Having a hard time watching this. Just had Mary Poppins on from Florida. Is that Margaret Carlson? Pounding on Palin. How can you not love these people? They are the first to call someone racist, or sexist or homophobic unless of course the person of the other race, sex or persuasion is not of like mind with them. Then you can say anything.

I figure he is already hedging his bets for 2012. Obamessiah might actually screw some things up in the first 4 years so he will need some weak competition then.

Heard an interesting set of numbers today on this same network. If it is reported on MSNBC, it must certainly be accurate and correct. Every state where Bush's approval rating was below 35%, Obama won. Every state where the approval rating was above 35% McCain won. That is how close it was and in my view how important the last straw of the financial meltdown was. At those ratings and with the ability (by lying about his intentions) to outspend McCain by 3:1 this should have been a slaughter and it wasn't. No wonder the Dems. are paranoid. They must figure they have 2 years for Congress and 4 years for the Messiah to pull something off or they are dead meat.

There are states where Bush's approval rate is above 35%?!?!?!?

I bet that's Olbermann's Girl's friends.

By MikeH on November 12, 2008 9:36 PM
There are states where Bush's approval rate is above 35%?!?!?!?

Hold on to that hatred of Bush little man. Your going to need it for the next 4 years to keep you warm at night. Your President Obama has just sent the market into the toliet. Its going to be fun to beat you over the head night after night with this closet marxist.

Factor: "Your President Obama has just sent the market into the toilet."

ROFLMAO!

Wow, what a powerful man! He's not even president yet and he's busy destroying the world already.

I guess he's the one to blame for the Katrina fiasco too?.....Hell, he probably caused the damned hurricane in the first place!

I can't wait to see what you start blaming him for when he actually IS President?

#5 - Senate races still undecided. Stevens now losing by 3 votes. Keith counts to 3. Minnesota race now loaded with lawyers. ACORN called "GOP boogeyman". Republicans "Looking for a way to trashing the recount with their lawyers!" McCain now going down to GA to support Chambliss, brings up 2003 quote McCain made in reguards to Saxby using the images of Hussein and Bin Laden. Loon from Obama loving Washington Post talks. Also transition talk. Terrible Cheney impression then about showing Biden the "torture chamber" and so on.

#4 - Democrats looking at a law from the 90's that would let Congress on party line votes undo what Bush has done in the last 6 months. Bush "undid the Bill of Rights!" Constitutional Law Professor speaks.

#3 - Looking ahead to 2012. More Palin obsessing. "2012 is codeword for Palin" says Margaret Carlson. Another terrible joke about Palin being on TV more then Ryan Seacrest.

#2 - WPITW Worse to the traffic wardens of England giving traffic ticket to someone during 2 minutes of silence.

Worser went to O'Reilly for trying to pin the victory of Prop 8 to black voters. Terrible O'Reilly impression - "The African-American community came out for Obama and while they were in the booth they said you know what? Gay marriage? I don't think so. So why aren't they protesting in front of the African-American church?" Olbermoron followed with "Maybe because they are not racists, and you are." Quote then followed from the fivethirtyeight.com site stating "The notion that Prop 8 passed because of the Obama turnout surge is silly. Exit polls suggest that first time voters - the vast majority of whom were driven to turn out by Obama - voted against Prop 8 by a 62-38 margin..... if CA's electorate had been the same as it was in 2004, Prop 8 would have passed by a wider margin".

"Nate Silver, Bill. 538.com. Learn something. Well,try."

Worst - Mark Foley. After quoting what Foley said in his 1st interview about doing nothing illegal and that he wasn't a pedaphile.....

Jimmy Legs - "A momentary lapse of judgement.... that lasted for no later then late 2005 well into the summer of '06." Says Foley can't tell what time it is or knows how long something takes.

#1 - More Palin obsessing.

Bushed - Memoir-gate. Gitmo-gate. Bailout-gate.

MSNBC is paying 7.5 million a year for a Palin stalker.

Great debut recap, FantasticMM. Keep up the good work.

By MikeH on November 13, 2008 12:07 AM

Keep laughing Mike, but the fact is that the market set a record for a drop after a presidential election. The maket goes up and down based on future expectation and the future expectation for the economy is not good under your president.

The Worser nod went to "Bill-O the Clown!" This one bugged me for two reasons: Oralmann's "debunking" was false, and two, he called Sir Bill a racist based on it.

First BOR noted that 70% of black voters voted down gay marriage. He later stated that the black vote was the deciding factor for Prop. 8's success (Margaret Hoover disagreed, and I'm not sure one way or the other). The following O'Reilly quote is Oralmann's bone of contention:

"...but-- the African-American community came out for Obama. And while they were in that booth, they said 'you know what, gay marriage, I don't think so!'. So why aren't they there [the African-American church], protesting that?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlspbtaVghE

BOR is clearly talking about the black vote as a whole (which by about an overwhelming 95% went to Obama in California); and as a whole, they clearly voted gay marriage down. So what he said is true.

