Keith can't even stop from lying on Martha Stewart. Keith is now trying to convince the mindless beasts who watch his show that Walter Matthau was a fan of Meltdown from beyond the grave. It is rather morbid that Keith feels the need to accuse the deceased of being one of his troglodyte fans. Why does he feel the need smear the dead?

When I brought up at J$P that it was Another Olbermann Lie, "Dem From Illinois" (our old hellraiser Patrick) chose to attack me and BOR. He's gotten smart. He dropped the derogatory nicknames and orders for me to grow up, shut up, and let the adults talk...or whatever it was he used to do.

And by doing that, his comments have been passed moderation and been posted. There's also a guy named "AlabamaDem" raising hell at J$P. So much for peace time in the comment threads.

Patrick update: in his latest comment, he attacked BOR, Sean Hannity, Sarah Palin, and graphically attacked "Bold, Fresh," referring to it as something else; something that would make Monkeymann proud.

I tuned in for Keith making fun of Palin doing the interview in front of turkeys being killed. I thought the camera angle was kinda funny but that's about it. I don't understand the uproar over the turkeys being killed...where do people think the turkey on their table comes from?

I didn't watch Olby with Martha. I can't believe anyone actually believes that recipe was his. The tiny capture I saw prompted me to wonder if he washed his hands before touching any food. Who knows where those hands have been? I tuned in for the first few seconds of ... the show...and when I saw he was STILL obsessing over Gov. Palin, I bailed. I surfed by later to see that little Brit weasel and I was out-of-there

The man at J$P that I thought was Patrick *isn't* Patrick. I apologized to him.
Meanwhile here, I'm not expecting any big recaps. If I make it through tonight, I'll have been Olby free for 14 days.

Olby decided to rehash the Palin turkey incident even though Shuster covered it on Friday?

What a douche

"I don't understand the uproar over the turkeys being killed..."

Duh!.....The "uproar" was about the continuing saga of the dimwit your party actually tried to place one 72 year old heartbeat away from the presidency of the United States.

We can finally laugh about it now!

Just watched the Olby reaction to the Palin tape.

Is Olby really that much of a pussy? The way he's squeemishly balks at the footage is laughable. This is quite a pathetic performance on his part.

"What has to happen behind her for her to notice?"

Um. She'd probably have to turn around, since I doubt she has eyes in the back of her head.
And then she'd probably see turkeys being slaughtered at a slaughterhouse, which exists for the sole purpose of killing turkeys that have been raised specifically to be used as food. And seeing as how she's from Alaska, a state known for its hunting culture, I seriously doubt it's nothing she'd ever seen before, and nothing she'd have a problem with.

Nor should any rational person have a problem with it.

Duh, Keith.

"Mass turkey murdering machine"?

Douchebag

#2 Olbermann purposely conflates the term "certified" with the term "issue a certificate of election."

Hey dumbass ... O'Reilly never said Coleman was elected. The election board has to certify the result before it can start the recount. They want to jump on O'Reilly just because he used the word "victory" to describe what happens when one person finishes with more votes than another.

Another great moment in O'bermann Douchebaggery

You mean they was going to kill those turkey's?

OMG OMG what a nothing story. If anything it was funny as hell. I'm pretty sure if Palin was at an abortion clinic and abortions were being performed behind her it would've been alright.

Because killing animals is some crazy conservative thing, but killing babies is acceptable to all educated liberials.

Yeah, more quality TV....Olbermann smirks in a superimposed oval as Governor Palin expresses her thanks for her son and his collegues being safe in Iraq defending freedom, for her disabled infant son continuing to show good health (Down Syndrome children are at high risk of many complications), and basically expresses more of what normal Americans feel thankful for during this holiday.....

Bigoted leftists like Olbermann simply cannot sincerely express such normal emotions.

What humor!...and the 1970's sitcom parallel was a real winner.

Only slobbering hateful church of SNOBamessiah zealots like Olbermann and MikeH feel the clip is funny and/or concerning.....Another example of the low level of intellect the nutroots, and their mouthpieces like Olbermann, has sunk to.

Olbermann's concern about what he cried over as the "mass murdering" is indicative of the silliness MikeH and his fellow braindead lumps have bought into.....What quality TV journalism! What quality TV humor!

http://tinyurl.com/5peggf

Allahpundit at HOTAIR is 100% right about the level of skill Olbermann and his fellow cranks are able to display....

"The purest 'Countdown' segment you’ll ever see: Not only is his reaction a foregone conclusion before the tape begins, but the commentary itself is largely dispensed with in favor of a sustained, closed-captioned sneer. Why they don’t use this gimmick for all footage of Republicans, with Olby’s theatrical mugging acting as a form of sign language to the nutroots faithful about precisely how disgusted they should be, I don’t know.

"No special comment, at least. In the spirit of the season, for this we give thanks."

###
And I do give thanks that the level of leftist discourse continues to meet my low expectations.....The ability to dispense with the poor quality of content continues to give me more free time. Too bad MSNBC cannot get back those wasted 7 minutes Olbermann used to feed his (and losers like MikeH), insatiable hunger for poor quality (and in poor taste) buffoonish political humor. To sum it all up, as our glorious messiah, whose extreme worldview causes such scorn/careless crassness, tells us to cry.....

VERO POSSUMUS!

Krazy Keith is yesterday's news
No McCain or Sarah to ruse
Wait, hold that thought...
Another Palin onslaught!
Didn't the Republicans lose?

A "muted mongrel" for the church of SNOBamessiah revival hour, COUNTDOWN, I am sure.....

"Report: Obama Didn't Have as Many Small Donors as Was Hyped

"'It turns out that Barack Obama's donors may not have been quite as different as we had thought,' says the Institute's study. 'Throughout the election season, this organization and others have been reporting that Obama received about half of his discrete contributions in amounts of $200 or less. The Campaign Finance Institute (CFI) noted in past releases that donations are not the same as donors, since many people give more than once. After a more thorough analysis of data from the Federal Election Commission (FEC), it has become clear that repeaters and large donors were even more important for Obama than we or other analysts had fully appreciated.

"'The myth is that money from small donors dominated Barack Obama's finances,' said CFI's executive director Michael J. Malbin. 'The reality of Obama's fundraising was impressive, but the reality does not match the myth.'

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/11/report-obama-di.html

###
So, Obama's breaking of his promise to consider a public financing arrangement with his republican opponent has no rationale now....it was just another pol breaking a promise....

Ah, hope & change seems to be in short supply....definitely no change in his bureaucracy choices so far.....status quo left of center democrats who even participated/benefited from the 1990's deregulation that supposedly caused our current challenges....and I hear much more "worry and fear" rhetoric from the church of SNOBamessiah pulpit, to be prepared for more pain and suffering in 2009. When do I hear "hope!"

Oh, that's right, I am going to get another stimulus check in 2009, paid for with government deficit spending.....more change!

VERO POSSUMUS!

Another O'Reilly Attack? Another reason for me to continue my Olby abstinence. What names did Keith "Man on Fan" Olbermann use for our humble correspondent last night?

Obama may have broken his public financing pledge, but that didn't stop Olby from rationalizing it away in his attack on Time Magazine's Mark Halperin, saying Obama in 2007 negotiating over the potential use of public financing never really constituted a promise. Olby pretty much used this 30-second diatribe to dismiss any claims of media bias. I don't think he's ever bothered to mention the Pew study:

http://www.journalism.org/node/13436

He must be thinking that anyone not overtly for Obama must be for McCain. It's not like they can try to be objective, or be neutral. I guess any attempt at objectivity that doesn't explicitly help Obama must be a negative attack and proof you're in league with the other guy.

Thus, Olbermann is employing the very "if you're not with us, you're against us" mentality he derides in President Bush.

or here's another study that shows how obsessed MSNBC and CNN are with Obama. MSNBC is all but ignoring news about the financial crisis, and CNN isn't interested in covering the unresolved senate races:

http://journalism.org/node/13733

As for the O'Reilly slam, Olby just used the old Billo the Clown moniker. The segment was more a raging endorsement of Media Matters, as Olbermann read what O'Reilly said, and then purposely confused the words "certified" and "elected," as I indicated before.

Nothing new for Olbermann. It's false outrage over the word "victory" to describe a situation in which one candidate has more votes than the other. Because it's similar verbiage to the Coleman campaign, it's proof to them that O'Reilly is in league with the Republicans.

Never mind that Media Matters and Olbermann are clearly in league with the Democrats. In fact, most Media Matters criticisms are recitations of Dem talking points, and seek to conflate the issue not by disputing the facts, but by questioning why a reporter would bring up something about a Democrat without also devoting equal space to what it considers a moral equivalent issue about a Republican.

My favorite has to be this one:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200811050005

This is the Media Matters attempt to quash claims of liberal bias by saying that for every media story about Bill Ayers, the media didn't issue a similar story about McCain's friendship with Gordon Liddy. Or that stories about Obama's relationship with Tony Rezko weren't also side-by-side with allegations of a McCain land deal. The site then slams major Liberal newspapers for being biased toward McCain in this regard (laughable) and lists many of the articles in question.

Putting aside the reduction of bias just to the issue of associations, Media Matters barely skirts the reason the stories are so disproportionate. It's because the coverage was on the campaigns, and McCain was making an issue of Ayers and Wright and Rezko. Obama wasn't really slamming McCain with Liddy or land deals. He left surrogates such as Olbermann or Media Matters to do that.

