Saturday, June 28, 2008 

Now in "Worse Than O'Reilly" Flavor

Again, liberals should abhor Keith Olbermann. Specific candidate advocacy. That's pretty much what Olbermann's show has become.
Greenwald
"Olbermann added that telecom amnesty was a 'shameless, breathless, literally textbook example of Fascism -- the merged efforts of government and corporations that answer to no government.' ... Strong and righteous words indeed. But that was five whole months ago, when George Bush was urging enactment of a law with retroactive immunity and a lessening of FISA protections. Now that Barack Obama supports a law that does the same thing -- and now that Obama justifies that support by claiming that this bill is necessary to keep us Safe from the Terrorists -- everything has changed."
And this after Keith replied weakly on Daily Kos:
"In his Kos reply, Olbermann pronounces that my piece yesterday was 'simplistic and childish' but then adds the standard dismissive Journalist defense: 'I don't know much about Mr. Greenwald and I didn't read his full piece.' ...

Olbermman then denies that he was justifying Obama's support for the FISA bill but then goes on to do exactly that:

Seriously, there is little in the polls to suggest McCain has anything to run with other than terror . . . . So why hand them a brick to hit him with -- Obama Voted Against FISA -- if voting Aye enhances his chances of getting himself his own Attorney General to prosecute FISA.
How can Olbermann accuse me of distorting his commentary and deny that he's rationalizing Obama's support for the bill and then write the above -- which does nothing but justify Obama's support for the bill? That's exactly the mentality I was criticizing yesterday -- that Obama should be excused for supporting this assault on core Constitutional liberties and the rule of law because doing so is necessary to avoid appearing Weak on Terrorism. That's the behavior which Obama has repeatedly vowed to reject, and it's that precise mentality that has to be extinguished, not perpetuated."
With all the coverage on the liberal blogosphere, and with almost all the blogs agreeing with Greenwald (some don't even reference it and I assume they're pro-Keith truthers who are embarrassed by that fact), one thing you don't see is anyone calling it what it is, what the implications are because of what it is, and thereby why it's worse than what O'Reilly does. Olbermann is engaging in open advocacy of a candidate.
We all
observed his sycophantic treatment of Obama during the primaries but we had a weaselly way of justifying it because the criticisms of Clinton were all true and defensible. We could all fool ourselves into thinking his words were issue based. Even the over the top attack on Clinton over her reference to Bobby Kennedy. We forget that a big part of his criticism was independent of the controversy of whether she purposefully meant to scare voters by planting in their head the a feeling of anxiousness over whether the country could calmly handle the assassination of a president or president-elect. It was mostly not about her intention but the effect and how she should have been conscious of the potential fear and censored herself. He was almost always right on the issues.
Here, he is not.
He is unquestionably wrong on the issue (because he claimed to be an advocate against unprincipled politicking) and Glenn is 114% right.
This is nothing more than specific advocacy of a specific candidate. He simply cannot continue to host or co-host the debates. MSNBC's credibility is on the line. Hell, you might even see conservatives call for campaign rules to apply to
MSNBC's 8 o'clock hour. "Hi, I'm Barack Obama, and I approve of this pimping." You've seen them do crazier things. But what I'm most worried about is the substantial defense they now have against accusations of hypocrisy. No longer can we we bring up when Hannity campaigned for Rudy. We as liberals are generally much more principled and knowledgeable and one idiot who got lucky and filled a vacuum is now our "leader" by our choice. He is far less representative of us than Rush or O'Reilly or Glenn Beck are representative of the right. Now everyone thinks we're all like Olbermann. This just extends the mindless charade indefinitely and sets back our fight in the "truth" war back a decade.
Please, Keith.
You're ruining everything.

Tuesday, June 17, 2008 

Liberals Should Abhor Keith Olbermann

This will be a regular feature at the Tilter. Why should we abhor this man? Because he's just Bill O'Reilly in hipster glasses.
In Worst Persons tonight he called the odious Darrell Issa "monstrous", without a heart, a "cur", and "not human". A "cur" is a dog, by the way. I looked it up.
Please tell me the difference between this and the eliminationist rhetoric from the likes of Michael Savage. (
"If you take to the streets with the vermin who are trying to dictate to us how we should run America, even though they're not even entitled to vote or be here, you're going to be thrown out of office.")
Obvious civics lesson in three, two, one ... Conservatives are by nature enemy-creators because to be conservative is to seek to maintain the status quo (circa 1954). The first step to keeping what "belongs" to "us" is to define who "us" is. And by defining "us" they also define who's "not us". The simplest way (always the most agreeable to the primordial portions of conservatives' brains) to solidify this divide is to draw the line in that place between human and non-human. That is the conservative instinct.
Liberals are inclusive; we at least claim to believe that we are all the same. Keith crossed the line into parochial, shallow reasoning long ago but tonight was his most grotesque display. This is what O'Reilly does. How can liberals ever claim the upper hand if our biggest media friendly is nothing more than Sean Hannity without the Catholic angst and fear of brown people. The most damaging thing about this is that since he's the only option out there liberal big shots, from bloggers (except Somerby, of course) to succubi politicians who opportunistically attach themselves to the side of this bloated, bottom-feeder when it's "media-ly" necessary (Kerry, Pelosi, Clinton, Obama).
One of the biggest shames is that seemingly honest people with personal causes like Paul Reickhoff, Donna Edwards and Cindy Sheehan are already too deeply into this mess because there's no other option. Give Rachel Maddow a fucking show for shit's sake. This couldn't be more frustrating.
You're ruining everything Keith Olbermann.