Olbermann's Hillary Derangement Syndrome Takes Him Over the Top and Right Across the Line (Updated)

Posted by Damozel | Before listening, please note that D Cupples has already seen off The New York Times' ludicrously unfair bashing of Hillary which Olbermann is discussing.  Read her rebuttal here.  Note also the caption --- 'Democrats keep taking negative turns' --- while Olbermann selectively bashes only Hillary, repeating the words 'mean and vacuous' with a little smack of satisfaction.

Then listen to his 'witty' proposal for putting an end to Hillary's successful campaign against his precious Obama. 

At Shakesville, Melissa McEwan says tersely, "If you don't grok why that's problematic, you probably can't understand the big words I'd need to explain it, anyway."   

I want to know:  where is the media outrage?

At The Confluence, Riverdaughter gives Olbermann the benefit of the doubt.

[L]et’s review the tape, shall we, [Keith]?....I interpret your statement to mean that you would like a superdelegate to take Hillary Clinton into a room and somehow intimidate her, you don’t specify how, to drop out of the race and that at the end of this process, only one of them, preferably the superdelegate, would emerge....

But the question that remains unasked is why would she not be able to come out of that room on her own in *your* scenario? I think the implication is clear here. What is implied is that the superdelegate would work her over physically until she yielded. The result of the beating would leave her incapacitated to exit the room of her own volition.

I said that Riverdaughter is giving Olbermann the benefit of the doubt because there are even darker implications, as Anglachelg will be happy to explain.

What Keith Olbermann said yesterday is not symbolic. He flatly said a (male) Democratic super delegate should take Hillary Clinton into a room, and only the man should emerge.

Keith Olbermann is openly advocating the murder of Hillary Clinton.

I don't agree with Anglachelg that Olbermann is literally requesting a superdelegate to kill Hillary but his use of the metaphor --- and his stipulation that it should be a male delegate who does whatever Olbermann wants to see done to Hillary --- is deeply troubling.  For one thing, it certainly tells us something about Keith Olbermann's state of mind. 

It is sufficiently worrying that such a widely watched commentator is recommending 'a symbolic honor killing.' (Anglachelg)   

Or is it only Hillary about whom such irrational ire may be directed with impunity?

What sort of man talks this way about a woman?  And what sort of deep fears and boundless insecurities could bring him to this pitch of misogyny?  Or are people really not disturbed anymore by this sort of rhetoric?

Moreover, why?  What has Hillary done to provoke this level of derangement?  I don't understand it.

Is this really an acceptable way for male commentators talk today about female political candidates?  Judging by some of the comments I've seen levied at Hillary by some of Obama's male supporters, it's perhaps becoming acceptable.  I'm shocked that Olbermann, whom I took for a progressive, considers it so. 

You don't have to be a feminist to find it objectionable; common decency ought to prevent a political commentator from speaking in this manner about any candidate. 

Imagine if someone were to make a similar statement about Barack Obama.  Imagine the reaction.  And yet violently misogynist statements about Hillary Clinton have grown so common that Olbermann's statement barely caused a ripple.

And that is the most shocking thing of all.

UPDATE:  Rachel Sklar at HuffPost weighs in.

Olbermann was discussing the election with Newsweek's Howard Fineman, a frequent guest. They topic was, how can a winner finally be determined in this never-ending Democratic race for the nomination? Of course, the assumption was that it was Clinton that should be shown the door (despite clearly still earning her spot in the race thanks to, um, voters). Fineman said that, all the delegate math aside, ultimately it was going to take "some adults somewhere in the Democratic party to step in and stop this thing, like a referee in a fight that could go on for thirty rounds. Those are the super, super, super delegates who are going to have to decide this."

Said Olbermann: "Right. Somebody who can take her into a room and only he comes out."...

What does that mean? Really, it can only mean one thing: Beating the crap out of Hillary Clinton, to the point where she is physically incapable of of getting up and walking out. At minimum. We know this. We know this because we have all seen movies where people are invited into private places to have "discussions" and the unruly party is, um, dealt with accordingly. It's an unmistakably violent image....

There really seems to be only one interpretation here, and the only point of debate is on whether it's okay or not. I'm going to cut that one short: It's not. To the fellow (male) journo I wrote to about this yesterday, who waved it off as just some colorful film-noir imagery, I say: can you IMAGINE if someone had said that about Obama? That he should be taken somewhere and dealt with, so that he wouldn't come back? Can you imagine if some right-winger had talked about getting Obama out of the race "the old-fashioned way?"

Olbermann is denying that what he said meant what it meant.  Of course he is.  Here's the apology that someone sent on his behalf to Sklar. 

It is a metaphor. I apologize: the generic "he" gender could imply something untoward. It should've been "only the other comes out - from a political point of view." You could've called for reaction first if your main motive had merely been criticism.

Baloney, sir; baloney.  As noted, I don't believe for a moment that you really are advocating a beating for Hill, but that's the image that you chose, and it was therefore the one in your mind, and it is all too cognate with the way you have otherwise dealt with her in your unfair and biased coverage of this campaign (including the Pennsylvania primary). 

And --- like so much of the rhetoric deployed by Obama's young male supporters --- it is a reflection of how far the level of discourse has fallen since a woman asked to be taken seriously as a candidate for president.

