As he notes, his opinion about the HIllary's campaign has come from careful observation and not a desire to see the Clinton's destroyed.

For the last 8 years, the MSM has blandly gone along with administrative lies and warmongering and parroted the GOP talking points. On the right, we have had Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Coulter and others. The left had only Air America, struggling in and out of bankruptcy and with only a sliver of a following compared to TV networks.

Olbermann is the only liberal media superstar, and has such whopping big ratings that the network MSNBC and the advertisers have had to recognize liberals as an audience they want, and as customers they want. Don't bite the hand that feeds you. Look at the majority of TV News advertising and it's obvious where the corporate influence of news works (on the Sunday morning gasbags this morning, US Airforce, big pharma, insurance companies and “clean coal”).

Now, a network owned by two huge GOP supporters–NBC (GE) and MSN (Microsoft)–are having to face the economic reality that an outspoken liberal news anchor/commentator is hugely popular and hence profitable.

Say what you like, but I think this is a very good thing. The media is finally realizing that it can't ignore those who oppose ignoring climate change, open-ended pre-emptive war and robbing the treasury to benefit the upper crust. Pandering to the right turns off a chunk of audience that MSNBC is picking up.

Now, if you care to point out any factual errors in Olbermann's show, go ahead. I've read a couple of his books and though he is often attacked, he has not been refuted (except in rare occasions that he has himself corrected on-air). Don't like his tone? Turn it off. But don't make the Hillary mistake of coming down on the one network that has seen the light and taken a good chunk of market share specifically because they are airing a viewpoint that resonates with many millions of Americans.

But when it comes to Hillary supporters saying something then the perception and the spin is that Hillary is a puppet master and she somehow manipulated them into saying something.

I have written before that this is a war of surrogates because Obama and Hillary are so very much alike in where they stand on the issues that the only way to define themselves in ways that makes the other look bad and not make themselves look bad in the process is to have others do it for you.

The winner is clearly Barak Obama for one simple reason.

He has done almost nothing in his political career for anyone to impugn. Case closed. As Fox news said about two weeks ago. The democrats are stuck with Obama. He is the candidate for november. They just havent finished screaming yet.

A large part of the problem in what is (laughingly) called analysis and commentary is that it's all about promoting some TV personality or other, not the serious business of providing information. They even each have their own schtik. Tim Russett's 'tough questions' consist of an airheaded reading of every nasty thing said about the person being interviewed and asking him/her to account for it. So-and-so said you are a blackmailer/thief/liar, and how do you account for that? Those aren't tough questions; it's a gossip session with Rosie and the girls.

For cable news, it's just the entertainment business, and these personalities are just there to draw in the crowds, like circus barkers drew crowds into circus tents.

The tragedy is that people dont' realize thay're at a circus and may acutally cast their votes according to the alternate world these people create..

Woe to the politician who isn't popular with these circus barkers. Any of them would make theri own grandmother look bad if it was good for the career.

I wrote this piece because I am sick of hearing Hillary lambasted for things other people have said. It's ridiculous to imagine that she would have wanted Carville to say what he did—whatever you think of her, she's not a moron, and she and everyone else knew what was going to happen afterward.

Let's get real people, if you had to answer for everything that someone you knew said, you would have perpetual indigestion.

“end of story”. That is convincing to nobody. It is a declaration.

Wright is a good example of how an issue does not stick to a candidate, when the candidate has no record of similar events, when the candidate seems better than her vitriolic supporters.

Hillary herself has burned many. many of the bridges she crossed.

The Clintons, have created the pugnacious atmosphere that is doing them in. Carville, for most people, is The Clintons: Blind Loyalty. End of story.

By the way, Obama is not my preferred candidate.

Obama should not have done business with Reszo (sp?), Michelle Obama has too much bitterness, Obama is a “roll of the dice”. I could go on and on. What Obama does not have is a 17 year record of attacking the messenger and excuse-making supporters who alternately express admiration for toughness with self-pitying “Poor Hillary” complaints.

The reason The Clintons do not get the benefit of the doubt was visible March 24, when her campaign cited “contemporary news accounts” to back up a story they knew was false.

And that same day, so did Hillary. She could not connect and say something so easy “The Armed Forces of our country made me so safe that day that I salute them. I was happy to go to Bosnia and thank them that day in person. Many of my 80 overseas trips were made more meaningful because I thanked all those whom we cannot than eneough. If I left the impression that I was in danger, what I meant to say was THEY are in danger and always did a great job protecting me. In fact, the Armed Forces would not have flown me into any place where there was a remote danger to me. I meant to say, THEY faced the danger before and after my visit and I am grateful to them.”

Hillary does not say things like that because her staff are idiots.