The Media Matters complaint about Liddy is that the stories about McCain's association with him were limited to coverage of David Letterman asking McCain about it. This just proves the point. The Media was covering what the campaigns were talking about. Media Matters doesn't break down which stories attempt to refute campaign claims.

This is a prime example of Media Matters missing the point to suit its agenda. If anything, the bullet points don't indicate a bias in favor of McCain, they indicate the media was unwilling to do its job in terms of properly analyzing what was being said ("grow the economy from the bottom up"???? free pass on that one).

And that's the real criticism McCain's campaign was leveling at the media that prompted Media Matters to post this story in the first place.

Well put as always, America47000.

What's nuts is that Olbermann said before showing the Palin segment, he'd never seen it until that first time, which was a joke because after he showed it, and then ran the Martha Stewart segment, he flat out mentions what happened in the segment with Palin, along with saying he hoped he can contribute to her running for another office in the future.

That guy is certifiable. He thinks he's this "big thing" using big words, trying to articulate like he really knows what he's doing. He's trying to make that leap that Bryant Gumbel did when he was at NBC. Too bad bathtub boy, it's not going to work. Maybe you should drop off that resume back over to ESPN, FOX or whatever bridge you burned and hope they'll be NICE enough to let you back there.

While you're at it, take your 12yr old kid, Maddow along with you for the ride. She had potential until you corrupted her with your liberal ways.

Here we go again, Slobbermann LIES about seeing the Palin interview for the first time while giving minute by minute details. Ah yes, the never ending LIES of Keith-O-The Klown.
With K.O's continuois nightly bashing of Palin, I think he's stalking her and has a thing for her. She needs a restraining order against him.

He has a thing for her cuz he needs her, after seeing his ratings spike among hardcore leftists from bashing her on a nightly basis.

Keith says his (imaginary) conservative friend said Palin doesn't know she's the dumbest politician on the planet. Funny, cuz Olbermann doesn't know he's the biggest douche on the planet.

Was he on tonight or did someone fill in?

HE was on tonight. Since Bill O is on vacation, I actually thought I could give the entire show a look-see. Ha! There is something un-natural about his obsession with Sarah Palin.
I don't think he was happy with Prez-elect keeping Gates. Aside from getting his big fat tongue tied and repeating the phrase "Dream Team" a half dozen times, he said, "What might go wrong in Iraq?" He's hoping. And the he Great Thanksed Howard.
Olby must have been chowing down on vacation because I swear it looks like he gained 20 pounds. And what's with the voice pushing. He pushes it down to get those deep manly tones. One of these days he'll just swallow his tongue.
Next was Chris Hayes! Does he ever have an actual debate??? or is it always one big circle jerk? He mentioned something about "irony' and how he was not "pulling it off very well"....now...we have to hear about his sex life!
The man is a walking prevarication. I couldn't take anymore......

His Palin sickness is getting out there.

I never saw Countdown till last Aug, my first ep being the one he had a Special Kommont about McCain, did he pull this same unhealthy obsession with Hilary?

I mean really its kind of disturbing, and the longer he goes at it, the creepier it gets. Sooner or later he'll be the only one smearing Palin, when everyone else has moved on. If not already.

Oh and kuddos KO, you're officially a fat ass. Only fatty's wear large black sweaters.

Also on the Martha clip, he doesn't look healthy at all. The deep breaths, the contstant stuttering. Either he doesn't do good unless there's a teleprompter or he gets woozy standing up.

#1 ... Olbermann cites a Survey USA poll of 500 California voters, 198 of whom said they voted for Prop 8. And of these, 8% said that the protests have changed their minds and would now vote against it.

Well, aside from the fact that the pollsters talked to these people after the election, and that the protests have very visible on the news having been conducted in the context of no true opposition, as there would be in a campaign (which Keith doesn't want to point out), because there is no campaign and the Yes on 8 people don't need to make their point because they won ...

Let's flashback to this WPITW from Nov. 13, in which Keith slams Fox News' Steve Doocy for "who didn't look for hard as usual at a news story before opening his big bazoo about it"

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#27707520

This was about a Pew poll that asked people for the favorite and least favorite election correspondents. O'Reilly topped the favorite list, and Olby was objecting to Doocy publicizing this fact (O'Reilly also was least favorite, but Olby doesn't bring that up).

KO slams the Pew survey for only interviewing about 1,000, and when O'Reilly gets 6% that means "maybe 64 people said he was their favorite."

Now, maybe Olby was slamming Doocy for not mentioning 50% didn't list a favorite, but bringing up the actual person count made it seem like he was slamming polls in general.

The comment board on this site noted how hypocritical it seemed for KO to slam that poll, but trumpet similar polls that showed Obama was winning the election:

Now we have him basing a whole segment about his perceptions that Prop 8 is tumbling down because out of 198 people who voted for Prop 8, 16 said they would vote against it in a new election.

