A perfect episode of Countdown logic, wherein one media member is discounted because he's a "neocon" (though his report is backed by a tape), while other members of the sacred brotherhood of journalism are defended against the barbarians at the gates-- the FBI and Bill O'Reilly...

It doesn't have to make sense... it's the World According To The People Who Matter (liberals who support Obama, currently...).

Didn't watch CD tonight (my beloved 2nd place RAYS trashing of the KO's Yankees being far more important), I will go from the summary...

So did one of lead hosts of MSDNC's political coverage actually say "Her win in West Virginia will be meaningless because Obama isn't campaigning there."?

From http://www.mcclatchydc.com/election2008/story/36725.html"Barack Obama, who labeled discussion of whether he wears a flag pin in his lapel a false issue in a debate with Hillary Clinton, was wearing one Monday as he campaigned in West Virginia ahead of Tuesday's primary vote there."

Um....Keith, maybe you should take a peak at the news before you comment on it.

Keith Obamamann

A 30yr video of O'Reilly....Wow!!!talk about digging at the bottom of the barrel for a cheap shot..like there isn't similar tapes to be found on almost any on-air personality including KO himself(he better hope there under lock in key in the MSNBC vaults)....I mean hasn't his own fellow "Newsman" Chrissy Mathews been caught on tape a few times(in just a few months)throwing little temper tandems and even saying that their reporting is sh*t?..be careful where you throw those stones KO. LOL!!!

(laughing): "Wow, he had hair?"
Real nice, Olbsessed one.
Re: Worst Person: Anything to make BOR look bad, eh, Keithy?
That was sarcasm in both cases.
By the way, did you notice he somehow refrained from saying "Orally"?

Krazy Keith is obsessed with a man
Rebecca Lobo wasn't his fan
Miss Lobo obtaining
An order restraining
The creep with the apricot tan

So, obama thinks there are 59 states and the king o' the hacks doesn't give it one second? Shocker!

Can we look for an 'obalogy' tomorrow night?

"I've been to 57 states and we have 2 more to go." I'm barrack h. obama and I approve this add.......Vote for me. hamas wants me to win, you should, too.

I have a vague memory that I can't pinpoint of one of the MSNBC hosts maybe using the "F" word or something almost as bad.

Tweety kind of comes to mind.

Please remember, or if necessary lie, to protect me from charges of encroaching senility. :)

> Keith, maybe you should take a peak at the news before you comment on it.

Well to be fair to Oralmann, that was kind of shorthand on my part for he isn't campaigning there much and is writing off the state. KO did mention his being there for a speech, but concentrated on how he won't be there for election night and is conceding the state to Hillary and that's why it won't matter.

At least O'Reilly was yelling at a man. Olbermann is the one who makes his female co-anchors cry when he is not stalking them or hiding under his desk. Olbermann is also the one who sends profanity laced e-mails to viewers.

Isn't it ironic that Uberdouche calls O'Reilly's producer a "stalker" when, in fact, it was Keith that was doing the stalking when threatened with a restraining order by Rebecca Lobo?

How many WPITW would O'Reilly have gotten if O'Reilly had run Hitler footage next to one of Olbermann's Spechul Komments?

My bad then J$. I did try to temper my comments at the beginning there, since I didn't watch. So just take that line and transfer it to some other story :)

My bad then J$. I did try to temper my comments at the beginning there, since I didn't watch. So just take that line and transfer it to some other story :)

I'll take the blame; my shorthand description was misleading. Either way, Oralmann is despicable, so it all works out. ;)

Regarding losing one's temper, using the F Word, and getting caught (poor ol' Billo).....

Just last night, a usually very professional news anchor here in NYC had a similar slip-up that did not get bleeped.....

http://tinyurl.com/5ad2se

Sue Simmons has been on the local NBC affiliate for decades....a very funny slip, especially because she is not usually controversial....

Unlike Billo, who's behavior does not surprise me....

She has apologized but the local radio hounds are having a field day....I heard about it on IMUS.

Keith went woth the Nuclear option on O'Reilly....
He and Danny Boy Abrams are all-in.

Just a friendly correction....

It's Sen. Joe Lieberman.....Not Lieberthal....

I believe KO is a true Israel hater.....and he had to cover for his hero since he is surrounded by people who would not shed a tear if Israel dissappeared tomorrow, Heaven Forbid.

FoxNews will make a projection:
O'Reilly gives Keith an erection
With Keith's man-on-man crush
The ethics he'll flush
Like NBC in the election

> Just a friendly correction....It's Sen. Joe Lieberman.....Not Lieberthal....

I know that, Dan. But does Keith?

Oh and Katy? One of your best!

Excellent use of "election" against "erection," Katy.

Did the all knowing one say that?.....I guess I missed that.
I know how he butchers names....

I guess I was too focused on his slanderous labeling....calling him
"Lie-berman."

Yes we have it on tape. I think you'll find the video listed under a tribute to Olbermann or something like that. Just like Richard McCain. Or that famous baseball great Mickey Mays.

Mickey Mays is my fav Yankee ....

I think he was Willie's distant cousin. ;)

Sorry, off topic, but funny.....

Sorry, off topic, but funny.....

http://www.ucbcomedy.com/videos/play/1506

Yesterday when I heard about this tape of BO the blogs made it sound like his rant was AT someone. After watching it, it was no big deal. BO got pissed, vented at no one, then went on. Olberman is showing his desperation by making such a big deal out of this.

This is from the Mini-Blog in the left hand rail Declaw Olbermann:

"MSNBC obsessive-compulsive neurotic Keith Olbermann had a rolling Bill O'Reilly orgasm last night right out of the chute. Olbermann was practically spurting on the air over the "Inside Edition" Bill O'Reilly outburst CBS forced YouTube to take down yesterday just hours after the ancient outtakes surfaced.

Olbermann clawed O'Reilly right after "Which of these stories will you be talking about tomorrow?" Keith's gleeful contorted face and glistening eyes were like that of a serial killer admitting a string of murders. "Yes, I saw it!!!" he gloated. By 8:18 p.m. the puerile, bizarre Olbermann had mentioned it three times."

How's the orange hack going to spin the hagee apology?

OS, I'm glad you mentioned it b/c I missed that story.

I'm leaning toward the muted mongrel approach.

That's some creepy imagery there from that site, Olbysucks. It makes me wonder when it happened that so many people abandoned all sense of propriety and boundaries...but I digress... but the writer does make a point about Olbermann that I think goes beyond O'Reilly.

It's interesting that Olbermann could claim to the Kos Kids that he had pulled punches for Hillary until her behavior was such that he could not pull them anymore. ( drama queen alert...) Has Olbermann ever shown the slightest inclination toward that rudimentary sort of humanity when it comes to people who don't share his views? And how rudimentary is it for someone who must face the pressure of a tv camera to say to friend or foe, who faces it too, "Oh, hell, that could be me there too with enough pressure". ESPECIALLY when Olbermann has admitted to seeing a shrink for personal issues that have at one time or another made for a "not enjoyable" work environment around him...

He's such a bully. He confuses his ear-to-the-liberal zeitgeist for being courage since that zeitgeist does go against industry concern about appealing to the masses occasionally, but that's not courage or humanity. He's a bully in the way that snobbery and elitism of any variety-- reactionary aristocracy or limo liberalism can make one a bully-- smug, heartless, and predatory.

"How's the Orange hack going to spin the Hagee apology?"

Why does it matter?

Would you be naive enough to believe Reverend Wright was sincere if he suddenly apologized for claiming aids was created by the US Government?

Then why in the world would you believe Hagee?

By MikeH on May 14, 2008 7:59 PM

"How's the Orange hack going to spin the Hagee apology?"

Why does it matter?

Would you be naive enough to believe Reverend Wright was sincere if he suddenly apologized for claiming aids was created by the US Government?

Then why in the world would you believe Hagee?"

If not "sincere" at least aware that he was beyond the pale enough within the scope of normality that he needed to a bit of a wake up call clarification.

However, with Wright we only had him becoming more defiant and his labeling his friend of 20 years as just acting like a politician.

