by Damozel | I am a sufficiently committed Democrat to vote for Obama in the general election. I think --- I say I think --- that he'll try to represent the Democratic party if elected. I don't have to like or believe in him. I believe in what he stands for.
But there are some things that have happened during the primary --- and some people who helped to orchestrate them --- that I shall never, never forget or forgive.
But it's not just me. Despite what Frank Rich, who doesn't know a thing about it, would have you believe, the anger of many of Hillary's supporters still burns with the fury of a million white-hot suns. There are some media figures who seem to think they can put out the blaze by pissing on us. They're wrong.
The names 'Keith Olbermann' and Chris Matthews (alas, Tweety, against my wish I kind of loved you but you finally went too far) rank high on my personal shit list, and my ire is such that the entire MSNBC network must pay the price until such time as they admit that they've grievously wronged me and apologize for it. If I were the only Democrat who felt that way, it wouldn't matter. But we are legion.
A piece in The New Yorker entitled One Angry Man well describes some (not all) of the major offenses of Hillary-baiter-in-chief Keith Olbermann.
[Tom] Brokaw says he sometimes feels that he has been cast in the role of hall monitor at NBC News; if so, his charges have kept him busy. The day after the New Hampshire primary, Matthews asserted that Hillary Clinton owed her election as senator to public sympathy for her in light of her husband’s sexual peccadilloes. “It was completely out of line,” Brokaw says. “And Keith took it to another level...”
At MSNBC, Phil Griffin was worried, and with good reason. The average “Countdown” viewer is fifty-nine years old, and forty-five per cent of the viewers are women, presumably Democratic—a fair description of a Hillary Clinton supporter. Griffin believed that Olbermann was beginning to alienate his core audience, and asked him to ease up a bit on Clinton, and possibly even make some conciliatory gesture to the Clinton camp. (The New Yorker)
But Olbermann couldn't compromise his commentary by dialing back the Hillary-baiting out of respect for the feelings of viewers who supported Hillary. That would be 'pandering.' As the article explains, he doesn't believe in maintaining a semblance of neutrality.
Olbermann was offended by the suggestion. “I can’t do that!” he says, recalling that conversation. “Me doing a commentary against my own opinion is pandering.... And I’m not going to do it. Would I pull back a little bit, or think long and hard about whether or not I want to knowingly alienate part of the audience? Yeah. And I did. I mean, I held fire on Senator Clinton for quite a while after she began to really scare me, with some of these tactics.” (The New Yorker; emphasis added)
So. 'The Angry Man' is 'scared' when confronted with a powerful female politician who is not only tough enough and strong enough to go the distance, but sufficiently resilient and thick-skinned to let his insults and accusations wash right off her like water off a duck's back. (The New Yorker)
A woman who soldiers on even after the boys tell her straight out they won't let her win?
No wonder poor Olbermann was 'really scared.' Hillary Clinton? She's a force of nature.
But being frightened isn't an excuse for a political commentator to twist the facts out of any semblance to reality.
Olbermann was one of those who whipped himself and those of his viewers who are deficient in the reasoning faculty into a state of 'outrage' and 'shock' over a totally innocuous remark of Hillary's.
On May 23rd, at an editorial-board meeting in South Dakota, Clinton was asked, again, whether she should drop out of the race for the good of the Party. Clinton, saying she would not, employed a historical reference meant to remind her listeners that the nomination process had extended into June in previous primary campaigns. “My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California.” (The New Yorker; emphasis added)
Olbermann's interpretation: Clinton slipped up, revealing a secret wish for the assassination of Barack Obama and should not only drop out of the race but end her entire political career.
For those willing to ascribe iniquity to all things Clinton, the remark was shocking. “Why, in the name of all that all of us hold dear, would anybody ever say anything like this?” Olbermann asked, at the beginning of his broadcast that night. “Can she in good conscience continue in the race for President after having said anything like this? Is her political career at an end?”
Hands up, everyone who sincerely believes that presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's comment as expressed in context was intended to suggest a 'calculated' wish that Barack Obama would be assassinated. (BN-Politics)
At the conclusion of his show, Olbermann subjected Clinton to the Special Comment treatment. Assuming a posture of animated outrage, Olbermann blasted Clinton for nearly eleven minutes, suggesting that her remarks were calculated and “heartless.”...
“This, Senator, is too much,” he concluded. “Because a senator, a politician, a person who can let hang in midair the prospect that she might just be sticking around, in part, just in case the other guy gets shot has no business being, and no capacity to be, the President of the United States.”(The New Yorker; emphasis added)
I don't know whether he believed what he was saying or simply pretending to believe it. I suppose he might have had a predisposition to believe it. --- after all, a few weeks before he accidentally-on-purpose used a rather violent metaphor to express his wish that Clinton could be prevailed upon to resign. Here's a description by Rachel Sklar at The Huff Post.
