I don't know if anybody has pointed this out, but when Olbermann started doing the "Bushed" segments, he actually was talking about at least things that could be considered scandals. For months now, though, he introduces "The latest in the administration's 50 running scandals" and then just talks about whatever; tonight it was the fact that the Secretary of the Interior spent a quarter mil upgrading the bathroom in the office there. How is that a scandal?

"How is that a scandal?"

It isn't. Just like the WPITW segment doesn't actually feature "bad" people. His show is just a ridiculous, unwatchable sham. Maybe that's why I don't comment over here as much anymore...

Proof positve Keith Olbermann is still running NBC. Thought criminal Ann Coulter has been banned from NBC news. Apparently NBC will lob soft balls at terrorist William Ayers but won't let a best selling author on the shows because she is not Obama freindly. NBC is a national joke. Too bad they have football.

I'm wondering if the Coulter thing isn't a publicity stunt.

Ann Coulter couldn't care any less about (MS)NBC. She was sandbagged by "The Leg" on her last Hardball appearance:

http://newsbusters.org/node/13758

Industry joke (MS)NBC is not her target audience... but maybe Elizabeth Edwards could help Ann sell a few books ;)

In tone and substance, NBC NEWS gave opportunity to the craziest and most demogogic of George Bush's critics, in wartime and crisis. Their reasons for cancelling Coulter are not defensable.

The Coulter cancellation is simply a sign of what the network is preparing for....they want to be the go-to network for our soon-to-be celebrity President. They want the guided tours, the photo-ops, the exclusives....Having a partisan critic on one of their programs, no matter what the tone, subject or environment, puts NBC NEWS on the wrong side of covering The One.

Journalism is dead at NBC NEWS.

VERO POSSUMUS!

Factor: "Apparently, NBC will lob softballs at terrorist William Ayers but won't let a best selling author on the shows because she is not Obama friendly."

(1) - William Ayers is not irrelevant to anything. You are clearly still wandering around in that crazy little world that assumes that he is.

(2) - The republicans just lost an election partially because they kept implying some kind of an association that did not exist....and yet you're still sleep walking.

(3) - Ann Coulter may be a "best selling author", but she also makes a living by insulting at least 65% of the population. All she and the Limbaughs of the world have proven is that you can be a popular icon by simply appealing to the darker instincts of fanatics.

MikeH worte::" Ann Coulter may be a "best selling author", but she also makes a living by insulting at least 65% of the population. All she and the Limbaughs of the world have proven is that you can be a popular icon by simply appealing to the darker instincts of fanatics."

And how is Olbermann different from them? He's doing the exact same thing you silly goose.

"and how is Olbermann different from them? He's doing the same thing you silly goose."

Actually, you've never heard me claim that Olbermann was any different.....however, what I HAVE suggested is that the Olbermann phenomenom is a completely justified backlash to the Coulters, the Limbaughs, and the Hannitys.....The problem is that we have far too many Coulters and not enough Olbermanns.

Phenomenon? Seems more like a fringe movement.

Anyway, the little hypocrit last night starts off with smarmy jokes about Norm Coleman finishing behind Franken in the recount, that he will sue "on the grounds that he didn't win." Basically, making all the jokes and criticisms about Coleman that had been made about Franken prior to the recount.

That recount was clearly rigged, but to hear Olbermann and his ilk tell it, it was super clean, as if the fact that Franken is on top now is all the evidence they need that the methods were justified.

Then I skipped most of the rest of the drivel. Just tuned in to WPITW long enough to register shock and surprise that he didn't pick on any Fox News personalities. But for worst he picked a guy who backtracked on saying the Obama birtch certificate was authentic. So Keith still has to harp on that issue ... probably trying to convince himself that there really isn't any controversy because deep down he knows that it is a legitimate question.

As to sleep-walking about associations ... well, just look at this whole mess with Blago. Obama is a product of the exact same political machine. The point is and was not that an association definitively exists. The point was whether we could take the risk.

McCain had his own risks. Obviously his health, and Democrats making an issue of Palin's experience. It's just the media was able to downplay the Obama risks, and play up the McCain risks, and really cement the idea with the voters.

Oh, and the Coulter cancelation is straight from the Media Matters playbook:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200901040001?f=h_top

Funny how MM posts contact info for Coulter and NBC News. Olbermann loves these guys, but remember how a month ago he blasted O'Reilly for the tired and cliched media tactic of posting a phone number to complain to someone about something you disagreed with, in that case the state of Washington over the atheist sign?