What does he know about Obama, that Hagee doesn't know about McCain?

I'd like to know how MikeH is going to spin his claim that Olbermann was not supporting Hillary for months until he switched.

The same he spun Olbermann not covering Iran taking hostages until Olbermann alledged they were freed because the U.S.A. reversed policy and the same way he spins Olbermann's rhetorical questions:

Obtusely.

"I'd like to know how MikeH is going to spin his claim that Olbermann was not supporting Hillary for months until he switched."

No "spin" is necessary.

The very fact that you used the word "spin" before you even got an answer is proof positive that your mind isn't open anyway. For you, this is just another 'self perceived gotcha' moment....The trouble is, and as usual, you haven't 'gotcha' anything.

My "claim" was that I did not personally see any bias whatsoever in favor of Hillary Clinton over the other Democratic candidates, .... and as someone who NEVER favored Clinton myself, I think I would have noticed if such bias had really been there.

Therefore, I stand by my statements!

Well, good, Mike.

We'll let Olbermann know that you disagree with him about how he felt...

"We'll let Olbermann kno that you disagree with him about how he felt."

It doesn't make a hill of beans regarding his belated claim as to "how he felt", .... the point was that it did not come through in his broadcasts.

By MikeH on May 14, 2008 9:41 PM

"We'll let Olbermann kno that you disagree with him about how he felt."

It doesn't make a hill of beans regarding his belated claim as to "how he felt", .... the point was that it did not come through in his broadcasts."

See, people, it doesn't matter a hill of beans about Olbermann's expressed feelings because they didn't come through to MIKE.

What did I tell you:

By Cecelia on May 12, 2008 12:14 PM

As always Mike you've trotted out your own assumptions in lieu of "argument".

We know YOU assume that a last ditch effort against Obama is tantamount to hurting the country but why would Hillary? Why would Hillary supporters who think she's the greatest thing since sliced bread for the ole U.S. of A.?

Why would it be "selfish" for her to expose a "skeleton" in Obama's closet at the moment when it would be most effective, if said "skeleton" IS something that might keep a compromised and less talented candidate from gaining office?

No, you don't Ascribe ill-motives to Hillary, you just ascribe to her (and everyone else) your own sensibilities and then suggest that when people act counter to those sensibilities that they are obviously up to no good. A prime example of how you do that to the Olbermann critics is that you have REPEATEDLY labeled this site a "hate site", a HIGHLY pejorative and damaging term which generally connotes sites which foment racial or ethnic hatred and violence.

Thanks...

"As always Mike you've trotted out your own assumptions in lieu of "argument".

No, I stated the truth as I saw it at the time.

In other words, if he was REALLY favoring Hillary at the time, he certainly succeeded in hiding it very well from those of us who didn't.

Now let me explain the definition of an "argument" to you Cecelia, since your own defintion is clearly so tortured:

I made the personal opinion and observation that I disagreed with the assumption put forth repeatedly by Factor and others that he was a Hillary shill because I had a unique position on this blog of being very much for either Obama or Edwards, and very much against Hillary at that time.

THAT very point is what made my vantage point different than the Factors of the world....and thus, came my "argument" that someone such as I would have certainly noticed a projected bias against Obama and/or Edwards in favor of Hillary.

BTW, the rest of your post changed the subject, as well as the "argument" entirely.

So exactly what point (s) do you wish to argue?

My "claim" was that I did not personally see any bias whatsoever in favor of Hillary Clinton over the other Democratic candidates

by mikeh

Well, have a not pointed out several times in the past that you're not the most observant person and that you have selective hearing? Yes, I have and I stand by my observation.........

By MikeH on May 14, 2008 10:14 PM

"As always Mike you've trotted out your own assumptions in lieu of "argument".

No, I stated the truth as I saw it at the time.

In other words, if he was REALLY favoring Hillary at the time, he certainly succeeded in hiding it very well from those of us who didn't.

Now let me explain the definition of an "argument" to you Cecelia, since your own defintion is clearly so tortured:

I made the personal opinion and observation that I disagreed with the assumption put forth repeatedly by Factor and others that he was a Hillary shill because I had a unique position on this blog of being very much for either Obama or Edwards, and very much against Hillary at that time.