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.... (emphasis added)
He ended up apologizing, sort of, saying that of course he was speaking metaphorically. (BN-Politics) I've since been loftily informed by one of Olbermann's fans that this is merely a sporting metaphor and that my indignation over the comment was 'hysterical.' Ooookay. What price, then, Olbermann's rant against Hillary and his accusation that she was 'just...sticking around, in part, just in case the other guy gets shot'?
Anyway poor Phil Griffin --- who recently denied that there was any sexism or bias against Hillary Clinton in the network's coverage --- has got his work cut out for him. And speaking of unfortunate metaphors: Likening Olbermann to an abusive man, Griffin reckons that Hillary supporters will ultimately come back to him because 'there's nowhere else to go.'
I know what you're thinking: 'No way did Griffin say it like that.' Think not?
Read it for yourself:
Phil Griffin has to repair a fractured audience base, a portion of which saw sexism in his network’s Clinton coverage and vowed to boycott MSNBC. Griffin knows that some of that anger is aimed at his star anchor. “It was, like, you meet a guy and you fall in love with him, and he’s funny and he’s clever and he’s witty, and he’s all these great things,” Griffin said of the relationship between Olbermann and the Clinton supporters among his viewers. “And then you commit yourself to him, and he turns out to be a jerk and difficult and brutal. And that is how the Hillary viewers see him. It’s true. But I do think they’re going to come back. There’s nowhere else to go.” (The New Yorker; emphasis added)
Charming. No wonder Phil Griffin hasn't noticed the sexism and unfair bias that has pervaded much of MSNBC 's coverage of the Hillary campaign.
It's rather pathetic that Griffin is telling himself Hillary viewers have nowhere else to go. Divorcing Olbermann and MSNBC is the easiest thing I've ever done. My co-bloggers and I broke up with them just like that.
And we're not alone.
At The Democratic Daily, Pamela Leavey writes:
Smart women leave abusive relationships, Mr. Griffin and never come back. They break the cycle of abuse. So, both Mr. Griffin and Mr. Olbermann and their pal Chris Matthews might have a huge wake up call in the weeks and months to come, when they realize that these women have indeed found somewhere else to go. An “angry man” is not appealing to women, especially one who takes his frustration out on women.
Like all of us here, Leavey gave up on Olbermann months ago. And my own sources indicate that there are many-many-many more who have painlessly sworn off the jerk (Griffin's word).
At Talk Left, Big Tent Democrat --- though prepared to vote for Obama --- isn't any more inclined than the rest of us to come back to Olbermann.
I will never come back to MSNBC and Keith Olbermann as a reliable source of news. Olberman is a propagandist, as Somerby has pointed out, not a journalist. Chris Matthews is well, you know what he is. And those 2 bully their entire operation. It is a distasteful and unappealing network to me now. I won't be watching them.
Joan Walsh gives her take at Salon.
Memeorandum has blogger buzz here.
RELATED BN-POLITICS POSTINGS
Media Finds Itself (Mainly) Innocent of the Charge of Sexism Against Hillary
Media Bias and Potential Disaster as we Move Forward: Fortunately, Poll Shows Public has Caught on
Hillary Endorses Obama: Public Mauling Might Cease Soon
72% Say Media Should Stop Trying to Anoint Obama
Obama Supporter Spreads Fake Video to Smear Hillary -- with Help from Unquestioning Bloggers & Media
Olbermann's Hillary Derangement Syndrome Takes Him Over the Top and Right Across the Line (Updated)
NY Times Contradicts Itself and Ignores Obama's Negaitve Tactics While Slamming Hillary
The Media's Role in the Obama Phenomenon as a Sign of a Deeper Trend
The Mainstream Press Addresses Obama's Questionable Claims of Independence from Special Interests
Maureen Dowd's Vicious Attack on Hillary: Internalized Misogyny or Something Much More Basic?
Yes I feel that MSNBC and NBC as well as ABC and CBS not to mention CNN and there are others - They all collectively pissed all over Hillary and her surrogates and supporters.
You want to hear something in the "game changing era" I now watch and listen to FOX more than any other channel and I haven't watched FOX for five years. WEIRD. But as of now I barely watch CNN and WILL NOT even contemplate MSNBC - I dislike everything they did in choosing to PUSH OBAMA on this nation. MSNBC said that FOX pushed Bush on us and made it clear that was there intention to gain conservative viewers. Now MSNBC has done the same thing to get viewers of Obama supporters. Someone should have told MSNBC they don't watch politics on tv. But Hillary supporters do. Dumb bastards.
I really like what you wrote "But it's not just me. Despite what Frank Rich, who doesn't know a thing about it, would have you believe, the anger of many of Hillary's supporters still burns with the fury of a million white-hot suns. There are some media figures who seem to think they can put out the blaze by pissing on us.
They're wrong."!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
Posted by: Danny | June 17, 2008 at 12:50 AM