I wonder why Olbermann isn't so harsh on Media Matters for doing the exact same thing?

America4700: "Phenomenom, it seems more like a fringe movement"

Well, of COURSE it does! So what? Countdown is not here for you, just as Hannity and Coulter are not there for me. What is it about this principle that is giving you so much trouble?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
America4700: "The recount is clearly rigged".

But what evidence do you have to support your claim? Don't you understand that YOU sound every bit as "fringe" as Olbermann?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
America4700 on the birth certificate: "because deep down he knows that it is a legitimate question"

Yes, and I know "deep down" that the moon is made of green cheese! Who was it that you were you calling "fringe"?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
America4700: "the point was not that an association definitely exists. The point was whether or not we could take the risk"

No, the "point" was whether or not the Republican Party could succeed once again by scaring the American public into voting their way. Fortunately for America, they failed this time because enough of the public has finally woken up.

You still don't seem to undrstand that both McCain and Palin had far more of their OWN share of 'questionable associations', but the Obama campaign chose to show enough class to avoid making an issue of them. Think for just a minute and try to imagine just how nasty this campaign COULD have become if Obama had not chosen to take the high road.......Is that what you wanted?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"McCain had his own risks, obviously his health, and Democrats making an issue of Palin's experience."

(1) - McCain lost this election. His health didn't loose this election! .......McCain is the one who ran around like a chicken with his head cut off at critical moments.......It was McCain who claimed the economy was "fundamentally sound" the day it began to crash........It was McCain who chose to elevate a man who wasn't even who he said he was to use as a centerpiece of his campaign........And it was McCain who chose the woefully inadequate Sarah Palin.

(2) - It was never about Palin's lack of experience, but it was always about Palins appalling lack of fundamental KNOWLEDGE!........Do you understand the difference?

"Well, of COURSE it does! So what? Countdown is not here for you, just as Hannity and Coulter are not there for me. What is it about this principle that is giving you so much trouble?"

You used the word phenomenon, not me. I wouldn't say Hannity or Coulter were phenomenons, either. But O'Reilly is. And Limbaugh. As are Stewart and Colbert. Maddow could get there too, but her star seems destined to burn out too.

"But what evidence do you have to support your claim?"

Startribune.com posted ballots after the canvassing board saw them. There doesn't appear to be any standard. But as I'm sure you'll remind me, I'm not an expert.

There's also the Franken campaign claiming Coleman wants to cherry pick ballots with court cases. But Franken went to court to get his absentee ballots counted, and even got a hold of the names of those whose ballots were thrown out so he could call them and have them certify their intentions.

"whether or not the Republican Party could succeed once again by scaring the American public into voting their way."

As I recall, one point of the Republican association argument was that Barack Obama was a product of a corrupt machine. And before the man has been sworn in, that machine is exploding. The governor of Illinois, whom Obama emphatically supported when he first ran, is in a power struggle with Democrats in the Senate. Obama's choice for commerce secretary had to remove his name because of pay-for-play charges.

You want to harp on Ayers being an example of an association that wasn't that strong. But Ayers wasn't the only bad guy connected to Obama out there.

And now Obama has been forced to settle for a crappy CIA director nominee because his choice for Attorney General has scared any real candidate away from the job.

"Fortunately for America, they failed this time because enough of the public has finally woken up."

Did you see the post-election polls of Obama and McCain voters. Obama voters were clueless about basic issues. Woken up to what, exactly? Years of indoctrination by a partisan press and government schools run by corrupt teachers unions? America is getting dumber by the minute, and Democrats are suddenly easily elected. You think that is a coincidence?

Whoops. Guess I'm venturing out onto the "fringe" again.

"Think for just a minute and try to imagine just how nasty this campaign COULD have become if Obama had not chosen to take the high road.......Is that what you wanted?"

The high road ... such as lying about public financing and flip-flopping on his vow to accept it? Such as refusing to engage McCain in a series of town hall debates (given McCain's performance in the actual debates, Obama may have done quite well). How about Obama distorting basic economic principles? And don't sit there and tell me Obama didn't tell his surrogates to go out and bring up G. Gordon Liddy, and McCain's affair, and the one ad about McCain's cancer.

