If Keith Olbermann's ego would be any bigger

[impik]

He won't fit the TV screen:

"To date, only one commentator or politician has expressed the slightest introspection, the slightest self-awareness, the slightest remorse, the slightest ownership, of the existence of the fantasy dream cloud of violent language by which we are now nearly blinded.

"Our political discourse," John McCain wrote in an otherwise steaming serving of Washington Post Op-Ed partisan flab, "should be more civil than it currently is, and we all, myself included, bear some responsibility for it not being so."

That's it.

One individual assumed any personal responsibility for any of it, besides me: John McCain. Not Palin, not Beck. Not Limbaugh, not West. Not Kanjorski, not Malloy. Not O'Reilly, not Angle. Not Jesse Kelly, not President Obama."

First, I'm no fan of McCain, but Keith Olbermann elevating himself to the significance of McCain is hilarious.
And why the hell would president Obama take "responsibility"? He is the only one who never used that kind of rhetoric. You put him in the same sentence with O'Reilly and Angle? Palin and Beck? Shame on you, pathetic professional left.


I wonder how long this post would be allowed to stay in the air.

[DrDan]

1. ahem

"If They Bring a Knife to the Fight, We Bring a Gun"

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/06/14/obama-if-they-bring-a-knife-to-the-fight-we-bring-a-gun/

[jenmito]

2. Wow-you're really using that RW talking point to equate Obama with those who DO incite violence?

Where are the knives? As the common saying means, if they're gonna fight you (politically), you fight back harder. "IF they Bring a Knife to the Fight, We Bring a Gun." He didn't say just bring a gun and start shooting them.

[DrDan]

3. please read the OP - just responding to the claim

"equate" - make up stuff much?

[jenmito]

4. He apologized for that language a while ago. n/t

[DrDan]

7. so - I guess you agree with the OP that "He is the only one who never used that kind of rhetoric"

do I understand you correctly?

[jenmito]

9. No-he never used violent rhetoric yet he apologized anyway. n/t

[DrDan]

13. "we'll bring a gun" is not violent rhetoric . . . .

bizarre

[jenmito]

16. "If they bring a knife..." I don't know of any Repub. candidate who brought a knife to a political

race.

[DrDan]

20. rhetoric . . . . violent rhetoric

[jenmito]

23. It's not. Yet he apologized anyway 'cause that's the type of stand-up guy he is. This is a

common saying/metaphor. The RWers said to LITERALLY use bullets if ballots didn't work, that a revolution is a good thing from time to time, and we may need to use second-amendment remedies if Repubs. didn't win. But keep digging that hole that the RWers use to claim Obama used violent rhetoric, too.

[DrDan]

28. if we claim words can be damaging - it applies to both sides - not just the right

you cannot claim we speak in metaphors, therefore that line is not violent while claiming palin's words could invoke violence.

Whether he apologized is not the issue. Sure - he is a stand-up guy - but he said it - and it is the rhetoric that Keith is referring to.

[jenmito]

31. Again-it's not violent rhetoric. It is NOT the same as the examples I gave you,

but you (and RWers and even Keith) are putting them in the same league.

[DrDan]

34. "we'll bring the guns" . . . . now had palin said those words, I am

quite confident they would be interpreted as rhetoric that could incite violence.

Funny how that works.

[jenmito]

36. AGAIN-he did NOT say "We'll bring the guns." Why do you insist on leaving out the

FIRST part of that quote, "IF they bring a knife"? Palin never said anything about conditions. Neither did any of the other RWers.

[DrDan]

39. how does that take violence out of the picture? Knives, guns . . . .both violent

what do you think they are used for?

[jenmito]

42. Name one Repub. politician who brought a knife to a debate. It's a COMMON metaphor,

having nothing to do with the 2nd amendment, watering the tree of liberty with blood through a literal revolution, etc.

[DrDan]

44. heaven help us - we will never rise above this current climate with this

we're always right, they're always wrong attitude.

[jenmito]

49. You're wrong in this case. Period.

[DrDan]

52. so why did he apologize?

[jenmito]

68. I told you up-thread. n/t

[DrDan]

69. could it be because he recognizes the negative rhetoric?

[bettyellen]

121. no, you did not offer an explaination for Obama's apology, and it's not your place to anyway

Obama was quite clear at the memorial service in Tuscon that sucj language could be miscontrued, and was unfitting of anyone claiming to work for the common good.

