate news? Is it any surprise that he suffers from acute Wiener envy because Wiener feeds him that type of hatred Jeff wants to feel comfortable with.

The problem is Jeff doesn't want news, facts, information. He wants something he can relate to. He seeks affirmation of his own warped, limited world view because anything else is a threat to him.

The value of Jeff on a blog is that he gives us that example of everything we ought not to be. He carries every pathology we want to try to avoid. And, that is valuable.

Of course, that indicates we are using Jeff. And, we are. We use him because we find him a curiosity. We don't understand how anyone so ill-informed, so narrow can possibly function. The fact that we use him and can use him makes Jeff pathetic. And, that makes Jeff the poorest possible voice for any position he argues. If I were a terrorist-loving Olbyloon, I would take tremendous pleasure in Jeff arguing any opposing issue. Rational proponents of Jeff's position have to overcome a tremendous hurdle. Jeff makes the task of reasonable, informed people taking the opposing position much, much easier. For that, we should thank Jeff.

So, Jeff, thanks. Now go douse the charcoal with another can of gasoline and have a world-reknowned Wiener roast.

"He doesn't make up the news stories, moron.
He makes up the humorous comments that follow them."

Stewart and his producers - THEMSELVES - admit its not a news show.

Did you read his comments?

Fake journalism.

Fake journalistic ethics.

They make stuff up. The "news" is not straightforward accounts of events. They leave things out, they put things in, they manipulate "news" in order to make comedy.

Geezus.

Stewart tells folks: "Hey, I'm a comedian. I make stuff up."

Lefties: "Duh, Stewart gives us news."

Stewart: "No, I make things up."

Lefties: "Stewart tells us news. He's good."

Stewart: "No, no, no"

Lefties: "Duh, Bushco kills. Bushco caused 9/11. Bushco caused global warming. Bushco killed everyone"

Stewart: "No".

Lefties: "Duh...."

"According to Pew Research Center on their 2004 campaign survey, those who cited comedy shows as a source for news were among the least informed on campaign events and key aspects of the candidates'
backgrounds"

Back at you loverboy.

Let me guess: You think Stewart gives you news?

Even though he says we practice "fake journalism".

The guy admits they make things up and you STILL BELIEVE HIM!!!!!!!

He's telling you I MAKE STUFF UP!!!

And you still believe him.

Unf****ingbelievable.

"Has Bush killed thousands of innocent people?
Absolutely !"

Geez, you Patient Zero in the Bush Derangement Syndrome.

How did Bush kill thousands of innocent people?

Bush?

By you standard, Lincoln killed thousands of innocent people. So did FDR. So did Truman. So did Eisenhower. So did Wilson.

The Senate rejected the Kyoto Treaty 95-0.

How is Bush responsible for that?

Every problem is SOLEL DO to Bush. Bush alone is the cause of every thing that goes wrong.

You lefties complain that Bush is acting like a King. You guys think he's a King who can just issue edicts and all problems will disappear.

Loons.

A political commentator late last year made the great observation:

"The Republicans in Washington are afraid of their base because their base is angry at them."

"The Democrats in Washington are afraid of their base because their base is nuts."

Quite so.

"George Bush attacked a country ( Iraq) that didn't attack us and was no threat to the people of the United States.
FIRST TIME IN US HISTORY !"

Mexican American war?

Vietnam war.

Korean war?

Bosnia/Serbian war?

Robert:
Pay attention.

Jonathan Stewart: "We practice fake journalism".

Bush hating nuts: "Stewart tells the truth about Bushco."

Stewart: "Um, I make things up."

Bush hating nuts: "Stewart tells the truth."

Stewart: "Um, no, it's a comedy show. We use fake journalism. It's not real."

Bush hating nuts: "Stewart tells the truth".

Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

Geez, try arguing with these folks.

See, EVEN when Stewart tells everyone, "Look, this is comedy. It's NOT real", the loony lefties still believe it's true.

So, tell every Olbermann apologist that you MAKE THINGS UP about KO. Say it's all comedy and all a routine. It's not real.

The the loonies will believe you.

You need to argue BACKWARDS with these folks. Up is down and down is up.

The terrorists blow up hospitals and disrupt the lives of Iraqis and BUSH is to blame for the social problems. NOT the terrorists.

Just argue backwards and the lefties will embrace you.

Try it. Nothing else works.

Ohboy,

Who says "Stewart tell the truth"?

People say "Stewart consistently and decisively skewers the president", and that is the case.

That's why there's no anti-Daily Show website (that I know of) ala OW; They really can't watch it. Masterful satire bites harder than the stern rhetoric dished out by Olbermann, and they would either be converted through understanding or killed outright by severe cognitive dissonance.

'Who says "Stewart tell the truth"?'

SLOB, please read the above posts by the Stewart fans.

I'm starting to worry about you; you're losing your game. I can't keepy carrying you around.

Gotta' pick things up or you'll be left behind in the slow lane.

"The Democrats in Washington are afraid of their base because their base is nuts."

Quite so.

Posted by: at May 28, 2007 3:54 PM

That's right; the ones that think Adam and Eve rode dinosaurs are the sane ones. Who was this "political commentator"? Michele Malkin? Michael Weiner Savage?

Well, we're making some progress.

Originally, the argument was that Stewart shows the corruption and evil doings of Bushco.

Then, when it's pointed out that Stewart himself acknowledges that the show makes things up, the argument is "Well, Stewart sometimes shows the evil doings of Bushco."

He's not really pregnant; just a little pregnant.

Eventually, we'll get an acknowledgement that the Comedy Show (and the title is a hint, by the way) is just that, comedy.

It's not news. It's not current events.

It's comedy. They lampoon folks. They make things up. They play games with film clips. They edit clips.

It's not a real NEWS show.

Stewart himself tries to tell his fans, "Don't rely on my show for your news. It's comedy!!"

And really folks, don't blame me. I'm just passing along the message from Jon.

Go take your disagreement up with him.

Sorry, it's the "Daily Show" on the Comedy Channel.

Not the "Comedy Show."

My error.

But again, the "Comedy Channel" is a hint.

"Who's Jonathan Stewart"?

Jon Stewart (born Jonathan Stuart Leibowitz)

Jonathan Stewart and Jon Stewart are, shockingly, the same person.

I have to remember to dumb down my posts.

Jon Stewart: "We make things up on my show. We're not news"

Liberals: "Jon Stewart tells the truth about Bush."

Stewart: "No, we make things up."

Liberals: "Jon Stewart tells only truths".

Stewart: "Listen, we make stuff up."

Liberals: "Jon Stewart only tells the truth. Only Bush apologists don't think so."

Stewart: "We make stuff up."

Sheesh.

If the host of the show can't convince people that he MAKES STUFF UP, then we are in nutsville, folks.

You are indeed a 100% full-throated loon if you believe Stewart doesnt' make stuff up when he TELLS YOU HE MAKES STUFF UP.

Y'all are just nuts. Bush has driven you nuts.

I can't argue with crazy people. If you think you're Napoleon Bonaparte, go for it. Invade Russia. 'Cause I can't change your mind.

Don't let those squirrels capture you. Because they WORK FOR BUSH!!! and they'll send you to Guantanamo.

The squirrels are actually made by Halliburton.

Oy.

It also trotted out stats from Nielsen Media Research to show that Stewart's viewers are not only smart, but more educated than O'Reilly's.

Stick it up your ass !

Posted by: at May 28, 2007 3:28 PM

Anyone that believes this lie is a downright fool.

INTELLIGENT POSTER:

... stats from Nielsen Media Research to show that Stewart's viewers are not only smart, but more educated than O'Reilly's.

---

THE IDIOT JEFF:

Anyone that believes this lie is a downright fool.

------

The education level fact cited is well-established, really not rebuttable. Of course, facts mean absolutely nothing to Jeff. In fact, they send him running under his bed crying.

Of course, even if we did not have such a well-established fact, the mere circumstance that Jeff denies something is a strong indicia that it is correct. He has yet to be correct about anything, anything.

Yeah, Bill Maher is a real hero. While the World Trade Center Towers were still smoking, Bill was praising the hijackers. He called them courageous. Keep that in mind the next time you get the urge to call the man a patriot.

Yeah, Bill Maher is a real hero. While the World Trade Center Towers were still smoking, Bill was praising the hijackers. He called them courageous. Keep that in mind the next time you get the urge to call the man a patriot.

---

Of course, there is this little thing about context, isn't there? Maher was expressing his stunned disbelief that people would commit suicide for a cause. I wouldn't call that courage, but it does rather show the character of the people with whom we ought to be dealing. We could certainly have made much more progress, any progress, in the War Against Terrorism if we could say: "These people have a (mis-) guided belief in their (suspect) cause for which they are willing to die." In that sense, what Maher said has far more value than Hume, O'Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh, Coulter, Malkin, the Wiener, repeating the canard, "They'll greet us with flowers and open arms." Wanting to destroy your enemy is easy. Everyone wants that. It doesn't require thought or intelligence. Knowing your enemy is far more difficult. It requires much of us, but it is the most effective way to destroy your enemy. Of course, our lack of knowledge is not entirely our fault. We lacked and still lacked men and women in the Administration to lead us. When the truth would have been far more powerful and effective, they lied to us with the willing cooperation of O'Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh, Coulter, Malkin, the Wiener. Our biggest fault was not in being more discerning about the people to whom we listen.

They've got comedians, potheads, and an ESPN reject as their "truth tellers". You almost have to feel sorry for them don't you?

I wouldn't trade a single comedian, pothead or ESPN reject for every toe-sucker, falafel fetisher, Viagra smuggler/Hillbilly Heroin addict, randy whore you have, so there!!!
---
You surprise me Brandon. You're not one of the ignorant ones on this post, yet you fail to appreciate that satire is a very complex, sophisticated form of comedy. The comedian and the audience are presumed to already know the underlying fact(s) being satirized. Taking that fact and putting a nuance on it results in comedy (or in the case of Dickens, et al, tragedy). In that sense, it isn't surprising that regular Daily Show viewers are far more intelligent and better informed than regular O'Reilly viewers. The Daily Show viewers have already gathered news and information from a variety of souces, the NYT, the WaPo, the WSJ, CNN, BBC, WS, etc., and can appreciate a nuanced representation.

By contrast, an O'Reilly viewer is gathering his or her initial information solely from a commenator and seems not to be discerning enough to ferret out comment from fact.

I suspect the typical O'Reilly viewer is more into slapstick, a very undemanding form or comedy for the audience (the physical aspects can be demanding for the comedian). For example, I am confident that Jeff breaks into uncontrolled laughter at each and every fart joke he hears.

I think this analogy is very good.

WOW Brandon HATES Rush Limbaugh!

"...comedian...ESPN reject (Viagra smuggler/Hillbilly heroin addicted)...as their "truth teller". You almost have to feel sorry for them don't you?"

No. Not really. I mostly LMAO!

Very good, AAP. During his long sports career, I somehow missed Limbaugh, and I never thought about that. Well, as I said, satire is demanding.

That was a damn good burn.

This is how the lefties "think". Copy and paste. Let's give it a try:

In 2006, a study published by Indiana University tried to compare the substantive amount of information of the Daily Show against primetime network news broadcasts. Julia R. Fox, an assistant professor of telecommunications at the university, showed in her study, "No Joke: A Comparison of Substance in The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and Broadcast Network Television Coverage of the 2004 Presidential Election Campaign"[8] (to be published in the summer of 2007), that when it comes to substance, there is little difference between the Daily Show and other news outlets. By using coverage and footage of the 2004 Presidential Election, she analyzes and compares both communication media. What she found was that neither actually offers more, SINCE BOTH PROGRAMS ARE MORE FOCUSED ON THE NATURE OF "INFOTAINMENT" AND RATINGSs, making them both "equal" in content.[9]

Geez, you mean the Daily Show is about ratings and infotainment and not accurate news and information?