To answer your question ... Yes, that's what I wanted. I would have wanted to see the nastiest campaign possible. It's much more entertaining that way.

"McCain lost this election. His health didn't loose this election!"

I was referring to risk factors among many other criteria. Clearly McCain ran a clueless campaign when it came to countering everything Obama was doing.

"It was never about Palin's lack of experience, but it was always about Palins appalling lack of fundamental KNOWLEDGE!"

I was referring to how some Democrats were portraying her, not how you may have perceived it. As soon as she was announced, the Obama camp dismissed her as the "former mayor of a town of 8,000," ignoring that she was elected governor. They later apologized for that remark. Remember? Must have wanted to take that high road.

As for fundamental knowledge, that's open to interpretation. She took a lot of flak about how she defined the VP as in charge of the senate, even though from a strict reading of the constitution and the original intent of the offices, she's technically correct. It's only in practice that such a concept has fallen by the wayside. But the media wasn't interested in such a debate about the basic handling of our civic functions. I wonder how many people actually realize the electoral college elects the president, not our popular vote.

Sorry, but I don't have time to mention other fundamental gaffes, such as which clause in the constitution grants congress and the VP certain authorities. Or that Pakistan had missles that could reach Israel. Or that Hezbollah was kicked out of Lebanon by the U.S. and France. Oh wait, those were Joe Biden's mistakes.

Who exactly needs to wake up here, Mike H?

"who exactly needs to wake up here, Mike H?"

Based on your selective responses, you do!

You say "Obama was a product of a corrupt machine", but I say Obama was a product of a very diverse environment, just as we all are. When you can go farther than guilt by vague associations, call me Bro, because that's ALL you've got so far, which is nothing! As for me, I respect a man all the more for rejecting the bad elements of his environment.

Most of your answers avoided my points. For example, you made the charge that "ayers wasn't the only bad bad guy connected with Obama out there", as if you had not even read my point that both McCain and Palin had even more "bad" associations that COULD have been exploited by Obama's campaign if they had been as dishonable as the McCain campaign.

To me, the most telling part of you answer was your statement that you actually WANTED to see "the nastiest campaign possible". I will proudly proclaim that I would never want to see "the nastiest campaign possible", no matter who it would favor. The fact that you actually would want to see a mud slinging contest for the highest office in the land says more to me about you than you can possibly imagine.

It's nice the way people like you like to keep comforting yourselves by pointing to selective polls about voter knowledge, but by doing so, you ignor the fact that the most highly educated demographic in the country overwhelmingly favored Obama.....That said, I know why you do it - you need something to console yourself with. I did the same thing in 2004 by pointing to polls that showed that the majority of Americans at the time still believed that Saddam was involved in 911.....No ignorance is never pretty - but stop kidding yourself - neither party has a monopoly on ignorance.

You zeroed in on a few specific criticisms of Sarah Palin, while ignoring the mountains of evidence that she knew little to nothing about Federal or foreign policy issues. If the only gaffe she ever made was to incorrectly define the function of the office of the VP, then we wouldn't be having this conversation......In short, there is a huge difference in making the occasional gaffe (which is something everyone does).....and being woefully ignorant......and Palin was was woefully ignorant.


Finally, I don't think you are qualified to decide who I can call a "phenomenon", and who I can't.

America 4700, I also liked how you pointed to the ridiculous "10 town hall meetings" again, as if you REALLY think that was an issue of honor. You've GOT to be kidding if you believe actually that?

If I were running for office, the stupidest thing I could possibly do would be to publicly accept the lead of my opponent. McCain looked like an absolute idiot to keep bringing that up. He looked even dumber when he tried to use THAT as an excuse for jumping into the mud.

"I respect a man all the more for rejecting the bad elements of his environment"

He didn't reject Richardson. He welcomed him with open arms. Oops.

"The fact that you actually would want to see a mud slinging contest for the highest office in the land says more to me about you than you can possibly imagine."

What, you want everyone to have tea and crumpets? If you want to be president you had better be able to take more than a little bloody nose once in a while. The stuff we see today may be nasty from our perspective, but it's nothing compared to elections from 100 years ago.