[DrDan]

61. dupe

[golfguru]

59. "we will never rise above this current climate"

you are so right. Why can't people just admit sometimes that they are
ALSO guilty of using harsh/violent language and just move on? Obama himself
has apologized on the knives/guns comment. I commend him highly for that.
You only apologize when you admit a mistake. Yet some people can never ever
admit mistakes.

Why some people always make excuses for our side regardless of what was said?
Why some people always think only the other side is always the bad guys?

As long as this mentality continues, I see no hope of civility and bi-partisanship.

[DrDan]

60. thank you - I agree 110% At least Obama recognized the error in that

statement and apologized. I give him credit for that.

[Name removed]

64. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[muffin1]

88. 'If they bring a knife, we'll bring the guns'

is every bit as violent as 'Here are the targets we want to take out'. If Obama had uttered the second example, and Palin the first example, I'm sure you'd find a way to make hers the more violent one. "GUNS!!! She said GUNS!!! And Obama only mentioned targets!! Targets aren't violent!!!"

I despise Palin every bit as much as the next person. Probably more. If it wasn't prohibited here, I would probably only refer to her using the 'c word'. And all of us would most likely agree that the RW uses heated rhetoric a LOT more than the left. But come on, both comments can sound violent to an unstable person. It really IS alright for you to say Obama went too far ONE time, isn't it?

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

73. The context and the amount of usage makes an incredibly big difference.

Keith is helping the right by clouding up the water some more. I guess as long as Obama takes the hit then that's ok.

[DrDan]

77. agree re the context and amount - the right wins that hands down

does not deny the fact that Obama uttered words that could be considered "violent". He apologized recognizing the error in those words - to his credit.

[Union Scribe]

84. Then Obama shouldn't have apologized.

Seems he felt he was over a line. I know it must blow your circuitry to think of an imperfection in Obama, but one of two must be true: that he erred in speaking or that he erred in apologizing for it.

Anyway, quit fucking browbeating a poster for pointing out something that was really the OP's mistake. Little attack dog.

[whathehell]

19. It's a metaphor, bro...and the fact that it's an old line from a movie

would kind of tell you that, wouldn't it?

Even if you DID consider it "violent"...He said this..what?..Like one time?

Compare that with Palin and her ilk and their "reload" shit.

[DrDan]

21. read the OP - I was just replying to the claim that he has never used that type rhetoric

So - the right needs to watch their words because they could be interpreted literally by a nut on their side.

But that could never happen on our side. We speak in metaphors - everyone knows that.

[whathehell]

24. I did read the OP

and like virtually everyone else here, I think your examples are lame...sorry.

[DrDan]

30. "we'll bring the guns" - he said it - metaphor or not, it is rhetoric that can be considered violent

[jenmito]

33. Why do you keep leaving out the part, "If they bring a knife"? n/t

[DrDan]

35. more violent rhetoric - but probably just a metaphor -

so means nothing if we say those words . . . . right?

[jenmito]

37. Funny how you keep leaving that first part out. With those words in the full metaphor,

it means NOTHING violent. and is in no way the same league as the RW violent rhetoric.

[DrDan]

38. "If they bring a knife, we'll bring a gun" is a simple metaphor without a hint of violence

bizarro

Exactly what do you think knives and guns are used for?

[jenmito]

40. That's correct. It IS a simple metaphor, totally unlike what the RWers have said. n/t

[DrDan]

43. and you claim it could never, ever be misinterpreted as anyway violent

that is the argument we use concerning the rhetoric from the right. It could spark violence.

But not these words, as I understand you. They could never be misinterpreted - it is a simple metaphor and could never, ever be misinterpreted.

unbelievable.

[jenmito]

48. That's right. What's unbelievable is that YOU think it COULD spark violence.

Not ONE Repub. would ever be incited to bring an actual knife to a debate or other political event as a result of those words Obama used, so not one Dem. would ever bring a gun. Your logic is off-base.

[DrDan]

50. but someone did bring a gun to a political event, didn't they -

and it is the claim of most here that it could have been sparked by a map.

Is it your claim that only those on the right that can misinterpret words and symbols? Or is it your claim that only words and symbols from the right are open to misinterpretation?

[jenmito]

67. And how could that have been the result of what Obama said?

Again-who brought a knife since you want to take it literally?

You're not making ANY sense in your desperate attempt to equate Obama's words to the RWers' words.

[DrDan]

70. you are not listening - I am only saying that words have meaning

and that meaning can vary from person to person. So words have to be chosen carefully. Saying "we'll bring a gun" can trigger actions not intended.

[jenmito]

72. The words Obama said were to Dems. going up against Repubs. It was NOT telling them

that the 2nd amendment gives them the right to bring guns and that those guns should be used against the Repubs. if they don't win, like the REPUBS. said. Even if someone DID take his words literally, they'd be incited to bring a KNIFE to a campaign event, or to use a gun against someone who used a knife on them. Give it up already-it's apples and oranges.

[DrDan]

75. you are sooooooo missing the point - done

even Obama realized the words were spoken in error - as evidenced by his apology.

Face it - you are wrong wrong wrong

[jenmito]

78. Nope, YOU are.

There's a world of difference between Obama's metaphor he said once as a candidate and the literal incitement of violent rhetoric on the right.

[whathehell]

45. If you say so...

:eyes:

[jenmito]

51. "If they bring a knife, we'll bring A gun." I see how you changed it to make it seem less like a

metaphor.

[DrDan]

53. "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun"

those were the exact words.

[jenmito]

71. Right, yet you changed it to, "...we'll bring the guns."

[PBS Poll-435]

112. If you can't understand what that means...

Jeezus.

[NuclearDem]

103. Why is it that everytime someone points ONE instance of violent rhetoric (intentional or not)

From a Dem politician or liberal commentator, that person gets shouted down for "FALSE EQUIVALENCY!!!!!!" even when the person saying WASN'T making an equivalency at all?

And on that topic, WHY are we even talking about Obama's comment at all? He made a stupid comment, albeit in jest and quoting The Untouchables, but he apologized for it.

Not a single person on the Right (with the exception of McCain, who, to his credit, at least TRIED to rein in his fans that called Obama some really nasty things during the campaign) has apologized.

[H2O Man]

118. Right. He was quoting

a line from a movie. In the movie, it's a cop talking about the approach to take when confronting gangsters. Those who try to make it something more than that are, at very, very best, silly.

[TheWraith]

6. You know he's quoting a famous movie, right?

A line in that movie describing the Chicago way of doing things.

I agree with the OP: as much as I enjoy Keith when he's on target, his ego can screw things up sometimes. I thought that his most recent SC was more reasonable than some, but the lingering problem remains.

[DrDan]

8. is it a part of the rhetoric that is being referred to?

[Phx_Dem]

11. Oh brother.

That is an old saying that is not in any way an incitement of violence any more than the use of the word "target" is. Or the word "kill" used when not talking about people as in "kill the bill" or "killing jobs." There is absolutely nothing wrong with any of those things.

The problem is when people say "come shoot assault rifles with me and help me get rid of Gabriele Giffords," (from her opponent), or "I want all Minnesoteans armed and dangerous," or putting crosshairs on congressional districts and saying,"We've have identified the problem, you choose the solution."

HUGE difference.

[DrDan]

14. "we'll bring a gun" does not imply violence

interesting

[JoePhilly]

56. "We came unarmed, this time" ... seems friendly.

[mitchtv]

98. I think you are cherry picking

an old metaphor out of context.

[CLANG]

29. The Untouchables

Sean Connery:

"Here’s how you get him. He pulls a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. That’s the Chicago way!"

[DrDan]

32. no hint of violence there

:sarcasm:

[CLANG]

74. It's just a movie, after all!

:toast:

[dionysus]

65. wow, you won! obama's just as bad as them!! WOOT WOOT

:eyes:

:rofl:

[DrDan]

66. no one ever claimed that, now did they

[tekisui]

5. We've all been talking about the influence of talkers and politicians

on the discourse. I disagree that Obama should have been included with the hate-talkers, but if Olbermann feels as if he contributed to it and owned up to it, I don't see that as an offensive ego, nor less influential than the likes of McCain and the others in the list.

[whathehell]

10. Equating Obama with "hate talkers" is the biggest bunch of B.S. I can imagine

and I'm not even that fond of the guy, at this point...But he couldn't be more "non-hateful" if he sang

Kumbaya every hour on the hour.:wtf:

[Phx_Dem]

12. No shit. It's ridiculous to equate President "Why can't we all get along and

I'll just keep extending my hand out to you" Obama with the violent talkers.

