test

test 2

Olbermann Watch rules!

This a test.

this is a test

another test

yet another test

testing

testr

test test

test

Sharon,

I had gotten fond of twsting...

Bob! Johnny! Edward! Brandon! Janet! Sharon! Alex!

I'm so glad to see you!

Oh, hi, Doug... :D

WoW- I'm finally "official"... good to see everyone!

This is another test of Grammie's login.

Test, and welcome home to everyone.

Wow, poor Sharon was just left twisting out there all these weeks.....months?

I hope everyone is well.

There been a lot of the usual (stupidity) from Olbermann lately....but it's good to see his ratings are still floundering and he may just succumb to the schziphrenia that is the democrat struggle to choose a nominee.

Cee, it's good to see you!

Olbermann already has all the DSM personality disorders. A bit of schizophrenia might actually improve him.

I'm in, hey welcome back everybody! I missed all you guys.

Back atya, Yodell!

I have to give kudos to Robert for meaning what he said about commenters not being limited to those opposed to Keith Olbermann. Hello to everyone regardless of your political or media viewpoint!

"but it's good to see his ratings are still floundering and he may just succomb to the schizophrenia that is the democrat struggle to choose a nominee."

Well, obviously you and I must be looking at two different sets of numbers.

Aww, Mike (is this the same Mike, Obama'08?), you couldn't give me one day without conflict....

Last Friday, GRACE beat him in the key demo....Nancy Grace on HEADLINE NEWS for goodness sake!

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/ratings/the_scoreboard_friday_apr_25_83524.asp#more

I think I feel a SPECIAL COMMENT coming soon....probably something like.....

"Hillary must drop out NOW! My chance to be SNOBamessiah's Press Secretary is slipping away, DAMMIT!"

Cee: "you couldn't give me one day without conflict...."

More evidence that you seem to think everything is about you.

As for Mediabistro, you don't have to point me to those numbers. I've been watching them myself at that very website and KO's numbers are way up from what they were just a year ago and now or exceed rival CNN's strongest shows almost every night.

Bob's such a softy.

I was hoping he'd leave you twsting for a bit, Mike... :D

Once again, the cliche sticks....the more things change....

Mike is as humorless as ever....

I guess I'll oblige him and start acting the conservative foil.....

Consistency is the magic COUNTDOWN with Keith Olbermann just can;t seem to obtain. Like most of MSNBC, FOX NEWS programming continues to garner strong ratings. Garnering second from a competitor going through problems like CNN is not an accomplishment.

Also, who hosted the lowest rated debate this year, Mike?

How's SNOBamessiah doing today, by the way?....Did he miss yesterday's sermon or has he condemned the good Rev. Wright or is he still understanding his position or is he raising his hands with an "Alleluia, Brother!" to the idea that blacks are just so different than whites (his terminology, not mine) in so many ways....learning, worshiping, dancing, preaching, talking, thinking, forgiving, etc....wow....what a postracial candidate SNOBamessiah turned out to be!

Good to see Olbermannwatch is back online. Where to start? We have Olbergoebbels calling for the beating of the undead monster Franken Hillary and the hanging of Patriot Rush Limbaugh. Olbermann's favorite middle linebacker Rachel Maddow has been caught in an Olbermann style lie and Olbermann's enemies list is now longer than Maddow's arm pit hair. The worst part of the past several weeks for Olbermann is that the face of the Democrat party has become the Rock 'n Roll racist Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

Cee: "Mike is as humorless as ever...."

Humor begats humor Cee. Having never detected anything resembling such from yourself, I have simply responded in kind.

Cee: "Also, who hosted the lowest rated debate this year, Mike?"

Thanks for enlightening us as to how you evaluate day to day ratings....by picking the lowest common denominator and throwing out the rest.

When a person is humorless, they tend not to be jovial in attitude....something I try to emulate in my posts....You may not like my jokes, or find them funny, but that does not make me humorless.