"It's nice the way people like you like to keep comforting yourselves by pointing to selective polls about voter knowledge, but by doing so, you ignor the fact that the most highly educated demographic in the country overwhelmingly favored Obama"

Yes, and the most lowly educated demographic favored Obama by a wider margin. In my experience, people who stay in school too long get their head so filled with bogus theories that they forget how to apply practical knowledge. Therefore, you really have to be careful about what you are asking of the supereducated. Remember the old saying, "the smarter you are, the dumber you are?" Well, it's true. At some point you are just replacing book smarts for common sense, and the returns are diminishing.

"you need something to console yourself with"

I'm just looking at the data. Neither party may have a monopoly on ignorance, but this is a question of truth.

"You zeroed in on a few specific criticisms of Sarah Palin, while ignoring the mountains of evidence that she knew little to nothing about Federal or foreign policy issues. If the only gaffe she ever made was to incorrectly define the function of the office of the VP, then we wouldn't be having this conversation......In short, there is a huge difference in making the occasional gaffe (which is something everyone does).....and being woefully ignorant......and Palin was was woefully ignorant."

You slam her for not knowing foreign policy. Well, she wasn't on the ticket to know foreign policy. She probably knew as much as Barack did. Biden was the Dem's foreign policy expert, and he's at the debate getting his foreign policy facts wrong.

McCain's the one who said keep an eye on Ukraine. And now the Russians are turning their attentions on Ukraine, playing games with natural gas pipelines. And the press totally buried McCain calling for reform of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae in 2005. And what about McCain calling for Rumsfeld to be fired, and calling for the surge, which has stablized Iraq? Had these policies been Bush's policies from the start, the war would not have turned sour, public opinion would not have turned against it, and Obama's path to the White House would have been much more difficult.

The press barely bothered to cover Biden during the campaign. And Palin was largely irrelevant. Obama won because he isn't George Bush, and the economic collapse exposed McCain when he tried to act.

The truth about Palin is that she seems to know enough to maneuver around Alaska politics, and the question is not how much she does or doesn't know about American politics, but her ability to eventually grasp these concepts.

The problem as relates to McCain is that the press made her out to be some gun-toting hillbilly of the north, magnifying the question of McCain's health and whether he could survive long enough for her to learn enough to be president. To hear the press tell it, McCain was destined to die about three weeks after taking office.

I will admit, she usually annoys the piss out of me. But you haven't really been able to cite any concrete examples of her ignorance. I think I've provided more, and I'm the one defending her!

Now, you will say I am just proving your point for you. But far from it. I'm just employing an open mind. Do you have it within you to analyze things critically? To accept knowledge from other points of view. Do you? You seem more willing to dismiss arguments as ideological rather than examine their fundamental underpinnings. Such is an all-too-common failing for those on both sides these days.

So she has trouble with public speaking sometimes. Who doesn't? Her faults here magnified because of the importance placed on the Curic and Gibson interviews. That doesn't mean the criticisms are fair or valid. Let's see you go on a national interview and try to discuss the constitution.

"Finally, I don't think you are qualified to decide who I can call a 'phenomenon,' and who I can't."

Sure I am. The word has a definition, and I don't think Olbermann meets the standard.

I don't think you are qualified to decide who is ignorant and who is not.

Now, go ahead and get your final word in, cuz I know you are too hot headed not to. Because I am done with this conversation.

By MikeH on January 6, 2009 1:05 PM

(3) - Ann Coulter may be a "best selling author", but she also makes a living by insulting at least 65% of the population. All she and the Limbaughs of the world have proven is that you can be a popular icon by simply appealing to the darker instincts of fanatics.

THIS crap and the endless "your discredited ideology, Cee"..... "your discredited ideas, Cee"...

You've reached an unctuous and fatuous level here that I can't ignore anymore.

When you talk about Limbaugh, Hannity, and Coulter, do you ever consider that they most certainly DO have counterparts in the media and in the entertainment business?

Have you ever bothered to notice how people who are against gay marriage or against...say....NRA members, are treated in bits by Jon Stewart, Steve Colbert, David Letterman? Have you ever heard some of the insulting jokes and statements these people and the folks at Air America level against.... the Religious Right?

Did you happen to hear anything of the treatment of people who voted for Prop 8 among vox populi...