[whathehell]

15. Quite a "reach" there....Jeebus...I guess that guy only goes to G-rated movies. n/t

[Phx_Dem]

22. Name me one time he has ever said something really hateful or violent

about the opposition; i.e., threatened them or called them a terrorist, Hilter, not an American, or implied they should be shot or in other ways harmed.

I didn't say he was Pollyanna, but he doesn't spout hateful talk. Ever.

P.S. I think the one thing everyone thought was so mean was when he said to Hillary, "Oh Hillary, you're likeable enough." Man, what a hateful SOB! LOL

[whathehell]

25. I can't....

Maybe Dr. Dan can.:shrug:

[DrDan]

46. simply walks on water . . . .

never a cross word has passed his lips

[Zebedeo]

109. Uh

Last month he called Republican members of Congress hostage-takers. Are we splitting hairs here, or can you agree that that is the same as calling them terrorists?

[tomg]

47. "They bring a knife, and

we'll bring donuts. They bring a gun and we'll bring coffee and donuts."

edit to add: I am agreeing with you. (you never know)

[LaurenG]

17. Well he has been an advocate for democrats for many years

and he has been the loudest and brightest voice we've had. I don't think he's done anything wrong and I don't think it's an ego thing in this case, I think it's a case in point.

[zulchzulu]

18. That's our Keithie

He gets a little tiresome for me too, but overall he's a hell of a lot better than the other blowholes.

[whathehell]

27. Love the Keith...

I only miss "Worst person in the World".;(

[peace13]

26. What?

' Shame on you, pathetic professional left.' Who uses that term? Really. KO came forward early on to encourage everyone to lay down their swords. What about that upsets you. Please simply list those that have joined KO and McCain. It is that easy.

[robcon]

41. Keith displays as much hate as any right-winger.

I won't forget his his hate-filled monologues on Hillary Clinton in 2008.

[GoCubsGo]

54. I've been watching "Countdown" since early 2004. Rarely missed a show.

I have NEVER heard a "hate-filled monologue" about Hillary or anyone else. Never. Yes, he excoriated her for something she did that he disapproved of, but there was not one lick of "hate" in it.

[Bunny]

89. Sure he did. In fact, he said that someone should take her in a room

and only that person should walk out (roughly paraphrased). Seems pretty hateful to me. As someone who wasn't originally for either Hillary or Barack, I found his vitriol toward Hillary to be stunning. And that's when I quit watching Keith Olberman.

[truebrit71]

92. It was a bad metaphor and he has apologized for that.

Vitriol towards Hillary? None moreso than anyone else that saw the writing on the wall well before the former Senator did. By prolonging her exit she was damaging the party and the presumptive nominee. KO pointed that out. Simple really.

[leftynyc]

90. That special comment

he made attacking Hillary during the primaries was the last time I watched his show. And I disagree, he was practically foaming out his mouth during that tirade.

[truebrit71]

91. Me either. It's fueled by bitter Hillary fans that take umbrage to a comment he made once..

..that they have twisted around to mean that he wanted someone to physically harm her. A) he has said that was 100% NOT what he meant and B) he has apologized for a poor choice of words...

It seems that the Hill fans still can't get over it, even after the apology. Oh well, sucks to be them.

KO ROCKS!!!

[Bunny]

94. I guess you missed the part where I said that I was neither a Hillary fan nor a Barack fan.

But the 'bitter Hillary fan' is the narrative that some folks need to maintain in order to keep their world humming along, so by all means, carry on. :patriot:

[truebrit71]

95. I guess you missed that part where i wasn't responding to your post...

...with the 'bitter hillary fan' comment, but rather to post 54. :hi:

My response to your post is #92. I think that's the one you meant to comment on??

[Warren Stupidity]

55. Obama, to my dismay. has been owning responsibility for 'it'

since long before the Tuscon Terror Attack, despite having participated, as far as I can tell, in any degree of inflammatory rhetoric.

[Empowerer]

57. Olbermann was just wrong on this -

There were several people, for example, Dr. Julianne Malveaux who acknowledged and apologized for making inappropriate comments. Certainly, he and John MCain are not the only ones.