THAT very point is what made my vantage point different than the Factors of the world....and thus, came my "argument" that someone such as I would have certainly noticed a projected bias against Obama and/or Edwards in favor of Hillary.

BTW, the rest of your post changed the subject, as well as the "argument" entirely.

So exactly what point (s) do you wish to argue?"

It doesn't matter that you THINK you would have noticed if Keith was "for" Hillary because of your pro Obama (and now Edwards...) stance, Mike, the fact is, that by the man's own words, you didn't think correctly.... when others (who you rebutted) DID..

Now you may characterize what you had thought...and what you think NOW about what "you had thought"...as being some sort of logical "argument" in light of what the man (Olbermann) AFFIRMED... but you were wrong THEN and you are wrong STILL...

And not only that, you have illustrated precisely the thing I said about your reasoning abilities two days prior.

Thanks, AGAIN...

"Yes, I have and I stand by my observation......."

Yes, but who cares?

hy am I "wrong" Cecelia?

It just couldn't be that KO was effectively hiding his belatedly stated preference for Hillary over Obama, now could it? .... In other words....doing his JOB?

Heaven forbid....not THAT!

By MikeH on May 14, 2008 10:31 PM

"Yes, I have and I stand by my observation......."

Yes, but who cares?"

So now you're not only refuting Olbermann's expressly stated feelings, but your own words.

Indeed!

By MikeH on May 14, 2008 10:36 PM

hy am I "wrong" Cecelia?

It just couldn't be that KO was effectively hiding his belatedly stated preference for Hillary over Obama, now could it? .... In other words....doing his JOB?

Heaven forbid....not THAT!"

Just like he's hid his preference for Obama, no doubt...

Oh, sure, Pollyanna, if you didn't see it, it never existed...

Didn't Olbermann admit that he was pulling his punches on Hillary because he was favoring her at the time? I guess MikeH just isn't as observant as Olbermann Watch and its clear-headed readers are.

Cecelia: "Indeed!"

Now lets examine what you just did:

You quoted Mr. Sucks and then attributed his words to me.

Thats no way to punctuate your usual MO of belatedly locating a sentence you think fits your preconceived answer.

"Didn't Olbermann admit that he was pulling his punches on Hillary because he was favoring her at the time?"

I guess the real question would be; Did he simultaneously land roundhouse punches on Obama and Edwards while he was "pulling" his punches on Hillary?

By johnny dollarAuthor Profile Page on May 14, 2008 10:47 PM

Didn't Olbermann admit that he was pulling his punches on Hillary because he was favoring her at the time? I guess MikeH just isn't as observant as Olbermann Watch and its clear-headed readers are."

No duhhh....Johnny. But then Helen Keller, Stevie Wonder, and three blind mice, are more observant than Mike. And they wouldn't be moronic enough as to label an illogical defense based upon the premise that if they didn't "see" it---it didn't matter--as an "argument" or a "debate".

By MikeH on May 14, 2008 10:55 PM

"Didn't Olbermann admit that he was pulling his punches on Hillary because he was favoring her at the time?"

I guess the real question would be; Did he simultaneously land roundhouse punches on Obama and Edwards while he was "pulling" his punches on Hillary?"

No, the "real" question would NOT be that. It would suffice if Olbermann was pulling punches for Hillary (while Obama was a long shot) while going after McCain.

I do believe you are right, Johnny, KO did admit that in one of his diaries at KozKidz.

If I remember correctly he used the specific phrase, as you said, he was "pulling his punches" for Hillary earlier in the campaign.

In Mike's defense I must say that he is an equal opportunity throw anyone under the bus, even his hero KO, if it contradicts him.

No Cecelia, but then only a 'moron' would make the "illogical" argument that they somehow heard something that Stevie Wonder and the three blind mice did not.

The irony of your present argument Johhny is that you now conveniently believe something someone said whom you have repeatedly called a serial liar.

y MikeH on May 14, 2008 11:02 PM

No Cecelia, but then only a 'moron' would make the "illogical" argument that they somehow heard something that Stevie Wonder and the three blind mice did not."