You say there needs to be more Olbermanns to balance Limbaugh, Hannity, and Coulter, but the reality is that conservatives with their are vastly outnumbered within the public sphere. They may be more popular than a Randi Rhodes or a Mike Malloy, but they are no more obnoxious, and they are a minority when you take the political persuasion of most of the media and the entertainment industry who express their liberal "ideas" and "ideology" during a plethora of comedy routines, tv series scripts, and in the way certain issues are covered on news programs.

Now, moving on...let me say that if you're going label someone's ideology or their ideas as being "discredited" because so-and-so was voted into office, or because a view or political stance doesn't happen to poll very well during certain times and eras (say when history is still out...), then you're going to have to label the idea that gay marriage should be a civil right as someone's "discredited idea"... for the same reasons.

Yeah, you're going to have to label political ideology that would impose strict gun laws, squelch school voucher legislation, and declare that there should be absolutely no restrictions on abortion having to do with trimester, as all a part of some "discredited liberal ideology" of a great many Democrats and Democratic politicians.

And if you're going to diss Hannity, Coulter, and Limbaugh you're going to have to start listening to the insulting and/or condescending things a great many popular comedians, movie stars, and media people say to their dark fanatics about a great many cherished beliefs held by the vast majority of the population.

Then perhaps you'll sound mildly aware of more than your elbow.

However, the unctuous thing, I can't help you with.

I'm not going to "have" to do anything Cecelia, and you do not possess the capacity to "help" me with anything.

You're also either just going to have to live with the idea that Myself and many other Americans will remain very angry about what the neocons have done, and the resulting box they have placed his predecessor in, and the fact that we will remain so for the forseeable future.....or.....you have the option of not reading or responding to such posts.

The fact that we FINALLY seem to have a pragmatic president with a brain of his own does not erase the damage the current dolt has wrought on America.

We post on a site where the host and typical poster not only feels free to insult Olbermann, but they have no problem with routinely insulting his entire core audience as well. That would be fine if there were not so many knee jerk defensive reactions when his counterparts and their audiences on the right are insulted in return.

Every time I see another post by William Kristol, i wonder how in the hell he could possibly still have any readers left? Every time I stumble on Hannity or Limbaugh, I wonder how in the hell they still have listeners left?

And every time I read one of your posts attacking me for insulting Cee, I wonder just how in the hell you can justify insulting me for doing the same thing in return to Cee that he routinely does to everyone whose views do not meet his nationalistic definition of patriotism, In doing THAT, you discredit anything and everything else you might have to say.

What rock did this guy crawl out from under?

MikeH: "I'm not going to "have" to do anything Cecelia, and you do not possess the capacity to "help" me with anything. "
MikeH, the fact is, you still need HELP.
Laugh Out Loud, The fact that we FINALLY seem to have a pragmatic president with a brain of his own.
If you call that a brain, GOD help US.
Talk about discrediting anything and everything YOU MikeH might have to say.
The Olby Loons are loose tonight folks.

SoCal: "If you call that a brain, GOD help US"

Well, yes as a matter of afact, I WOULD define someone who was a respected Constitutional Law professor, who was president of the Harvard Law review, and tops in his class in what is arguably the top University in the country as meeting the standard as having a brain.

You can disagree if you want to, but you will continue to sound pretty damned stupid in the process, even to most Kieth Olbermann haters.

respected Constitutional Law professor,who was president of the Harvard Law review, and tops in his class in what is arguably the top University in the country?
OK, if the so called has such a brain, who taught him that there is 57 states? Talk about STUPID.
And I beg to differ with you on Obama being a Constitutional Law Professor, I heard but have not had the time to check it out that he was a sit in for the position. Most Const. Law Prof's are tenured, but not Obama.

P.S. Billy Cunningham ripped Olbermann a new ASS today on his radio show, begging Olby to come on his show or vice versa to debate him. Olby is the biggest coward and has no balls to take the challenge.

SoCal: "OK if the so called has such a brain, who taught him that there is 58 states"

No one taught him that Einstein. And if you actually believe that this was anything other than a verbal gaffe and he actually thought there were 57 states, then you are even more naive than I thought you were.

PS: Billy Cunningham is the same right wing blowhard who just insulted every poor American in the country yesterday by calling them lazy, immoral, and stupid.....Why on earth would KO lower himself by going on this lying jackass's irrelevant show?

I'll take this opportunity to remind everyone that I once managed to temporarily steer SoCal to a website called REALCLEARPOLITICS.COM, which is one of the few TRULY balanced news sources out there, but he 'ran away from it' (paraphrasing his own words), because it looked too liberal to him.