Hmm, perhaps this explains the morons, er, fine folks who like Countdown?

Furthermore:
The analysis indicates that the Daily Show offered more humor than substance in their coverage, but that same study also found that the typical network coverage preferred to offer more hype than any real political substance.[10] The study seems to indicate that either the Daily Show has become a legitimate 'news source' or the mainstream media has ceased to be one.[11] Julia Fox states that "In an absolute sense, we should probably be concerned about both of those sources, BECAUSE NEITHER ONE IS PARTICULARLY SUBSTANTIVE. It's a bottom-line industry and ratings-driven. We live in an 'infotainment' society, and there certainly are a number of other sources available."

Gosh, the Daily Show isn't particularly substantive?

What? No substance?

You mean, it's a - COMEDY SHOW?

My god, it's not really a news show.

Dopes.

How terribly maudlin, 11:59. Thank you very much, indeed, I am sure.

That's not my real name, by the way.

Board is dead.

Save it for tomorrow.

G'nite.

Of course, even if we did not have such a well-established fact, the mere circumstance that Jeff denies something is a strong indicia that it is correct. He has yet to be correct about anything, anything.

Posted by: at May 28, 2007 10:47 PM

A very disgruntled olbyloon, indeed. You have to wonder about someone who makes a fairly lengthy post about nothing with no facts, mentioning another posters name 15-20 times in that single post, what the point was. Wringing their hands the whole time, I'm sure and posting anon, to boot. Disgruntled, indeed. Keep me in stitches, please.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,274801,00.html

"LYNCHBURG, Va. — A 19-year-old Liberty University student was arrested late Monday night after Virginia cops found he had napalm-like devices that he may have been planning to use on protesters at Rev. Jerry Falwell's funeral, FOX News confirmed."

I didn't see the word "terrorist" in this Fox News story - only a statement that the bomb this Christian insurgent made was "not very destructive". Where has te coverage been since?

What about the white Okie youth arrested last year attempting to board a passenger plan with a pipe-bomb, who was let off the hook ($1000 bail) by the Republican former Mayor of Oklahoma CIty, who vouched for him as just a precoscious scamp? (http://www.airportbusiness.com/article/article.jsp?id=3072&siteSection=5)

And what about those wing-nuts in Tennessee who got busted a whle back with a briefcase-bomb factory, with intent to kill minorities?

Hell, Fox News didn't even cover these last two stories, if their own site's search engine is reliable.

Anybody aware of any coverage regard Eric Rudolf's case following his arest?

Fox News does sport coverage of Luis Posada - the right-wing Cuban terrorist supported and protected by the Bush family for decades; but they present the lie that Posada was acquitted in the Venezuelan courts of a 1976 airliner bombing. He is currently in US custody in Florida, and his extradition sought by the Venezuelans is being blocked because he might be tortured. There's a first for the Bush admininstration!

They don't need to "follow us home", folks, they are already here.

Loon Alert: Al Gore is joining Keith Anally for an "in-depth interview" (slobber, slobber) tonight.

Sorry, Olby: Al Gore already joined Larry King for an hour and that interview was rebroadcast this past weekend. Looks like you're second string yet again.

Sorry, Olby: Al Gore already joined Larry King for an hour and that interview was rebroadcast this past weekend. Looks like you're second string yet again.
Posted by: at May 29, 2007 2:34 PM

As well as an hour with Charlie Rose. Olberdouche loves Al Gore, proudly bringing his college-aged girlfriend to Al's book signing last year. She was very impressed (Hint to Olbermann---keep her away from Clinton).

F*cking Al Gore....if this a$$wipe would have just won his own friggin' state back in 2000...no Bush, no war. I'll vote for any a$$wipe republican before I vote for Al or Hilliary.

An open letter to Keith Olbermann:

(Sorry, to who ever cares.)