It was nice to have the first attack from the left on the "new" OLBERMANN WATCH be against something I posted....from one of the usual leftist demogogues...

And over ratings.....

Cee: "You may not like my jokes, or find them funny, but that does not make me humorless."

To begin with, I think that YOU are the one that first leveled the "humorless" charge.

Cee: "It was nice to have the first attack from the left on the "new" OLBERMANN ATCH to be against something I posted.

It wasn't an "attack" at all. You posted something I found to be totally untrue and I challenged you on it. Does that make me "humorless"?

Cee: "from one of the usual leftist demogogues"

Was calling me a "demogogue" an example of what you call "humor"?


I'm sorry Cee that the "new" OW hasn't turned out to be the echo chamber you must have been hoping it would be so far.

I for one Mike am glad you are here.I agree I don't want OW to be an echo chamber either.If I wanted an echo chamber I would go and read The Daily Kos,Huffington Post,or Media Matters.I say read because they won't let me post at those sites.

It is interesting how the simpleton Olbermann was so focused on his favorite strawman Bill O'Reilly that he missed the wonderful hard work of Sean Hannity did to sink the Obamanation with Obamanation's rock 'n roll racist pastor. Not until Sean Hannity had used the political hack and Hillary Clinton puppet George Snuffleupagus to finally ask the Obamanation a real question did Olbermann relize that Hannity had the real goods on Obamanation.

"THIS year, we may have a better choice....unless the forces of darkness succeed in pounding the best ray of hope we have had in a long time into the ground."

Mike H, I think that you just proved all by your lonesome the theme of Bob's comment about emotionalism driving Obama supporters on the Test thread.

Your word choice would be right at home in an old B movie or a Harlequin Romance.

Janet, we all tend to see 'proof' of our convictions herever we look....whether it is really there or not.

I can easily turn your "emotionalism" argument on it's head by pointing out that is EXACTLY what has been driving American politics for the last 7 years.....most notably with Republican fearmongering and irrational fear of terrorism based on the last major event, not the most likely future one.

"By MikeH on April 29, 2008 10:37 AM
Janet, we all tend to see 'proof' of our convictions herever we look....whether it is really there or not.

I can easily turn your "emotionalism" argument on it's head by pointing out that is EXACTLY what has been driving American politics for the last 7 years.....most notably with Republican fearmongering and irrational fear of terrorism based on the last major event, not the most likely future one."

I repeated back to you your very own words. I used your rhetoric to made the logical leap that this sort of emotional rhetoric "FORCES OF DARKNESS......"POUNDING THE BEST RAY OF HOPE...IN A LONG TIME INTO THE GROUND" [Caps Mine] is illustrative of support that is rooted more in emotionalism than it is in political philosophy, achievements and proposals.

So, b/c I have been accussed here by many and by public figures of being an urine soaked fear monger you should be able to easily find in my long history at OW some rhetoric by me, not some accusation, that proves your point.

Remember, a crowd all screaming the same accusation is not proof! :)

By MikeH on April 28, 2008 6:55 PM
"but it's good to see his ratings are still floundering and he may just succomb to the schizophrenia that is the democrat struggle to choose a nominee."

Well, obviously you and I must be looking at two different sets of numbers.

>>>>

This daily dose from the EXACT same person who has made countless claims that "ratings don't matter!"

That would be an EXACT quote, too.

Janet: "so, b/c I have been accussed here by many and by public figures of being a urine soaked fear monger you should be able to easily find in my long history at OW some rhetoric by me, not some accusation, that proves your point."

First off, I'm not sure what "point" about you that you are asking me to 'prove'. I certainly haven't accused you of being a "urine soaked fear monger", so why don't we just keep it between us?

It's not about either you or me - it's about our leaders, and how they are exercising that sacred responsibility.

It should be fair enough for you to understand that people like me consider America's response to terrorism to be an example of political "emotionalism" just as you cite my rhetoric above is an example of the same.