However, for you, Hillary is running for president as a victim, “end of story”,

For the sake of Taylor Marsh and Talk left and Hillary' more Americans should accept “end of story” assertions. It is not a good argument and Hillary needs to convince people, doesn't she?

Just to be clear. If Hillary becomes the candidate, I will be voting for her. Zero question of that.

And I agree that I just can't worked up by the comments of proxies. the ONLY thing that Clinton has really angered me about was her decision to praise McCain in order to impugn Obama. That is going well past the line.

I don't blame Clinton for Carville being stupid. But that doesn't mean I exonerate Carville for being stupid.

But if we're going to play the game of attributing the words of SO-CALLED surrogates to their supposed puppet masters, it ought to apply equally. All these little distinctions—Carville's this or that with respect to the Clinton, but McPeak isn't, but Ferraro was, but Wright isn't…..it's just arrant nonsense, really.

I don't really care what McPeak says, as long as I'm allowed to comment on its ludicrousness, and I don't care what Wright says or said, because as much as I don't like Obama, I don't believe for a second that he shares those views.

I wrote this piece because I am sick of hearing Hillary lambasted for things other people have said. It's ridiculous to imagine that she would have wanted Carville to say what he did—whatever you think of her, she's not a moron, and she and everyone else knew what was going to happen afterward.

By way of necessary preface, President and Sen. Clinton, and the senator’s mother, and the senator’s brother, were of immeasurable support to me at the moments when these very commentaries were the focus of the most surprise, the most uncertainty, and the most anger. My gratitude to them is abiding.

Also, I am not here endorsing Sen. Obama’s nomination, nor suggesting it is inevitable. Thus I have fought with myself over whether or not to say anything.

Senator, as it has reached its apex in their tone-deaf, arrogant and insensitive reaction to the remarks of Geraldine Ferraro, your own advisers are slowly killing your chances to become president.

Senator, their words, and your own, are now slowly killing the chances for any Democrat to become president. In your tepid response to this Ferraro disaster, you may sincerely think you are disenthralling an enchanted media and righting an unfair advance bestowed on Sen. Obama.

You may think the matter has closed with Rep. Ferraro’s bitter, almost threatening resignation. But in fact, Senator, you are now campaigning as if Barack Obama were the Democrat and you were the Republican.[...]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23601041/

Gosh, he is sooo in love with Obama!

And I will CERTAINLY vote for Obama if he gets the nomination. I'd cut off my right arm before I'd vote for McCain. I'll hold my nose and do it.

I believe that Hillary has been treated unfairly by the media, end of story. I am not going to be argued out of that position because it's based on careful observation. I didn't even start to get angry about it till Olbermann decided to go off on her.

Obviously, we have very different views. I'm aware that for many Obama supporters, Obama can do no wrong. I don't feel that way about Hillary. But what turned me toward her was the disingenuous projections of the Obama camp (and those who sail in it) of their own tactics onto the Clinton campaign. At first, I pointed these out in the mildest possible terms, protesting that the attacks on Clinton could do no one any good.

Then—like a lot of people who didn't feel Obama's spell—I started to get angry.

As I noted here, I spent 20 minutes trying to choose between Hillary and Obama once it was clear that Edwards was out. I honestly didn't know which would be better.

I know now, though. Not that it matters—I am a disenfranchised Floridian.

The reason why Pastor Wright does not represent Obama is because Pastor Wright does not even remotely sound like Obama.

Hillary is praised as a tough knife fighter, willing and able to take the fight to her enemies. That is supposed to be one of her virtues.

But many Americans are tired of The Clintons and the way they feed good story lines to Republicans, from “THAT WOMAN!!!” to The Ballad of The Battle of Bosnia.

“I don’t recall anyone offering me tea…” Hillary said in March, implying that our Armed Forces allowed her and her daughter and reporters and USO personnel to fly into a War Zone; a lie that destroyed the truth of what was one of her accomplishments!!!

Don’t blame special rules. Blame Hillary. Carville speaks like a Clinton, and acts like a Clinton. His message today was so stupid, but so in keeping with what we know about the Clintons.

If Hillary returns, Carville was saying, Pardons will be for sale as well as Lincoln Bedroom overnights. You have to pay to play and you have to be loyal.

Omerta. The code of The Clintons. I feel sorry for anyone who thinks Hillary is different than The Clintons. If she is, it is a tragedy. But Carville just reminded many of us why we wished they would retire and work on building their considerable fortune.

Who suggests that you should vote for ANYONE because a media pundit supports them?

We live in a culture of nonstop news. Countless analysts and advocates constantly pontificating on how the world is, based on their opinion. So we pick and choose particular outlets that suit our purposes. MSNBC has 2 hosts that appear to have clearly gone in favor of Obama. And this is the ONLY thing that Clinton supporters want to focus. They ignore the largely favorable coverage they receive from CBS and, in particular, ABC.