But then he listens to blowhards like Billy Cunningham.

You really couldn't make this stuff up!

Why on earth would KO lower himself by going on this lying jackass's irrelevant show? mikeH
Because Billy Cunningham spoke of the people who voted for Obama and if you looked at Cunninghams bio you would see that the man is definetly not a liar as is Olbermann. Olbermann can't get any lower than he already is. Olby is the jackass here. If you can find the time to read Cunninghams transcripts you'll see what i'm talking about. MikeH, you are only reading the one sentence, you need to read or hear what was in front of and behind his statement made.

And NO, I don't believe that the statement of 57 states was a gaffe. The man was either thinking about 57 states in a mid east country or his brilliant teachers from the past must of taught him wrong!!!!!

And every time I read one of your posts attacking me for insulting Cee, I wonder just how in the hell you can justify insulting me for doing the same thing in return to Cee that he routinely does to everyone whose views do not meet his nationalistic definition of patriotism, In doing THAT, you discredit anything and everything else you might have to say.

By MikeH on January 6, 2009 8:42 PM

No, I'm afraid I don't have to do 'balanced attacking' in order to make a credible statement.

With that sort of reasoning, you should have given equal time to criticizing Bill Moyers after dissing Bill Kristol.

And how you think that I'm concerned about how angry you are at neocons, I have no idea. "Get used to the idea"? Your going on an opposition board in order to tell political opponents that you're angry and that "war is not healthy for flowers and little children" is something we're quite used to.

We've long gotten used to that and rhetoric such as "you and your discredited ideology" or "You're also either just going to have to live with the idea that Myself and many other Americans will remain very angry...". All you need is Gilbert and Sullivan for background effect.

Well, we've got the Clinton Administration II now, sans that embarrassing Saturday Nite Bill, and by all means-- God bless and guide them and President Obama. But this also means you'll soon be overdrawing your cherished bank account of political outrage. You've patriotically whined and moaned and criticized, and kvetched and pointed the finger as much as Coulter, Hannity, and Limbaugh to the power of ten.

You've spent it up, crybaby. The account's bone dry for YOU.

Cecelia: "No, I'm afraid I don't have to do 'balanced attacking' in order to make a credible statement."

NO, you only hold folks like me and Kieth Olbermann to standards like that.

Cecelia: "No, I'm afraid I don't have to do 'balanced attacking' in order to make a credible statement."

NO, you only hold folks like me and Kieth Olbermann to standards like that.

By MikeH on January 6, 2009 9:50 PM

Unless MSNBC has now given you a news show, I don't hold you to that standard (or ANY standard...)

Cecelia: "You've patriotically whined and moaned and criticized, and kvetched and pointed the finger as much as Coulter, Hannity, and Limbaugh to the power of ten."

And all three of those characters remain impossibly wealthy and unrepentant with dried blood on their hands for their not so unsubstantial part in helping to sell the war to the public.

I think there needs to be an "Olbyloon Of The Year" award. Who's the winner? Well, that's obvious..........

P.S. Billy Cunningham ripped Olbermann a new ASS today on his radio show, begging Olby to come on his show or vice versa to debate him. Olby is the biggest coward and has no balls to take the challenge.

by so cal

Olbermahn won't even debate with a (d)! Meltdown is proof of that, every night. Well, every night that he musters up the energy to get out of the tub......LOL!

P.S. Billy Cunningham ripped Olbermann a new ASS today on his radio show, begging Olby to come on his show or vice versa to debate him. Olby is the biggest coward and has no balls to take the challenge.

by so cal

Olbermahn won't even debate with a (d)! Meltdown is proof of that, every night. Well, every night that he musters up the energy to get out of the tub......LOL!

(1) - William Ayers is not irrelevant to anything. You are clearly still wandering around in that crazy little world that assumes that he is.

Mike H

If this is true, then why did MSDNC have him on to sell his book?? Why did Chis Matthews wast him time trying to polish the turd that is William Ayers? People like Mike are why Williams Ayers is a professor and not rotting in a prison cell or sitting in the electric chair. The only difference between William Ayers and Timothy McVeigh is that Tim McVeigh had more explosives. Ayers is only irrelvant to Mike because Mike doesn't like hearing Ayers name dragged trough the mudd.

Factor on Ayers: "If this is true why did MSNBC have him on to sell his book?? Why di Chris Mathews wast time trying to polish that turd that is William Ayers?"

Duh!......Because YOUR side decided to make him an issue. So the public wanted to hear from the horse's own mouth that there was no actual "relationship"......So Factor, how does it feel to know that YOU'VE helped to enrich a terrorist?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Factor: "People like Mike are why William Ayers is a professor and not rotting in a prison cell or sitting in the elctric chair."

Now how in the world did YOU find out about that pardon that I gave the guy?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Factor: "The only difference between William Ayers and Timothy McVeigh is that Tim McVeigh had more explosives."

And your point is??
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Factor: "Ayers is only irrelevant to Mike because Mike doesn't like hearing Ayers name dragged through the mudd."

No, Ayers is irrelevant to me me because there was no "relationship" between him and President Elect Obama, ..... and none of us would be talking about Ayers now if he had not been made into a false scare issue in the campaigns. I don't give a damn about William Ayers...... Using a non-existant "relationship" to drag Obama through the "mudd" is what I objected to.

Olbyloon Ed
Todays Student: mikeh

Ayers was CLEARLY more than someone Obama just ran into in the neighborhood on occasion. In the mid-1990s, when Obama was making his first run for the Illinois Senate, Ayers had Obama to his home to introduce him to others.

But a flub by Obama in the debate suggested he does not know him that well: He called Ayers an English professor. Ayers teaches education at the University of Illinois at Chicago and has been an education adviser to Mayor Richard Daley.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2008/04/17/fact-check-obamas-relationship-with-william-ayers/

Olby Sucks: "Ayers was CLEARLY more than someone Obama just ran into in the neighborhood on occasion. In the mid 1990s, when Obama was making his first run for the Illinois Senate, Ayers had Obama to his home to introduce him to others."

Listem smart guy, you're not introducing anything new to this debate. No one is disputing the rather OLD information you just regurgitated above for about the ten thousanth time. Obama also had tea introductions in about 20 other homes on that very same day. I have personally been in the home of MANY people who are not personal friends of mine.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Olby Sucks: "But a flub by Obama in the debate suggested that he does not know him that well: He called Ayers an English professor. Ayers teaches education at the University of Illinois at Chicago and has been an education advisor to Mayor Richard Daley."

Obama has said more than once that he doesn't know Ayers very well. Ayers has said more than once that he doesn't know Obama very well. Almost everyone in politics and the media in the Chicago area knows Ayers about as well as Obama does. In fact, if you are in public service in that area and do not know Ayers, you aren't much of a player.

Try again sport......you got nothing! And two formidible politicians just lost the presidency trying to hang this nonsense on Obama's head!

"Because YOUR side decided to make him an issue"

Not to reengage this nonsense, but for the love of ...

The campaign of HILLARY CLINTON dragged all this out originally, dragged out Wright, dragged out Ayers, during the primary. You know, the primary where every Democrat and their mother said Obama lacked the experience to be president. Where the Clintons played the race card. And then suddenly Obama wins the nomination, and whatever was said during the primary didn't count? And now Hillary gets to be secretary of state! Excuse me?

"And now Hillary gets to be secretary of state! Excuse me?"

Halleluyah! So we don't have a vinditive president!......I don't see much down side with that particular change of attitude.

Trying to reason with an unctuous (awesome adjective, Cecelia)member of a cult of personality will be fruitless.

MikeH will never see actions by Obama as political payback (the secretary of state position, the commerce secretary position), or ideological (associating with militant leftists, associating with anti-Israel pundits)....Obama is simply "pragmatic," "moderate," "smart." Fine opinions, but flawed and easily dismissed. The problem arises when "journalists" also overlook such explainations and character flaws because their ideologcial or "celebrity meme" itches are being scratched

The same is applied to the lowering of expectations....a la the "box Obama is in," excuse.

Let me remind our dear poster that in one area, military readiness, unlike the radical anti-America left's PREDICTIONS in 2006/2007 during the height of debate around the surge (Bush would destroy the military), military recruitment reached record levels in 2008. The left salivated at every monthly report of lower recruitment as evidence Bush was "destroying our military." The mission in Iraq may have polled poorly among Americans like MikeH and those less informed of the importance of not allowing radical islamists their victory, through the later half of Bush's term, but his leadership in not allowing defeat in Iraq did not have the consequence predicted by church of SNOBamessiah zealots either in Iraq (Obama claimed it would make matters worse) or here in our country (leftists like Michael Moore gleefully predicting lower recruitment).....The anti-America left wanted another post Vietnam era to begin in 2006 (military defeat, a negative view of the American military).....thankfully George Bush prevented that from happening at personal political cost.

