Friday, May 23, 2008

Please Keith Olbermann, Just Shut Up.

Hey Keith, remember the 90's? You know, that special time when the United States actually reduced it's own budget deficit, was actually liked around the world, and YOU saw your own career flourish, in part because of good economic times. Good economic times brought on in part by two Bill Clinton terms in office.

I am trying not to curse, out of respect to
nocussing.com,
but Keith Olbermann is so out of line in his most recent anti Hillary Clinton "commentary" that it will take a village to honor the no cussing pledge. Keith Olbermann, when you bellow your views to the "shocked they ever liked you" television audience, don't say "we", as if you speak for me, because you don't.

Your attempt to use the word "we" several times in your anti Hillary editorial just reminds us all of what an unloved nerd you probably were in your teens. Keith arrogantly and condescendingly explains how "we", have "tolerated", and "forgiven" Hillary Clinton for a list of wrongs so long that they could circle the globe at least once. Yet Keith never brings up how condescending and pre-meditated he and his elitist groups of "super friends in search of a purpose" at MSNBC have become in their ongoing snide commentaries of Hillary Clinton the women, the person, the wife, the politician, the mother, the human being.

If I hear Keith Olbermann quote the Huffington Post one more time as if that somehow makes Huffington post a legitimate source of news, I may barf.

Keith, give it a very, very long, long rest. Your previous diatribe against Geraldine Ferraro, which I easily debunked in a prior editorial,
Geraldine Ferraro's Comments Explained,
was your dumbest and most embarrassingly melodramatic nerd rant I had ever witnessed, until now. Your attempt to successfully overshadow that herculeanly lame Ferraro editorial with your kooky attack on Hillary Clinton proves you can go lower than low. Slink away my good man, take a vacation, get a massage, do something to remove the sharp metal object that seems to be jabbing you every time you pontificate. Keith Olbermann, every time you speak about the democratic presidential race, diarrhea oozing from your mouth is sure to follow.

Keith, over 17 million voters have voted for Hillary Clinton this year, or about 100 times a larger audience than your average viewing audience is after "we" subtract all the Clinton supporters who no longer can stand your sorry butt.

8 comments:

minty said...

The man was a former sports caster.I wish he was a nerd, at least that would indicate more than two firing neurons

Anonymous said...

I like how on your super pro-Clinton site, all you can do is rip Olbermann, rather than try to defend the assinine thing your candidate said. She could have left it with "my husband didn't wrap it up until June in 1992" and everyone would have understood what she meant.

But she didn't.

Alessandro Machi said...

Ideally, Hillary Clinton shouldn't have answered the "Why are you still in the race" question since it's been asked a thousand times already and the asking of "why are you still in the race" is the real obscenity, each and every time it is asked. Each and everytime it is asked!

However, if Hillary Clinton had done the right thing and not answered it, she would be name called and attacked by the media for being stand offish and rude. Hillary Clinton has been attacked on an hourly basis day after day by the news media.

Look around this site. I'm putting real documentation of the stupid things the media says and does and there is such an overflow of anti Hillary nastiness I could not keep up even if I spent 24 hours /7 days a week on it.

Just so you know, I used to like Keith Olbermann. People like Olbermann, Arianna Huffington, Cafferty, Andrea Mitchell, Chris Matthews and others in the media are trying to sway the outcome of the democratic race, rather than offer unbiased reporting of the race.

minty said...

Olberman somehow has a problem. His reactions are way over the top along with Chris Mathews. Makes me wonder what kind of relationship they had with their mothers to have this type of reaction.

Also Olberman mentioned recently that some responsible man should take Hillary into a room and only he should come out. How quickly Olberman forgets..of course his reaction to Senator Clinton's statement could be one of indignation since he had to apologize for his.

Why didn't he mention Obama's recent remarks to a group of Jews in Fl.
He asked them to look past his muslin name and skin color. Obviously sensing Jews are inherently racist. Of course he can blame the racist Jewish voters now for not voting for him. What a piece of work. Then there was the comment Obama made stating that Israel was a sore infecting US foreign policy.
I really don't Senator Clinton has said anything that compares to some of the stuff Obama hs said, but you would never know it by Olbermann's delusional rantings

james said...

I allowed but edited out your link on your comment on my blog mainly because it wasn't a comment but an ad for your site.

Anyways... you did not even come CLOSE to sticking on topic here.

It's not about WHO said this little rant at Hillary it's WHAT was said. On that note he's dead on.

Hillary Clinton was asked a simple question, why are you still here. She answered with a double answer, one of which was wholly inappropriate.

The response she SHOULD have given could have gone like this...

"My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June."

That's a completely acceptable answer.

WHY drop in the loaded bullet of the Kennedy assassination? You KNOW it's a loaded comment.

Alessandro Machi said...

That's weird, I can't snip part of peoples answers the way you appear to be able to do on your site. Take a moment and consider the hypocrisy of allowing Keith Olberman a spot on your blog but when someone mentions an opposing viewpoint you feel it necessary to block that information from your readers. If I cut and paste my editorial from this site onto yours, that I would consider to be spamming. The link takes up very little space while readers an opportunity to see an opposing viewpoint to the viewpoint you are quoting from.

If your article had been entirely your words, I would have responded in kind on your site.

I completely have answered the question in my artilce and stayed on topic. The asking of the question over and over and over is the most offensive part of the situation.

You can choose to ignore that aspect and instead wait for the one time the often repeated question causes an answer what you believe to be an opportunity to attack Hillary Clinton.

I spend very little time attacking Barack Obama other than to point out that his side cheated in the caucus elections and he is denying voters in Florida and Michigan a chance to have their votes count.

I spend most of my time spotlighting the gleeful media choir that seems to want Barack while hating Hillary Clinton 24-7.

Alessandro Machi said...

James, even politico.com called it a non story.

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=203F9A7D-3048-5C12-00F893045DC51923

James said...

I didn't censor anything as you can click your name on my site to access your blog. I do not accept "I disagree come see my site to see why!" type comments... thanks though.

She took a big misstep answering that question and she's taking the blows for it. She could have left out the assassination point and STILL gotten her point across.

I think Olbermann is a moron but I DO think he made a very good point that it was completely tactless for her to even toss the thought in there.