James Carville is a high profile talking head who is closely tied to the Clinton campaign and is on TV every week. Tony McPeak is a former military general that most people couldn't pick out in a lineup. Why would it surprise you that Carville's comments receive more notice?

Hillary and her hangers on have been on the scene for over 15 years. They are very well known. Obama and most of his hangers on are largely unknown at the national level. So yes, there is uneven playing field. But it works both ways. James Carville gets to break out the pom poms every week for Hillary without a peep of criticism(contrast that with the constant attacks Olbermann gets for having a bias for Obama). So when he says something stupid it will get more play than some general that most people have never heard of.

You seem quite determined to look at things through the lens of a ardent Hillary supporter. For instance….

. For example, her excellent speech about getting out of Iraq—how much did you hear about that, compared to the endless—and ultimately tedious—dissection of Obama's mediocre, totally predictable speech on race?

Obama's speech may have been tedious and mediocre(although that opinion seems to be in a distinct minority) but it was CLEARLY more relevant to the news of the week than Hillary giving a speech about at the same time. I don't even know how you can call that bias of any sort. The only thing that people were talking about at the time was Wright and race yet you are surprised that people focused on that speech and not Hillary's stump speech on Iraq?

<cite>This time in Bill Clinton's campaign he too was pronounced a dead man walking.</cite>

Really? Bill Clinton was pronounced a dead man after 80% of the states had voted?

Hillary and her supporters are hoping for a Hail Mary pass to save the day. Maybe it will but it isn't very likely.

Look, most superdelegates are in Congress, the Senate or, as Richardson, in the administrations of the 50 states. For all of them, it is crucial to have a Democratic president in 2009. If at any time, they become convinced that Senator Clinton cannot take the lead in pledged delegates and the popular vote, they will likely choose to seek party unity behind the candidate who does have the votes. Very few people believe that the superdelegates will overturn the will of voters.

To me this really points out the worst aspect of the Clinton political machine. Loyalty to them. Not loyalty to country, not loyalty to future policy, loyalty to them, and the pressure that once you are a part of the family you do nothing to hurt them. That is the most damaging aspect of how she would run things and why her presidency could turn into a potential disaster. Then Carville goes on and on about how the Clintons made Richardson and he owes them.

You might be angry, but to me that mindset is infuriating. It is exactly what I hate most about the Bush presidency as well…..the lying and the coverups and not questioning anything because it's all about loyalty. That's one of the most poisonous views to a democracy.

“Bill Richardson’s response was that the Clinton people felt they were entitled to the presidency.”

I personally felt that he meant the people around Clinton felt the entitlement, not her personally. I don't know if she does (if Carville just says it's debatable and goes on to immediately say that Richardson owes them then that's not a very good defense) but I would give her the benefit of the doubt. The people around her however…

Anyway the McCarthy thing was ridiculous and Obama needs to definitely repudiate it. Regardless of what they think Bill was trying to imply.

And again, don't confuse 'victimization' with outrage. I don't speak for Hillary, I speak for me, and I think any DETACHED observer would notice the unequal treatment. For example, her excellent speech about getting out of Iraq—how much did you hear about that, compared to the endless—and ultimately tedious—dissection of Obama's mediocre, totally predictable speech on race?

Green Dreams: It may or may not be over. I know Obama's supporters would like to believe this, but as Al Gore said, What's the hurry? There's five months to go. This time in Bill Clinton's campaign he too was pronounced a dead man walking.

In the meantime, reasonable minds differ about whether a Hillary victory is impossible. If you want to believe that, well and good. But don't try to convince me I shouldn't want MY candidate to go on fighting till she decides for herself that it is. Her supporters want her to fight on. If you want to frame this as denial, you may do so. I consider it to be denial on your part and on the part of those who just want her to hand the nomination for the PRESIDENCY OF THE UNITED STATES to her rival.

It's not a race to see who gets to be monarch of the Homecoming Court.

I don't think it is an attitude of victimhood, but of resistance. Many, many Dems are sick to death of hearing Hillary bashed and of the blatantly biased treatment she is receiving from the media.

I can't agree that the opinions of Keith Olbermann or of the rest of the media are a good reason to vote for Obama. In fact, that strikes me as a completely specious argument.

That said, I have said what I have said (just to continue the biblical metaphor a little further).

Anyone who wants to argue that it's worse to compare someone to Joseph McCarthy than to Judas is welcome to do so. It's not a contest between insults. I am merely reflecting on the deafness of the media to even the most extreme (and if you know anything about McCarthy and Bill Clinton, it WAS extreme) and unfair statements coming out of Obama's people, compared to the hypersensitivity to anything coming from Hillary's defenders.

If you don't see it, you don't. To carry the biblical metaphor EVEN further: There is none so blind as he who will not see!