Now Keith's source of rebuttal, the article at fivethirtyeight.com, focuses on *first-time* Obama voters; that is, *new* voters who favored Obama. These voters tended to vote *against* Prop. 8, that is, in *support* of gay marriage. BOR *never said*, as Keith implied he did, that this proposition passed "because of the Obama turnout *surge* [emphasis mine]". All he did say was that the black community "came out" for Obama-- the WHOLE community Keith. Not just first-timers. Ironically, Keith countered Bill with a rebuttal that was actually a rebuttal written of someone else!

To top it all off, Keith affixes the racist label. But this all comes from a guy who distorts facts like he distorts ratings.

Nate Silver, as I've said before, is Oralmann's Kos Kompadre.
I linked to that Culture Warriors segment yesterday via FOXNews.com, but I'll do it again: http://tinyurl.com/4qbzow
After the Prop 8 discussion, the Heidi Klum Guitar Hero ad is shown.

I meant Monday night. Sorry.

Tonight's Gregalogue is on this very matter:
http://www.dailygut.com/?i=4025
Watch (or DVR) "Red Eye" at 3AM ET to see this Gregalogue come out of Greg Gutfeld's mouth.

I noticed this in the OlbyWatch tweets, but there are two videos on YouTube of Opie and Anthony's--plus Jim Norton and Jim Florentine's--dissection of Olbermoronn's Prop 8 SEK.
http://tinyurl.com/58zkwx
http://tinyurl.com/5estsb

Now, they get a bit graphic at times (beyond cursing, which I don't have a problem with), but it's worth it to hear them all sock it to the infamous, deplorable Keith Olbermann.

Olbermahn's still hacking Palin?
Kountdown must really be failin'
With no Bush or McCain
"On the membrane"
Olby's viewers will be bailin'

That Obamamann is obsessed with O'Reilly is obvious. But seeing that bit about Prop 8 last night got me thinking about how much of the animosity is simply about the ratings and KO's need to differentiate himself from O'Reilly. It wouldn't surprise me if he's just checking out what O'Reilly says and then taking the opposite track as a matter of course. Throwing up that Nate Silver quote smacks of a deliberate attempt to just find something contrary to O'Reilly's quote, regardless of what KO might actually think.

For example, other than the O'Reilly quote, Obamamann makes no mention of the valid data that shows blacks turned out in record numbers for Obama, and 70% voted against gay marriage. Or that O'Reilly's actual point was that the high support for Prop 8 among blacks was disproportionate to their 95% support for Obama. With those numbers, it is curious why the gay movement wouldn't project some animus toward the black community, and would be completely justified in doing so. But Obamamann dismisses it as racist. Is Obamamann trying to say that because blacks have been oppressed for so long they have a right to oppress others?

What gets me is he then frames the statement as if the question is what O'Reilly believes as a way of then calling O'Reilly a racist. Does KO not understand that O'Reilly's format differs a bit from his own? Did he not actually see the segment in context?

O'Reilly's show is set up for him to act as a sounding board to stimulate debate on a wide variety of issues, unlike Olbermann who only brings on like-minded guests to spout liberal nonsense, thus creating the false feeling of a news show that otherwise would just be an hourlong Olbermann commentary (which it basically is anyway). On the Prop 8 issue, O'Reilly asked the question as a hypothetical to a number of guests over several nights (he did again last night). O'Reilly himself acknowledged that gays won't protest black churches for fear of seeming like racists. Olbermoron ignores this, and ignores the O'Reilly guests who also state that the black vote alone was not the only reason Prop 8 passed.

That he ignores this is telling of KO's mindset. Since he only knows how to offer carefully rehearsed, pre-packaged punditry as news and debate, he has no concept of any other system, and cannot recognize when others stray from his formula. Note when David Frum ripped Maddow a few weeks ago. Olbermann could not refute what Frum actually said. Instead, he insults the man personally, insults his intelligence without basis, and then calls him a liar because he didn't talk about what he was booked on the show to discuss. In other words, he broke with the script and called Maddow out for her BS. A mortal sin in the world of Obamamann.

With this mindset, it's like he's so locked in with what O'Reilly is saying that he can't understand the concept of the Factor in general, or with the concept of the hypothetical question, or with the notion of guests that don't agree with the host, so he just tunes out everything else.

The dichotomy is simple. O'Reilly seeks truth through debate. Olbermann simply presents his unfounded opinions as truth. That the fairness doctrine and those calling for its return would support Olbermann is a testament to the truly dangerous times in which we live.

Another note on Obamamann using the Nate Silver piece to slam O'Reilly.

KO slammed O'Reilly for saying the Obama "surge" in new voters caused Prop 8 to pass. But O'Reilly actually said that Obama inspired a surge in black voter turnout, and they in turn were a big reason Prop 8 passed.