When Olby made his comments congratulating himself for having Imus fired that struck something inside of me. I was so angry with MSNBC and Keith. In the past I would watch Keith on and off feeling his program was not really “news” – kinda like Colbert Report. I thought Keith was a bit of a bully, but still something would anger me personally about Keith. Then the Imus story broke. I am big on freedom of speech. Suddenly it seemed like I had this vendetta against Keith. I don’t care about either Imus or Keith really but still I almost took pleasure in putting Keith down -- finding Keith on all his faults. That was wrong of me in one sense. For that I’m sorry.

I read 2 different newspapers, watch BBC as well as my American news to try to filter through it all. Still personalities such as Keith both attracted and repelled me. I guess that’s what it’s all about isn’t it? I came across this website in my trying to understand Keith. The site has its good points and bad points – both fair and unfair to Keith and his (cough) reporting.

I’ve finally calmed down about Keith. The verdict; I don’t think I trust Keith as a newsman. Sorry Keith, I trust you for my news like I trust Colbert. You make me laugh but it’s not either the truth or a lie isn’t it? Still I laughed so I guess that counts for something. I took Keith’s show off my TIVO as of Monday. I cannot in good conscious say Keith's show is real news.

Keith about your sports casting, either be a good one or be nothing at all. You want to do it all I know but you’re spreading yourself thin. Secondly Keith, what ever about your personal life, you know the truth and you know what’s what. You’re not a child but keep in mind Kathy still is. But whatever with you two, good luck, I mean it. Next, forgive your father or at least come to terms with him. I know he loves you deep down. Finally Keith, love yourself. I doubt you ever have. For that I’m sorry. I can see you are human with real hurt in both how you live your life and speak to those around you. I wish you could see that there are those that really do care and love you. As one human to another I know you hurt Keith I’m sad to say I can read it on your face.

Good luck Keith, MSNBC and Olbermann Watch. Hey Keith “for this much relief.” :) You’re rid of me. Stay sweet.

Judy

If Olberdouche could, he would s*ck Gore's c*ck right there on the Countdown set----show should be called "C*ckdown" , there will be some major stroking tonight.

BTW: Olbermann should keep college-aged girlfriend away from Charlie Rose as well...

Judy, for the 10th time, her name is Katy. And maybe you should forgive your father for teaching you how to be obsessed with some guy on cable tv. (Your open letter is Letterman-stalker crazy).

Open the site (for this much relief) back up, if not, let it go already.

All of those who brought up Al Gore on Larry King:

Where to begin? I watched Al Gore's Larry King interview and I came out of it with a very strong opinion about him. The incident went as so. Larry King asked Al Gore about his opinion on the candidates. He asked about Hillary Clinton, Barrack Obama, John Edwards, and I think, Chris Dodd. They all got fair answers.

After that, Larry King asked Al Gore about his opinion on Conservative presidential candidates. Want to know how he described them? He lumped them all together! Rather than being gracefull about it, he chose to say something to the effect of 'since they all do not want to stand up to the War in Iraq, they are not viable candidates and will not win.' Excuse me, but (A) Why are you lumping all of the different R. candidates together? (B) Why not just give a basic description on the candidates? (C) I am sure there is an issue that the democrats are all wrong on in Al Gore's eyes. They did not get any venom for that. (D) What ever happened to give and take? Where some one is supposedly wrong you tell them that they are wrong, not shun them. I thought that Al Gore was benevolent. Apparently, he is just as immature as albeit. Nothing has really changed in these 7 years.

Ultimately, he had to answer questions about the Republican candidates. John Rudy Giuliani got the first question. Al Gore said that Rudy Giuliani needed to fortify his "base". A knee-jerk specist answer. Why isn't that Rudy Giuliani can not reach out to Independant Moderates, or Libretarians, or even Liberals? Why is it that every conservative has to get pigeonholed into having to please their base? Because the person is Conservative, he has to concentrate on his most radical cliche`. I do not think so. Rudy Giuliani is indeed able to appeal to the whole entire nation, and do not let bunkers like Al GOre ever tell you otherwise.

