Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

1. Zachcarlson, you are correct, Keith O is no enemy to the left wing. He's just an enemy to fairness and moderation. Like I've said before...there is a big old world between the left wing and the log cabin. That's the world most people are in.

   Posted by: Paul | May 28, 2008 1:04:32 PM

   
   

2. Keith O has become a parody of himself as a parody of Bill O. for some time now.

   I've stopped watching his show when it became a "spectacle" the blue screen Rockerfeller set; riduculous graphics that looks like it wants to copy Colbert.

   And the pretentions reak with self importance. He seems to want to prosition himself as the left's Rush/Bill O fine...OK so now WE GOT ONE OF THEM blowhards.
   Why don't I feel good?
   I used to watch him religiously but I'm tired of is unfettered bias.
   I miss the news.
   I miss real reporting.

   Oh well there still is Bill Moyers.
   And thinkprogress.org

   Posted by: MCnNYC | May 28, 2008 1:12:11 PM

   
   

3. OREGONSTUDENT:

   Please don't use the Huffington Post in an asttempt to provide anything credible regarding Hillary. Arianna made a fortune bashing the Clintons (and her success as part of the Newt Gingrich set is why you know her name.) She may have traded red for blue, but she still hates the Clintons. Moreover, she knows that she and her close allies would have very limited access to another Clinton administration. She has been campaigning hard on her site against Clinton. Nothing on HuffPo regarding Hillary can be trusted.

   Posted by: Landon Bryce | May 28, 2008 1:19:38 PM

   
   

4. I think Keith's right on the money. I've given Clinton lots and lots of rope over the past several months, taking the attitude of "She can't catch a fair break, the media hates her, the mysogeny she's getting is unbelievable, etc." I totally could see why old-school feminists felt angry and betrayed at how Clinton was being dissed on a regular basis. However, Olbermann does a tough and unfortunately very thorough job listing the increasingly egregious missteps that Clinton has taken as the campaign has progressed--missteps that have begun to show a very ugly side. And no, this is not a case of "If she were a man, she'd be praised for being tough!" She's fighting dirty, taking tricks from the Republican playbook, and she's bringing dishonor not just to herself, but to her husband and the party at large. I refuse to continually absolve her of her sins (insignificant as well as major) just because I think it's high time we had a woman as a candidate for president--to give her "special treatment" under these circumstances is a betrayal of her desire to be viewed, simply, as the best candidate. Indeed, she has proven to me, with this grotesquely insensitive RFK reference, that she no longer deserves to be considered as the best candidate, and that Obama quite simply outclasses her. It has nothing to do with the fact that he has a penis; it's simply that he at this point seems to have more brains, class, and diplomacy at his disposal than she does. Why, after these remarks, would Obama want her as his VP? How could he feel he could trust her, that she respects him and has his back? At the very least, Clinton would've been a knockout Secretary of State; now she might not even get that. The Clintons tried to prove the adage of "you don't bring a knife to a gunfight" by proving Hillary's admitted (and admirable) toughness and ferocity; now, alas, she's shot herself in the foot, and there's not a darn thing they can do to fix it.

   Posted by: Dback | May 28, 2008 1:36:35 PM

   
   
« Previous

Post a comment

Name:

Email Address:

URL:

Remember personal info?

Comments: