Olbermann Discovers He's Not a Popular as Barack Obama

[Clio the Leo]

Yes, I realize Keith isn't only concerned with popularity and yes, I'd rather him be critical than to be like Fox News ... but after his insanity of Tuesday night, I hope you'll allow me this little indulgence.

For years, from the Katrina days onward, whenever I stuck my neck out, I usually visited here as the cliched guy in the desert stopping by the oasis. I never got universal support, and never expected it, nor wanted it (who wants an automatic "Yes" machine?). But I used to read a lot about how people here would 'always have my back' and trust me this was of palpable value as I fought opponents external and internal who try to knock me and Rachel off the air, all the time, in ways you can imagine and others you can't.

Now I get to read how we pre-planned our anger because 'beating up on the President has been good for ratings'.

If I can understand people's frustration with seeing a speech by a Democratic president criticized in a venue such as mine, why is it impossible for some people here to accept my frustration about the speech? You don't agree with me, fine. You don't want to watch because you don't agree with me, fine. But to accuse me, after five years of risking what I have to present the truth as I see it, of staging something for effect, is deeply offensive to me and is an indication of what has happened here.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/6/17/876760/-Check,-Please

Now, for the record, I dont think he said what he said for ratings and my problem is not simply him criticizing the President. But his criticism was WAY off base IMO. During the whole photos/rendition/not prosecuting Bush episode of last year, I held my nose and ignored him feeling his criticism wasn't unfair. (which is not to say that I agreed with him)

But Tweety, Keith and to a lesser extent, Rachel (all of whom I ADORE) did a WHOLE bunch of shark jumping Tuesday night. And I'll smile knowing that, just MAYBE, in the future when they have criticism about the President, they'll think twice about launching into another sanctimonious diatribe made from the safety of their anchor chairs.

[Windy]

1. Well said! I totally agree with everything you posted. +1 in case my rec was deleted! nt

[davidinalameda]

2. how did they jump the shark

they dared to criticize Obama?

[Raine1967]

12. see my post #11 below. eom.

[Mimosa]

3. IMO K.O. shouldn't refuse to communicate because some people were angry with him n/t

[golddigger]

4. Hmm, maybe we would feel a lot happier if their is a...

Rush or a Glenn beck sitting in for him.

:sarcasm:

[havocmom]

28. Perfectly played use of the erroneous logic used by some here abouts

:rofl:

[vaberella]

5. I felt he let his anger and frustration to get ahead of his objective rationality. n/t

[Jennicut]

6. K.O. can say what he wants. I respect his opinon, I don't always agree with it.

Just as with the President.

And K.O. likes to dish it out, he needs to learn to take it on Daily Kos and other places.

[ProSense]

7. I read that last night and was LMAO. Love Olbermann, but

this GBCDK line was hysterical:

You want Cheerleaders? Hire the Buffalo Jills. You want diaries with conspiracy theories, go nuts. If you want this site the way it was even a year ago, let me know and I'll be back.

[phleshdef]

8. Yea, I criticized Keith's reaction, but I'd never accuse him of pre-planning anger for ratings.

[Phx_Dem]

9. Ah, poor Keith.

:cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry:

[Nite Owl]

10. I appreciate Keith's honesty

I really wouldn't expect him to try to spin something to avoid criticizing the President. The speech was awful, it should have been made after the BP escrow account announcement.

[REACTIVATED IN CT]

34. Why ? Obama told the world what he was going to do

and then he did it. I don't see anything wrong with that. He put BP on the spot by doing it in that order. How could they refuse to cough up the money when the whole world was watching ?

[Raine1967]

11. He seems a bit defensive.

and for that I am very surprised. He's gotten WAY worse from the right over all the years I have watched him.

I know that he has long looked to Kos as an oasis, but if that oasis is rebuking him, then maybe there was a problem the other night.

That was not what people expected from people like KO, who has been critical of the president in the past. This was over the top. I hope that he can eventually see that.

I read a great article that I hope he will read, as well as others: http://www.newsweek.com/2010/06/16/pundits-like-that-are-the-only-people-here.html

Pundits Steal the Speech
Apparently, President Obama gave a speech last night. If only we could hear him over the televised roar of people talking about it.

By the time Obama appeared, CNN and MSNBC had done a thorough job of telling the audience how to judge what he said. (I imagine Fox did the same, but it’s so riddled with its own pathologies I didn’t check.) Did the president “get it”? Well, he studded the speech with the language of war, referring to his “battle plan” and describing the spill as “a siege.” Was BP “held accountable”? He failed to use the head of a BP executive as a paperweight, but he did say in plain terms that the company “will pay for the impact this spill has had on the region.” Characteristically, he seemed most engaged not during the backward-looking stuff about assigning blame, but the forward-looking stuff: offering a big-picture look at a clean-energy initiative. “We cannot consign our children to this future,” he said, neatly evoking a kind of inverted Mad Max scenario, with oil spills everywhere.