Well, since the rest of us and Stevie Wonder, the three blind mice, and even Olbermann himself "heard" Olbermann loud and clear, I'm sure you're right...

There is the equal blowback that someone who you, Mike, has defended as the reincarnation of Edward R Murrow is suddenly not trustworthy and is in fact is a liar.

Cecelia: "No, the real question would NOT be that. It would suffice if Olbermann was pulling punches for Hillary (wjhile Obama was a long shot) while going after McCain."

NO....All that would prove is that he is indeed biased towards the Democratic party....which is something I have NEVER once disputed.

Grammie: "There is the equal blowback that someone who you, Mike, has defended as the reincarnation of Edward R Murrow is suddenly not trustworthy and is in fact is a liar."

Only in your very vivid imagination have I ever defended KO as "the reincarnation of Edward R Murrow".

By MikeH on May 14, 2008 11:06 PM

The irony of your present argument Johhny is that you now conveniently believe something someone said whom you have repeatedly called a serial liar."

We have stated Olbermann is a partisan and champions Dems on his show, so it is now contradictory in the least to believe that Olbermann, HIMSELF, is telling the truth when he affirms that he champions one Democrat or another on his show.

We've stated THAT all along and have not only been proved right about it by Olbermann's own admission, but have also been proved correct about which Dem Olbermann has championed at a PARTICULAR time, and that BY HIS OWN ADMISSION.

Cecelia, I'm getting a laugh at how you keep changing the argument and moving the goalpost....how Hillary like of you!

My argument was never that Olbermann is not a Dem partisan. I've accepted and agreed with that premise all along. Now lets again review what my ACTUAL argument was all along.

My ARGUMENT was that Keith did not show bias towards Hillary AGAINST THE OTHER DEMOCRATS. Thats ALL I ever argued......Get it now?

You just morphed the original argument into something it never was in order to try to "win" an argument you've already lost....once again....how Hillary like of you!

By MikeH on May 14, 2008 11:14 PM

Cecelia: "No, the real question would NOT be that. It would suffice if Olbermann was pulling punches for Hillary (wjhile Obama was a long shot) while going after McCain."

NO....All that would prove is that he is indeed biased towards the Democratic party....which is something I have NEVER once disputed."

Actually, no. What would "prove" Olbermann's feelings, is his affirming what others believed all along. That's happened. Olbermann confirmed that he was pro-Hillary originally...

What would prove that you aren't a moron for not seeing what others saw (when they could have as easily argued that he was for Obama, or Edwards, or Biden, or Richardson... ie.. "The DEMOCRATIC PARTY) is... well, nothing... but ostensively it would be that he was landing punches on Obama and Edwards.

In reality Hillary was the frontrunner that the media focused almost wholly upon and he was pulling all kinds of punches on her... and that said at the time (to anyone who cared to listen) what Olbermann explicity stated later.

I am so sorry, Mike. I used the Edward R Murrow reference b/c it epitomizes not only KO but many of his followers opinion of him, including you.

Put that aside and answer the thrust of my comment. So exactly what did you mean all these months that you have manned the breech and defended KO against any and all who criticized him.

I am certain that you have more than once insisted that KO not only spoke the truth and has always spoken the truth. Instead of nit picking re Edward R Murrow why don't you comment on why the "great truth teller" is suddenly a liar.

By MikeH on May 14, 2008 11:33 PM

Cecelia, I'm getting a laugh at how you keep changing the argument and moving the goalpost....how Hillary like of you!

My argument was never that Olbermann is not a Dem partisan. I've accepted and agreed with that premise all along. Now lets again review what my ACTUAL argument was all along.

My ARGUMENT was that Keith did not show bias towards Hillary AGAINST THE OTHER DEMOCRATS. Thats ALL I ever argued......Get it now?

You just morphed the original argument into something it never was in order to try to "win" an argument you've already lost....once again....how Hillary like of you!"

Well, since she was running against all of them... pulling any punches FOR her (which he admits he did), was essentially being a flak FOR her against the criticisms of Edwards, Biden, Richardson, Obama. Notice none of us accused Olbermann of being partisan for any of THEM.... They are Dems too, are they NOT?