Now President Obama inherits a stronger, still victorious US Armed Forces with talent, honor and nationalistic pride(yes MikeH, they still wave American flags at parades...I am sure we will see them at The One's inauguration). Keeping promises to allies like the provisional government of Iraq (oh how our minds get changed from being a junior Senator of Illinois to being the one responsible for defeat) still remains a value despite the horrific hit it took from the left's political ruling class during the surge. But silly dishonest people like MikeH and Keith Olbermann overlook their predictions and hatred from only one year ago.

So goes cults of personality. Future events will be the determining factor in whether such silliness continues But if history is our guide, such pursuits result in real calamity and I am glad not to be a participant. Rational, honest and values-based assessments of the actions of our democratically chosen leaders will remain the correct path. In the surge debate I have participated on this site, MikeH chose to ignore the baseless and dangerous path supported by the agents of intolerance on the left....an unfortunate but needed result of the church of SNOBamessiah's influence...we may see the fruits of that cognitive dissonance in the next few years, to the detriment of our county.

VERO POSSUMUS!

Cee:"Trying to reason with an unctuous (awesome adjective, Cecelia)member of a cult of personality will be fruitless."

Now why would you say that it's fruitless to try and reason with someone who could spout this:

"And all three of those characters remain impossibly wealthy and unrepentant with dried blood on their hands for their not so unsubstantial part in helping to sell the war to the public."

Most people who are adamantly against the war are still understand (no matter how much they think they are wrong) that any war supporter "sold" the war because they were for it, are still for, and want to "win" in the sense that Iraq evolves into a free middle eastern country where religious and ethnic tensions are tempered with political cooperation and there are friendly relations with the West.

It's only part and parcel of the dark leftist fanatic to UTTERLY ignore the beliefs and the intentions of the very people they wish to rebut.

By MikeH on January 7, 2009 2:45 AM

Try again sport......you got nothing! And two formidible politicians just lost the presidency trying to hang this nonsense on Obama's head!

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Oh, baloney! McCain and Obama were neck-n-neck until the sub-prime crisis.

Just to give some context to this, I'd venture to say that had Mitt Romney won the nomination, a visit into the racist past of the Mormon Church would have been the content of numerous news specials, just as it was a lively topic here when Mitt looked like the man.

We know that McCain's alleged affair with a lobbyist made the front page of the New York Times with the paper's expressed defense of it as being an association with a LOBBYIST that made these rumors fit to print (above the fold of the front page!).

I'd venture to say that, now he's safely elected that you will most certainly see from the MSM questions about Obama's associations with Ayers, with Blago, with Rev. Wright, that were not pondered upon and questioned during the election.

You'll most certainly see some consideration of his seeming ability to have played the game with questionable people, and if not getting his own hands dirty, to have continued the relationships and to have looked the other way.

I won't hope that you'll see that pattern contrasted with some of Palin's actions towards members of her own party or with some of McCain's. Obama's iconic status will ever negate that.

But there will be media focus and questions to come. That belated focus and those belated questions will be deemed valid and justified to more than the few people here.

Get your histrionic muscle primed, Mike. You'll see this more substantially again.

Speaking of Chariman Ann...it seems NBC NEWS could not keep itself from promoting the controversial conservative and had her on twice today, on TODAY.....The summary of the Lauer portion ended with sentiments I (100%) agree with.....

"At the end of her first interview of the day, Lauer asked Coulter for her thoughts on George Bush’s leaving the White House.

"'I'm grateful to him for keeping the nation safe for the last eight years,' she said. 'We'll see if that continues.'"

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/28537291/

###
A high bar to meet for PEBO....But Bush has already helped Obama succeed there by successfully defending most of the important tools that enabled him to keep our homeland safe from the radical left's attempts to take them away. Again, MikeH's "box" seems very inaccurate....I wonder what executive priviledges Obama will give up that Bush/Cheney kept and reinstituted? Any ideas MikeH?

VERO POSSUMUS!