In the postgame show, the pundits judged Obama’s success by how well or poorly he fulfilled the expectations that pundits like themselves had set earlier. On MSNBC, Keith Olbermann knocked him for “not addressing what many expected tonight: a bigger picture for America’s energy future, not even much of a pitch for his own energy bill . . .” The more Olbermann talked, the more disgruntled he grew. First he said the president aimed low, then he bid himself up, declaring that the president “didn’t aim at all.” He asked, “It’s startling to have heard this, isn’t it?”—which is the sort of question that has only one answer.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is a lot of good stuff three, and I think it is time that CNN and MSNBC take a good look at what is happening here. DU is among many sites that have been talking about the responsibility of the cable news networks.

I like KO very much, but he seems far too defensive here. It's become far too circular. They accuse DC of living in a bubble, but it seems that in the meantime they have themselves created one.

peace.
Raine

[AspenRose]

13. Very good. Thanks for the link

[vaberella]

14. I think he might be slightly regretful in his reaction.

Tweety outright begged for viewers yesterday for his documentary. He said several times..Please watch my documentary.

[Clio the Leo]

20. yep and they ALL got saved by $20 billion yesterday....

... Obama looking like Master of the Universe again yesterday took the heat off of them. I think they would have spent a lot of their shows defending their positions if they hadn't had that to talk about.

[vaberella]

23. You are correct. Tweety looked so lost.

I think it was you or Cha who posted what he said at the end where he was supporting Palin. The man has been Palin-gasming for ages.

[Aramchek]

18. people are always defensive when they've been proven wrong

[Clio the Leo]

19. "if that oasis is rebuking him, then maybe there was a problem the other night."

EXACTLY!

[Enrique]

15. I don't think Rachel Maddow wants to be 'adored'

it doesn't seem to be what she's going for.

[Clio the Leo]

21. well tough ta tas for her then. nt

[Kind of Blue]

16. Hear! Hear!

and there, there Keith. Really, criticize all you want. We like it. But just as you expected a certain standard of speechifying from the president, we also expect that from you. Still love you though :loveya:

Thanks, Clio. KnR.

[Clio the Leo]

17. changed some of my wording in the next to last paragraph...

.... to clarify what I meant.

[awnobles]

22. I disagree

I think that the history says much more than your opinion reflects. Rachel and Keith have both been honest in their criticisms, emotional responses and criticisms. Poeple like them because reality reflect trough them similarly. They have been right more than any other MSM figures. Address their concerns, not your suspicions as to their motives. Facts are facts, spin is a tool to divide us.

[Clio the Leo]

24. lol, glad to see you TOTALLY did not read what I wrote. nt

[The Wielding Truth]

25. It is as they see it. It is honest. If they have their opinions they have the platform.

They see the disaster. They see the best way, from their views, to handle it.

We need action and plans being applied now.

It is a disappointment to hear talk that is not strong enough to hold back the oil. We and those who wish for the most perfect union expect huge things from our leaders.

It is their job to be critical, but in this climate of Corporate rule, true commentators who seek democratic rule, must also light their negative criticism with a supportive shadings for a man who must take a country which has been gutted, battered, and barely recognizes itself, and make it run like a well tended perfectly running model of democracy. That is impossible to do without a huge amount of support.

Support that must come from those who want the best for this country.That does not come form those who blast every effort the President makes to turn the ship. Republicans who wish the failure of the President wish only to back the selfishness and short sidedness that caused and will continue to cause the death of our country and perhaps the world.

Weighing the criticism and the praise is always the job of good and honest seekers who need to restore accountability in a real democracy.


They do good jobs. It is difficult to fight the a huge monster without fighting with their own integrity to tweak the job a our leader.They have given a nod to their integrity. It was not a betrayal nor blind support.

In these times left to us by greed and unaccountability, we need our voices to be pointed and focused on restoring truth without cutting the legs out from under our leader.

[GodlessBiker]

26. Jon Stewart said it best. The same speech has been given by the last 8 presidents.

All this promise of energy independence.

"Fool me once, shame on you

Fool me twice, shame on me.

Fool me eight times and I must be a fucking idiot."

[ProSense]

29. Easy to say when one ignores context

Not only has this President taken significant steps to address clean energy and climate issues, he's come closer than any of the others to significantly changing the direction of American energy policy, that is away from oil.

So given that this was, as Stewart claims, the eighth time, and the implication that this is the same empty promises, why wasn't the speech attacked the last several times it was given? Why is it being attacked when the person delivering it has demonstrated, in actions and words, a commitment and conviction to changing the dynamics?

[GodlessBiker]

31. He's "come closer," but still hasn't changed things? This isn't horseshoes.

As Stewart correctly pointed out, Nixon did more than any other president on this issue in creating the EPA and signing the Clean Water Act, and that's depressing.

[provis99]

32. Obama has exactly zero clean energy and climate bills passed.

What is the basis for your cheerleading?

[ProSense]

33. "Obama has exactly zero clean energy and climate bills passed" Absolutely

100 percent wrong.

[lamp_shade]

27. Well said, Clio.

[TheKentuckian]

30. Keith went to Cornell when he was like 14. My guess is he knows as a TV host

that he is less popular than even the most hated President on his best days.

The logic is weak.

[Tarheel_Dem]

35. You're right Clio, but I finally had to block MSNBC in my home. I just

don't want to tune in by accident, and hear the same crap that I could hear on Fox. What's the point?

[zulchzulu]

36. Olbermann will never be Edward R. Murrow either

I know that's his schtick, but frankly, he doesn't have the chops. Period.