On the other hand, though you say you have never contested the fact that Olbermann is for the Dem Party, you just haven't been able to perceive that he is for a particular Dem candidate.... Not even when he says he was...

How "Mike" like of you...

SHOCKER!...

Grammie: "I am certian that you have more than once insisted that KO not only spoke the truth and has always spoken the truth."

And you would be wrong again!

I have OCCASIONALLY defending Olbermann on this blog about specific situations but have mostly used it in order to argue my own convictions. ..... However, I have NEVER claimed he "has always spoken the truth".

The fallacy of your latest argument shines through like a beacon Cecelia.

In agreeing that KO was not landing punches on the other democrats while he was "pulling" his punches on Hillary, the frontrunner, you have essentially conceded my point, as well as my original argument.

To then argue that failing to roundhouse Clinton as well was somehow a dis-service to the others is illogical. What you are really arguing is that his failure to try to tear her down at that point in time was somehow bias against Obama.....but I don't think even Obama would agree with you on that point.

And now that we've arrived at the same point that we've never really disagreed about anyway/....so what in the hell were we arguing about?

By MikeH on May 14, 2008 11:43 PM

I have OCCASIONALLY defending Olbermann on this blog about specific situations but have mostly used it in order to argue my own convictions. ..... However, I have NEVER claimed he "has always spoken the truth".

No doubt! You've already argued that it doesn't matter what Olbermann says, even if he confirms that he said what we said he said, himself. What is "true" is contingent solely upon your own perception of it.

Cecelia: "You've already argued that it doesn't matter what Olbermann says, even if he confirms that he said what we said he said."

But you haven't "confirmed" that he was running down the other Dems while praising Hillary, which was the only argument I have EVER made. On the contrary, you've "confirmed" my own argument.

Thanka again and G'nite!

There is no way, Mike, that anyone could or would want to go back to illustrate your down in the trenches defense of KO over time.

So let us ignore everything that came before! Let us concentrate strictly on KO and leave you by the wayside for a moment.

Was KO lying when he wrote in a diary on Kos that he did indeed "pull his punches" early on for Hillary?

If he was being truthful what does that say about KO? Assuming he was being truthful what does it say about your perception of KO?

Grammie: "as KO lying when he wrote in a diary on Kos that he did indeed "pull his punches" early on Hillary?"

I don't know Grammie, but that isn't the argument. Go back and review please.

For your benefit, I was called out tonight for claiming that Olbermann was not biased in favor of Hillary AGAINST THE OTHER DEMOCRATS early on, while. I claimed he as not at the time as Johnny correctly noted.

Cecelia's OWN arguments have confirmed mine. What it boils down to is what e already knew and I never disputed...that he is a partisan Dem. However, he never ran down Hillary's opponents while praising Hillary, which as the ONLY point I have EVER made on the subject.

Get it yet?

G'nite!

By MikeH on May 15, 2008 12:04 AM

Cecelia: "You've already argued that it doesn't matter what Olbermann says, even if he confirms that he said what we said he said."

But you haven't "confirmed" that he was running down the other Dems while praising Hillary, which was the only argument I have EVER made. On the contrary, you've "confirmed" my own argument.

Thanka again and G'nite!"

Oh, come now... You want to show me how even you bothered to put forth at the time the lame argument that Olbermann isn't partisan for Hillary "personally", he'd back anyone who was the DNC front runner? When did you argue that bit of idiocy, even then?

While you're at it, explain to me the difference between being partisan for Hillary (which is what we claimed at the time) while she was the frontrunner is some sort of mediating circumstance simply because Olbermann was willing to jump ship and go for Obama when he came into vogue....when you expressly claimed at the time that his backing Obama was proof he never backed Hillary in the first place?

"when you expressly claimed at the time that his backing Obama was proof he never backed Hillary in the first place."

I don't think I ever "espressly claimed" that particular argument but is it REALLY so hard for you to understand that once it occurred to KO that someone more in line with his own philosophy than Clinton actually had a fighting chance a chance after all, that he might have been tempted to jump on that bandwagon?