Similar answers for John McCain, but I think that Mitt Romney got the least stereotypically demonsterative answer since Gore actually thought about his answers, versus being a meany. Although he used Mitt Romney to philosophisize on religion, at least, @ the very least, he gave true answers, and not swipes at them. Democrat candidates got thoughtfull and amicable answers. The Republican candidates got nothing but scorn and hostiality despite being just as great as an American as any other. For this, I am glad that Al Gore is not contemplating the presidency.

Judy, for the 10th time, her name is Katy. And maybe you should forgive your father for teaching you how to be obsessed with some guy on cable tv. (Your open letter is Letterman-stalker crazy).

Thanks anon but all was issues discussed on this site, even by you so how does that make me the stalker?

No name hiders like you are why I'm taking his show off my TIVO in the first place.

"...I know you hurt Keith I'm sad to say I can read it on your face..." Posted by: Judy at May 29, 2007 3:00 PM

No name hiders like you are why I'm taking his show off my TIVO in the first place.
Posted by: Judy at May 29, 2007 4:13 PM

Judyloon, get a grip on reality. An anon points out your creepy "Kathy Bates-like behavior" with your posting an "open letter to Keith Olbermann on Olbermann Watch, and you are taking HIS show off your TIVO because of "no name hiders?" who point this little "oddball" comment out. Maybe you should go back to watching Olbermann and stop commenting on OW.

Cue Twilight Zone Music....

Judy--the Olbyloon fan forum is located at keitholbermann.org. I'm sure all 5 of their members would welcome you with open arms. You seem like you'd fit in perfectly over there.

Amen Brandon!

This is such a minor piece it is pattently a waste of memory. Drudge said what he said about Keithy so quickly it dies not even come out as worthy of listening to. You would think that this website would have more of these, but they do not. Sadly, this is so.

Judy--the Olbyloon fan forum is located at keitholbermann.org. I'm sure all 5 of their members would welcome you with open arms. You seem like you'd fit in perfectly over there.
-----
You might want to be more circumspect in your advice. keitholbermann.org has admission requirements. It doesn't let just any lunatic with a PC post like olbermannwatch.com does.

>Judy--the Olbyloon fan forum is located at keitholbermann.org. I'm sure all 5 of their members would welcome you with open arms. You seem like you'd fit in perfectly over there.
Posted by: Brandon at May 29, 2007 4:38 PM

>Amen Brandon!
Posted by: CB at May 29, 2007 4:45 PM

For the first time the Olbsessed witness someone who may be more Olbsessed than they are.

So, Brandon, Factor, Cecelia, Grammie, Etc:

Judy's letter is what the whole convention of OW looks like to the rest of the world.

Not very pretty, is it?

For the first time the Olbsessed witness someone who may be more Olbsessed than they are.

So, Brandon, Factor, Cecelia, Grammie, Etc:

Judy's letter is what the whole convention of OW looks like to the rest of the world.

Not very pretty, is it?

Posted by: LMAO at May 29, 2007 7:48 PM

I thought you said that we are "pretty" indeed to you in the sense that though you aren't here because you care about Olbermann....and you aren't here because you don't like conservatives.... you ARE jhere to be laughing your rear off.... as in....who loves ya, looney OWers, don't ever change...

Hey, I'll put up for comparision our "obsession"
with a guy who is currently a cultural pop-star next to the crazy step-child of your inexplicable obsession with we OWers.

Welcome to obsession asylum, LMAO. Just because you've put on a stolen lab coat, doesn't cause anyone to mistake you for a nonresident...

Judy is wrong, Olbermann's issues aren't Daddy-related, it's all about his crazy Mother.