How big a reason?

Well, if you actually compare the exit poll results compared to the vote totals, you find that had blacks could have swayed the vote to no.

Out of 11.7 million votes cast, Prop 8 passed with 52%, and a margin of about 508,000 votes

According to the exit polls, blacks made up 10% of the California voters, and supported Obama in the state at 94% (which, interestingly, is under the national average by 1%). They supported prop 8 at 70% (black women at 75%). The margin in the black vote in favor of Prop 8 was about 470,500 votes. Had black support for Prop 8 been at 48%, the measure would have failed.

Had blacks been more supportive of a liberal agenda down the line, even 48% seems high. And had Latinos followed a similar course as well, the measure would have failed by a bigger margin.

Do the calculations yourself:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#USP00p1

Obviously the numbers can be skewed in many ways to say one group tilted the election or the other. But the key stat here that O'Reilly was talking about was how disproportionate the black Obama support was compared to Prop 8 (although 95% against Prop 8 wouldn't seem reasonable either).

Oh, and Nate Silver's argument about new voters being against Prop 8 62-38? True. New voters contributed about 395,200 net votes against Prop 8. But the same new voters in California, making up 14% of the total, supported Obama at 83%. That's a 21% gap that equates to votes against gay marriage among new voters due to the Obama surge. That gap translates to 346,000 votes the No on 8 people were probably counting on and didn't get, as a result of the Obama surge.

Olbermann says learn something? Here's what we learned. Numbers can be used for anything, and Obamamann just likes cherry picking the data that supports his fantasy notions.

If those were your first two comments, America47000, welcome aboard.
On another note, J$ has linked to this 23/6 video: http://www.236.com/video/2008/watch_keith_olbermann_in_a_min_10230.php
It's Oralmann's Special Education Komments in 60 seconds.

My first comments here, but I was posting a lot at the tvbythenumbers.com Cable News sections before the moderators shut those down after a bunch of Obamamann fans were posting inanity such as Fox News=KKK, and ignoring the actual numbers and resorting to personal attacks.

lol nice clip Mike C.

He goes from fat-thin-fat-thin-fat-thin-fat-thin-not gay-fat-thin.

lol and of course the ever so dramatic "good night and good luck" while looking away form the camera.

Thanks, Lafinman. And America47000, as long as you don't take the bait from our one to three token dissenters--one of which has a different last initial than mine--you'll fit in fine here.

America47000, I welcome you as well:

I am one of the "three token dissenters" that Mike C was referring to. I don't really know what he means by "token", or his insinuation that I don't "fit in here", especially since I have been posting on this blog FAR longer than he has, but he has already admitted to having a professionally diagnosed mental deficiency, so you need to take him and his antics with a relative grain of salt.

As for me, I never respond, mention, or address him unless he pulls one of his little antics or tantrums and includes me....but as you can see, he's done it AGAIN!

And for reasons only HE can explain, he seems to think HE owns and controlls this site, and therebye seems to believe HE has the authority to determine what other posters should post, who they should respond to, what they shouldn't respond to, and what they should talk about.

I have never seen anyone come in here and literally try to take over a blog before, but that is exactly what he is doing. The funny part is that the ACTUAL owner of this site has reprimmanded him for doing this, but he keeps on doing it anyway......wierd!

I have Asperger Syndrome, America47000, which is not a deficiency; not to me or anyone else with it, anyway.
But getting back to Keithy...

Well, I just hope to post common sense observations and be open-minded about all different perspectives, with an eye on finding the greater truth.

Ratings for Nov. 12 are in and O'Reilly won across the board:

http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/11/13/cable-news-ratings-for-november-12/8102

Olbermann had been bragging in the week leading up to the election about how he and Maddow eeked out wins in the key demo (25-54), but I and others suspected that MSNBC was getting an "Obama bounce" and that once the election was over, his open campaigning in the form of slamming Bush and McCain would no longer hold any sway over the viewers, and that seems to be the case now. KO pulled a bare victory in the key demo last Friday, when O'Reilly was off and Laura Ingraham guest-hosted. But under normal conditions there's no reason to think O'Reilly can't maintain his lead for the forseeable future.

After all, Olbermann has spent most of his time recently bashing Sarah Palin for some reason. And he keeps picking on Bush. Once Obama is sworn in and the Democrats are clearly in control, what is he supposed to do? Serve up propoganda? Keep reading Democrat talking points (while continuing to falsely accuse O'Reilly of reading Republican talking points)? Does he not understand that a media that maintains a healthy skepticism is vital for a democracy, which is the point of the first amendment? How can that approach possibly play in a nation now heavily controlled by Democrats?

Time will tell, I suppose. That's enough ranting for me today. I'll probably just stick my head in from time to time with some ratings news and occasional observations.