It works kind of like this:

- Bush vs McCain: Lesser of two evils = McCain.

- Clinton vs McCain: Better of the two = Clinton.

- Clinton vs Obama: Better of the two = Obama.

It's really not that complicated.

G'nite....really....REALLY this time!

My ARGUMENT was that Keith did not show bias towards Hillary [AGAINST THE OTHER DEMOCRATS.]

posted by mikeh

Here is the "spin" that Cecelia was anticipating. Actually, we all were.

don't think I ever "espressly claimed" that particular argument but is it REALLY so hard for you to understand that once it occurred to KO that someone more in line with his own philosophy than Clinton actually had a fighting chance a chance after all, that he might have been tempted to jump on that bandwagon?"

No, it's not hard for me to believe at all. That is PRECISELY What we claimed and you precisely claimed that our changing our tune and saying he now backed Obama proved that you were correct and that he had never been for Hillary in the first place.

Now you're changing your argument and saying it is not a matter of Olbermann merely backing the DNC and whoever is the frontrunner there, but that Olbermann changed because someone "more in line with his thinking" had a fighting chance.

Well, duh...whether he backed Hillary because she was the DNC frontrunner or he backs Obama because he is "more in line with his thinking" that is what we said all along and you contested it!

For whatever Olbermann's reasons, Einstein... you've finally confirmed what we said all along -- that Olbermann was first for Hillary and then for Obama and it only took you five hours of utter dissembling...

What else is new...

"By MikeH on May 15, 2008 12:13 AM
Grammie: "as KO lying when he wrote in a diary on Kos that he did indeed "pull his punches" early on Hillary?"

Mike, I don't care who advanced what argument earlier you still refuse to address the point that I raised. To reiterate:

Was KO lying when he wrote in a diary on Kos that he did indeed "pull his punches" early on for Hillary?

If he was being truthful what does that say about KO? Assuming he was being truthful what does it say about your perception of KO?

You quoted Mr. Sucks and then attributed his words to me.

posted by mikeh who has left the building

Wrong, mikeh. I used your own words against you then Cecelia quoted me using YOUR words. One step behind, as usual.......

- Bush vs McCain: Lesser of two evils = McCain.

- Clinton vs McCain: Better of the two = Clinton.

- Clinton vs Obama: Better of the two = Obama.

>>>

Banged out by a true partisan hack!

I'll bet mikeh is wishin' philby, patsy or why was here right now!

Grammie, I've already told you that I don't know, nor do I really care if Olbermann was lying about his earlier having "pulled punches" in favor of Hillary. That said, I suspect that he isn't. He has always "pulled punches" in favor of the democrats, just as the entire Fox "News" network routinely "pulls punches" in favor of the republicans.

And no, it doesn't alter my already nuanced perception of the man one iota.

Now, I really think I've addressed all your questions.

Cecelia, I've just now revieed your rather tortured 12:43 AM response accusing me as usual, of using tortured logic and changing arguments....when YOU are the ONLY one between the two of us who is doing that. You seem completely unwilling or unable to follow a single line of logic.

To go back to the begiining, J$ correctly noted my repeatedly stating that KO was NOT acting as a shill in favor of Hillary in the early days at the expense of the other democrats who were running, who were ALL considered long shots at that time.

My point has been proven and validated. You have been completely unable to show how he showed any bias against Obama and the others in favor of Hillary on his show. So you then decided to morph the argument to include the OBVIOUS fact that he was a shill for ANY democrat against almost ANY republican, which is something I have never disputed or posted anything to the contrary.

The fact remains that "pulling punches" in favor of what was considered an "inevitable" front runner at the time is NOT bias against challengers who ALSO benefited from having his "punches pulled" against them as well.

Therefore, the only thing you were left with was the obvious observation that he covered Hillary more than the others, as ANY pundit ot journalist would do with an seemingly "inevitable" front runner.

As for "confirming" an entirely SEPARATE argument; that KO was "first for Hillary, then for Obama", ..... but no such "argument" ever existed from me. He was (not surprisingly) first backing the seemingly "inevitable" front runner (against the republicans)