What needs to be 'proven'?

Evidently, the foreign "forces of darkness" that have stuck here and around the world don't hold a candle to Mike's clear-eyed rational analysis of the level of threat that the homegrown forces of darkness here have posed-- Hillary and McCain supporters who want to knock out Obama...don't ya know...

Though it's unlikely we'll ever hear Obama take the tact that Bush Admin. rhetoric against terrorism and even the incursion into Iraq is comparable to the sort of emotionalism which labels campaign partisans "forces of darkness", he has plenty of followers to do it for them. Please let it be known that they certainly don't rise to the slightest level of being "forces of darkness". They remain forces of nonsense only.

"forces of darkness" = Bush, Cheney, crystal, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and other unamed neocons who successfully pushed for the invasion of Iraq.

To infer that such a label would include ordinary Americans who simply supported or went along is disingenuous....except to say that we were all being led by said 'forces of darkness'.

What baffles me about you and those that think like you is how or why you would continue to defend the above name group for doing what they did to America ith that will fated decision.

From my perspective, it seems that Americans demand accountability for the decisions that each of us make, as well as for the ultimate results of those decisions.....EXCEPT.....when it comes to our highest officials.

By MikeH on April 29, 2008 2:23 PM
"forces of darkness" = Bush, Cheney, crystal, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and other unamed neocons who successfully pushed for the invasion of Iraq.

>>>

Why no list of the (d)'s that voted for the war, too? Got your partisan goggles on good and tight, today? Shocker!

"Why no list of the (d)'s that voted for the ar, too? Got your partisan goggles on good and tight today? Shocker!"

Partisanship has NOTHING to do with it. Try re-reading my post above.

- Why do you think both myself and Olbermann are against Hillary in favor of Obama?

- How do you equate the contribution of those who pushed for the war with those who merely went along with it, .... often with a heavy heart?

- Why do you think Joe Liebermann is being pretty much shunned by the democrats...most of whom have at least woken up since 2003?

- And since you just can't seem to get yourself off this 'partisan' kick, why do you think that a far higher percentage of republicans than democrats were guilty of voting for the war?

How are those forces of darkness trying to stop SNOBamessiah?....It seems that average Americans like myself have issues with the man's radical ideology and religious beliefs. Bush, Cheney and the gang are simply continuing to govern without any real stake in the upcoming election and are only acting like the good Republicans they are in giving support to Senator McCain.

Oh and Mike....the latest from the campaign trail is a TOTAL repudiation of Wright without any qualifiers....

OUT GOES "THE SPEECH"

Wow, in only one month's time, the high-road candidate FINALLY stopped acting like somekind of national savior of all of us racists, xenophobes and nonspecific bigots and decided to be the regular pol most of knew he was in the first place......

Well, I am waiting with hushed breath for Olbermann's spin on this one....I am sure it will be "putting Wright behind him....."

Well, Mike, since you said "forces of evil" in the context of arguing that Obama is the better candidate than Clinton and McCain. That he is the best hope for the nation of all the candidates....and since Bush and Cheney aren't running against Obama.... I naturally assumed you meant the people who ARE running against him...

My mistake...

"And since you just can't seem to get yourself off this 'partisan' kick, why do you think that a far higher percentage of republicans than democrats were guilty of voting for the war?"

That's an easy one....Because The Democrats are beholden to the radical anti-American left in this country....the same group SNOBamessiah was speaking to when he stated he was against the war.

The constituency of the radical left was the very small minority who was against militarily removing Saddam Hussein as leader of Iraq for violating UN resolutions only because they are so anti-American....believing such action was American imperialism....etc....And SNOBamessiah was one of these in the big minority....

Now that the islamic terrorists have made Iraq the center of the war on terror and it has become a big challenge, the next POTUS has to decide whether they are going to retreat or face the responsibility of a free and democratic Iraq.....SNOBamessiah has given much for the radical left to like but now that the polls show Americans do not want to "lose," he has tempered his "pull-out" demogoguery.