And don't miss SusanUnPC's take on it at No Quarter.  Among other things, she points out that the subtitle running as the two MEN talk about how to dispose of Hillary Clinton:  “Campaign & Suffering."

Memeorandum has more blogger comments here .

____________________________________
If you think plenty of other non-blogging Hillary supporters aren't equally outraged, read on.

I was really disturbed by that statement. Conjured up some horrible images for me. I still can’t believe he said that without knowing what it implies.

Has sexisim reached such a level that now one can talk freely about violence to women without any fear of retribution. Incidentally KO also talked about retribution wrt Hillary’s win. (Alanis, The Confluence)

****

These people have taken leave of their senses in their blind hatred of Hillary.... I never watch MSNBC anymore, and this is just a reminder of why I will never watch them again. (The Confluence; bostonboomer)

****

That is mild compared to what I typically hear from male supporters of Obama–in person. Rape, for one, is casually used as an “ideal” way to “take care of” Sen. Clinton. These men proclaim themselves to be “progressive” and supposedly hate her for her “warmongering” (a false charge in itself) but their fondness for a hate/war crime is undeniably evil. And common.

As a young man myself I’m not remotely surprised. Women underestimate the level of visceral anti-female hate amongst most men. And with the media and blogger boyz openly inciting and celebrating anti-female hate, it has only emboldened them.  (The Confluence; davidson)

****

I was offended....  I actually thought the comment about “retribution” was somehow more upsetting, even though I took his “two go into the room and only one comes out” as meaning - well, offed. But, of course his supporters will find some meaning that isn’t horrible, and they will say it means that. But the word “retribution” disturbed me because it says Clinton has committed crimes, needs to be punished - to me, it sounds like strong language. “Retribution” is where you’ve done something evil. Just using the word is an accusation.  (The Confluence; jaclyn)

****

I think people often make the excuse that it isn’t sexism but it’s just Hillary as if she’s the one exception who shouldn’t be counted as a woman. It makes no sense really but they don’t realize that no one would say that about someone who belongs to a minority group. If a liberal said something racist about Condi Rice it is still racist. It doesn’t matter whether we like her or blame it on the fact that she is separate from black people because she is a conservative. I am so sick of this. Hillary is a woman and most women in this country support her. When someone insults her in a sexist way, by extension it is an insult to all women but the women who support her in particular who seem to be the only ones who sees the sexism in this election.  (The Confluence; Disenfranchised Voter)

RELATED BN-POLITICS POSTINGS

Respected Magazine Misleads Readers about Florida's Primary

Obama Took $46,000 in Oil-Connected Money (in March, Alone)

Hillary Picks up Millions of Dollars & 2 Endorsements

Media Misleads Public about Florida, Michigan, and DNC Rules

Comments

[Adam]

I'm not going to defend Olbermann's stupid metaphor, but it was a metaphor. Let's please not take it literally. Also, that statement had nothing to do with gender. Yes, it was a terrible joke, but it was not meant literally.

The idea is that Reid/Pelosi/Dean/Edwards/Gore/Carter (all of whom are fairly transparently supporting Obama at this point) need to come out and say it explicitly, and get the rest of the uncommitted superdelegates to join in.

The two speakers focussed all the talk of negativity on Hillary because she is using Republican talking points and is running the most negative campaign of the season, by far. And the Republicans are now actually running attack ads FOR Hillary in upcoming primary states. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the Republicans want to see Hillary drag this out a little longer. Obama has been drastically more restrained.

It's Hillary's prerogative to stay in as long as she likes, but her chances of winning actually shrunk significantly on Tuesday. In the largest contest left, and one that was highly suited to her demographics, she actually secured a lower percentage of the votes than the AVERAGE she would need to catch Obama in votes, even if we counted Florida. And of course pledged delegates are completely a lost cause.

This is why you're seeing the new Clinton talking point being "electability", because it's now clear that they won't be able to convince any superdelegate in June that Hillary won the popular vote. So they now have to convince them that overturning the popular vote and the pledged delegates (the "rules of the game" as Hillary's people acknowledged them before they fell behind) is in the party's interest.

[Adam]

Let me be more clear in what I mean about what Olbermann said.

My point is that while Olbermann's throwaway line was in poor taste, I don't consider it to be rooted in sexism. I think he would use the same language if it were Edwards in stead of Clinton who was hanging around with only faint hope. Maybe my ears are just less tuned in to this, but I didn't hear it, the way he said it, as a reference to violence to women.

[Gary McGowan]

I'd like to run Keith Olbermann down with my car.

Hey, hey! It was a metaphor! Man, you people are so touchy ...

Keith Olbermann should be trussed and dressed like a dead deer.

Whoops, there goes my metaphorical side again. They say that sort of thing all the time in politics, it doesn't mean anything!

If a newscaster said Obama should be taken out back to the tall oak tree, no one would blink an eye?

(Comments copied from others elsewhere on this topic - I think they are spot on. )

[Nikki]

I had a hard time getting through this clip...From where I sit as a righty, and I do not like Clinton, I see the media's tongue down the throat of Obama...he can say whatever he wants including calling Hillary Annie Oakley and gets away with it...Olbermann is a joke, he is touted as an anchorman and is clearly a partisan commentator! :)N