Memorial Day is "everyday" (except for Google)/ Cindefeat / Al Gore's 50/50 choice / Obama / Tuberculosis / Lohan alone / Miss Step ---

Issue #5 "It freezes the soul." Casualty statistics. General Pace soundbite that infuriates Keith Olbermann for an innocent typo. "You, sir, have no more credibility." He's no Paul Rieckhoff. Cindy "the defeat" Sheehan. Al Gore speaks out aboout Cindefeat. Internet is bringing back the writte word. (The Internet he invented...) Al Gore speaks in a syntax that makes Bush seem bad and Congress seem good. Votes "should be remedy." I have "remedy" right here:

Larry King asked Al Gore about his opinion on Conservative presidential candidates. Want to know how he described them? He lumped them all together! Rather than being gracefull about it, he chose to say something to the effect of 'since they all do not want to stand up to the War in Iraq, they are not viable candidates and will not win.' Excuse me, but (A) Why are you lumping all of the different R. candidates together? (B) Why not just give a basic description on the candidates? (C) I am sure there is an issue that the democrats are all wrong on in Al Gore's eyes. They did not get any venom for that. (D) What ever happened to give and take? Where some one is supposedly wrong you tell them that they are wrong, not shun them. I thought that Al Gore was benevolent. Apparently, he is just as immature as albeit. Nothing has really changed in these 7 years.
Ultimately, he had to answer questions about the Republican candidates. John Rudy Giuliani got the first question. Al Gore said that Rudy Giuliani needed to fortify his "base". A knee-jerk specist answer. Why isn't that Rudy Giuliani can not reach out to Independant Moderates, or Libretarians, or even Liberals? Why is it that every conservative has to get pigeonholed into having to please their base? Because the person is Conservative, he has to concentrate on his most radical cliche`. I do not think so. Rudy Giuliani is indeed able to appeal to the whole entire nation, and do not let bunkers like Al GOre ever tell you otherwise.
Similar answers for John McCain, but I think that Mitt Romney got the least stereotypically demonsterative answer since Gore actually thought about his answers, versus being a meany. Although he used Mitt Romney to philosophisize on religion, at least, @ the very least, he gave true answers, and not swipes at them. Democrat candidates got thoughtfull and amicable answers. The Republican candidates got nothing but scorn and hostiality despite being just as great as an American as any other. For this, I am glad that Al Gore is not contemplating the presidency.

Al Gore then goes to say something posetive about George W. Bush (to get himself out of a past-tense problem...) He also shifts the blame to Cheney to prevent the wrath of the Special Comment! Gore, Gore, Gore. I am so glad you are not running. Lots of buzzwords, lots of Buzzphrases. George Washington "laid down a prohibition against torture." Really? In Iraq?

Issue #4 Keith Olbermann keeps us in the lockbox. Keith Olbermann does ask a question that I want asked. 'Why not run for president and solve the world's problems?' Good job there, Keith Olbermann. I sincerely mean that.

Newsbreaker: "Toll elephant" with criminals a & b.

Issue #3 Zogby poll. Man against man. The man? Chris Cillizza. "Many of the [Republican] candidates [are] trying to be like Ronald Reagan." What about all of the contendors that are trying to be like J.F.K.? Like John Kerry? Or Jimmy Carter, like John Edwards? Or like F.D.R., like the rest of them? Chris Cilliza seems to choke, but not before he gets in a real good laugh riot. Terrorism and national security are "wedge issues" that "Republicans care about." Security is the most important issue, and it does not go down party lines (I predict a Newsbuster or Media Matters note on that one...)

Intro: Ohhhh! Keith Olbermann finaly learned Elizabeth Hasselbeck's name! She is not "the other lady" nor is she "some other". Was he using flashcards?

Issue #2 News that I am glad that Countdowen covered, even if it is canned. Fair is fair again. The biohazard went through many deifferent places, knowing he had XTD Tuberculosis. I do not know how some people live with themselves.

W.P.I.T.W. Paul Wolfowitz. I am sure he will be a favorite in future episodes of Countdown with Keith Olbermann. Female Buchanan. Sean Hannity. BONUS! A snip at Mitt Romney.

Issue #1 Olbermann talks about Lohan.

Ohboy, why are you here? You are a complete moron. Do us all a favor and go fuck yourself.