Way to stay consistent, Olbermann.

Here's the Pew poll about the favorite campaign journalists:

http://people-press.org/report/470/favorite-campaign-journalists

And here's our previous discussion about this:

http://www.olbermannwatch.com/archives/2008/11/opie_and_anthon.php#comments

On another point, Keith claims the California Supreme Court "granted" gays the right to marry. Not how it works in this country, Keith. The Declaration of Independence states that all people are endowed with "inalienable rights" by their creator. So the question is not which rights we have, but which rights our government is entitled to curb for the benefit of society. If anything, the California Supreme Court claimed simply that gays already had a right to marry, but that laws that did not adhere to the constitution of the state were denying them that right. The Cali Supremes simply removed that barrier in California (the implication to that is that it is a natural right for gays to marry, and thus they should be entitled to in all states, but they only have jurisdiction over California's laws). A majority of voters in California disagreed either that it was a right to begin with, or that the barrier was wrong, or that society was better off without gay marriage.

Keith also misstated what the California Supreme Court is reviewing. He said they are reviewing the legality of the ban. From what I understand, they cannot review the legality of the proposition, for as an amendment they cannot overturn the text. The only thing they can review is whether the proposition process was used properly to amend the constitution, and that this legal point had already been challenged prior to the election, and the Cali Supremes let it stand. So if the Cali Supremes throw the prop out, after already letting it go in, they will not only be hypocrites, but they will be spitting in the face of the electorate who voted in the amendment at the most democratic level ... the people themselves. You know, as in "We the People," the authority that actually grants government officials, including these judges, the privilege to serve in public office?

Any chance Media Matters will correct him on any of this?

If I may interject my own opinion on this, the whole issue of gay marriage isn't going to be settled until it is resolved at the federal level, which in this case would seem to be the US Supreme Court ruling whether gay marriage falls under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. But with the current makeup of the high court, they don't think they'd come out on the winning side of a sure 5-4 decision.
So their strategy is to focus on the state courts. Remember, if Prop 8 is overturned, it only applies to California. That other 47 or so states where gay marriage isn't recognized won't change because of Prop 8.
So let's say gays reinstate their right to marry in California. Their brethren in Arizona still can't. Or in Florida. Or Texas. Etc.
So gays in California are basically fighting for a special right that isn't available to gays who don't live here. Funny, but doesn't that seem a bit selfish?
I would think if they really cared about the issue, they'd want it resolved everywhere. The best way to do that is to sue Prop 8 at a Federal Level. It would get kicked to the Supremes, and they'd rule on it yes or no.
If they don't like the court, they can wait. A few years of Obama might just change the majority to their favor. Then they can sue.
But if they get these laws overturned at the state level, they are making a nationwide standard, which I'd imagine is their ultimate goal, that much more difficult to achieve.

Great points America, this Prop 8 thing for me is just getting out of control.

The message I'm getting is people don't want the people to vote. They'd rather have courts decide for the people, like Mass where gay marriage was never on the ballot, and the courts there passed it.

The thing that pisses me off the most about this is the ignorance of it all. This is a classic example of one set of people putting their priorities over another groups.

I'm not a religious person, but even though I have an understanding of those who voted for their faith on Prop 8. Marriage has a different meaning to them. One that they hold to their beliefs. And yes, in a way gay marriage is taking that belief and crapping all over it.

Is that prejudice? Is that racist? Or is saying a person who votes on their faith is wrong being prejudice and racist? Its a two way street if people want to play the race game. But it shouldn't be about that.

Gays want marriages. I understand that. But marriage means something different to other people than just health-care benefits and life insurance policy's. And since when did we become the nation that loves to belittle those with religious beliefs? When did it become socially acceptable to trash the faith of our citizens?

Regardless of where you stand, the fact is Prop 8 passed. Get over it. Oh wait, but we can appeal!! WTF!!! All of sudden its the 90's again where the country was ruled by lawsuits and ambulance chasers?

This isn't the America I want back. But hey KO actually makes sense in not voting. Why vote when you can appeal. Oh but lets trash those who did vote cause they voted wrong. But I don't vote cause I want to be partisan. Well except for Prop 8 cause "the people" got it wrong. And we all know how the mighty Keith Olberdouche in his crystal tower is way smarter than "the people".

What a douche, what an ass, what a waste.

That's the great dichotomy of the elections:

"Yay, We elected Obama! What a testament to our democracy! Wait, they voted in things we disagree with? Democracy is flawed. We need judges to overturn it!"

Well, two can play that game:

http://www.topix.com/forum/source/alamogordo-daily-news/TM9JT28K9INEOQNHE

Were there any O'Reilly Attacks last night?

Not that I saw. He picked on Dick Morris.