So Mike, the radical anti-American left's motivation to oppose the war was because AMERICAN IS BAD.....I am glad I was never associated with such a world-view and SNOBamessiah's attachment to that radical element is simply another reason why I would never vote for the man.

"Why do you think both myself and Olbermann are against Hillary in favor of Obama?"

- "How do you equate the contribution of those who pushed for the war with those who merely went along with it, .... often with a heavy heart?"

Why do you think Joe Liebermann is being pretty much shunned by the democrats...most of whom have at least woken up since 2003?

>>>

1. Simple, obama won Iowa.

2. The ones that 'went along with it' are nothing more than cowards and spineless.

3. Again, cowards.

Cee: "The constituency of the radical left was the very small minority who was against militarily removing Saddam Hussein for violating UN resolutions"

- The percentage of this so called "radical left" "small minority" was about 30% of the country. Thats a pretty large "small minority".

- Our rational for the invasion was NOT 'violating UN resolutions', it was WMD and "mushroom clouds". Why do people like you have to keep being reminded of this FACT?

- Obviously, the 30% against the invasion were smarter or better informed than the 70% that were for it....at least in that instance.

Cee: "because they are so anti-American"

No......because they were so pro-American!

"Obviously, the 30% against the invasion were smarter or better informed than the 70% that were for it....at least in that instance."

An assumption. The motivation for opposing the war at the time in 2002/2003 was not that "Bush is lying." That came after Mike...it was simply the view that Saddam Hussein was not cooperating with UN weapons inspectors and the majority of opinion was that he was pursuing WMD. The anti-American left made their stand and it was not an informed stand knowing there were NO WMD's in Iraq...it was an ideological stand.

Fine, viva la difference, but you are wrong to suggest that the anti-war radicals in 2002 were any better informed that Secretary of State Powell or British Prime Minister Blair!.....You are really stretching it!

Sorry....SNOBamessiah was a radical leftist then and he is a radical leftist now and is the only reason he stood with the 25-30% in 2002....was he getting intelligence reports in Chicago that told him Powell was lying?....

No....he was pleasing his constiuents....he was following his world-view...a world view that says, "NO NO NO....GOD D**N AMERICA!" and believes 9/11 was our fault and oh yeah...AIDS is germ warfare!

Even HRC supporter JOE WILSON has complained about SNOBamessiah's misuse of his anti-war stand on Iraq....Now is JOE WILSON not a welcomed opinion for the radical left?....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-wilson/obamas-hollow-judgment_b_89441.html

"Barack Obama argues that he deserves the Democratic nomination and Hillary Clinton doesn't because he possesses superior "judgment," as he calls it, on the key issues we face as a nation. As definitive proof he offers one speech he made in 2002 during a reelection campaign for an Illinois senate seat in the most liberal district in the state, so liberal that no other position would have been viable. When he made that speech, Obama was not privy to the briefings by, among others, Secretary of State Colin Powell, in support of the Authorization of Use of Military Force as a diplomatic tool to push the international community to impose intrusive inspections on Saddam Hussein.

"Would Obama have acted differently had he been in Washington or had he had the benefit of the arguments and the intelligence that the administration was offering to the Congress debating that resolution? During the 2002-2003 timeframe, he was a minor local official uninvolved in the national debate on the war so we can only judge from his own statements prior to the 2008 campaign."

###
So knock it off Mike....SNOBamessiah made a POLITICAL judgement on the Iraq invasion....not an informed one based on the evidence at hand....Not a great example of the man's judgement.....

Now picking his pastor....that shows REALLY good judgement!

"By going on Fox News, Obama made the right-wing press legitimate," wrote Daily Kos diarist "Bonddad" Sunday morning. "Simply put, I cannot vote or support anyone who participates in this medium."