A Tragedy And My Apology
January 10, 2011
http://www.juliannemalveaux.com/a-tragedy-and-my-apology.html

By Julianne Malveaux
...

The talk about hate speech, however, is important and I'm going to own my part of it, and apologize. A bazillion years ago (actually in 1992) I made a wisecrack about Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Anyone who knows me would see it as a wisecrack, but those who don't saw it as hate speech. Here's the background. Thomas said he would live to be 120 to stay on the court to frustrate liberals. I replied that the average black man had a life expectancy of about 65, and that if his wife fed him lots of butter and eggs (if her recent call to Anita Hill is any indication she isn't cooking much these days), ingredients for high cholesterol and heart trouble, he'd die an early death. Conservatives called it a death wish. Death by breakfast, I responded, still in jest. As if someone were standing over Thomas with an Uzi forcing him to eat that butter and eggs. The wisecrack has to be taken even less seriously if Justice Thomas' purported commitment to physical fitness and working out is taken into consideration.

No matter, and no excuses. My comment about Thomas, my wisecrack, was in poor taste. Out of line. Out of order. I am sorry if the words I spoke at all contributed to the climate in which we live, to the vitriol that has poisoned the atmosphere. My apology does not mitigate or reduce my contempt for Clarence Thomas and for his arrogant dismissal of liberals and for the African American community. If I could do it all over, I'd have wished him the bacon and eggs, or simply made reference to the black male life expectancy rate and his own hubris, but left out the comment about his early death. The fact is that none of us should joke about death. It just isn't funny.

To be sure, the right has had a great time distorting my words, and they've disseminated them widely. And anytime a liberal makes an inappropriate comment they take their media machine and work it overtime. These conservatives invoke free speech when pastors pray for President Obama's death from their pulpits (if it were any other president, that pastor might have been looking the FBI in the face). These same conservatives say they aren't racist when they use images of apes to describe the First Family. These conservatives have both fingerprints and footprints in the poisoned language that poses as free speech. Yet it is true that it takes sticks and twigs, not just logs and trees, to build a fire. Was my comment one of the twigs?

It has taken me nearly two decades and an attempted assassination to understand the damage that my wisecrack might have caused, not to Justice Thomas, but to the public discourse. I hope it won't take our nation two more decades to understand and embrace the notion of speech civility, even for, no, especially for, political opponents. Every day, and in every way, I tell my students, faculty, and staff that I value civility. Yet, my comment about Clarence Thomas was not only uncivil, it was ugly and unnecessary. And it really wasn't that funny. I regret it. I apologize for it. I wish I could take it back.

[Hippo_Tron]

58. This is the guy who would say on the campaign trail "You don't have to boo, you just have to vote"

When his audience would start booing his opponent. I don't know how the President could possibly be any more civilized than that.

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Old Troop]

76. He's an actor, just like Limbaugh, Stewart, Beck and all the rest.

When their schtick starts to become unpopular, they will change to whatever pays.

[truebrit71]

93. Epic, EPIC fail. Probably the failingest fail of all-time faildom.

He is a JOURNALIST.

The rest you mentioned are comedians of varying skill...

[treestar]

110. +1000

Exactly.

[Duke Newcombe]

79. Your assumption fails.

McCain is not superior, therefore, "elevating" anyone to his "significance" is laughable, unless that person is a lesser asshat than the senator.

Secondly, McCain is a politician. Mr. Olbermann is a public figure. So is Mr. McCain. Mr. Olbermann was wondering why more public figures hadn't renounced vitriol.

Please Google "Venn Diagram" and ponder it's applicability here.

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[frylock]

81. shame on you professional left?

weh and a kick and unrec.

[ulaes]

82. I may be alone.

It's amazing to me the number of people who pretend not to understand metaphor. Neither the left or right wing rhetoric bothers me - and I don't think either one incited Arizona violence.

[Skittles]

86. LOL, please

I live in Texas and the non-stop hate fest I hear from repukes, on TV and on hack radio, absolutely SICKENS me

[Union Scribe]

83. So you float flamebait posts to see how long they'll stay open?

Isn't there...like...a word for that on the internet? Hole, role, stroll, something rhyming with that, can't quite remember.

[QC]

100. Dr. Scholl?

I just love his foot products!!!

[ClassWarrior]

85. If you were any trollier, you'd get tombstoned.

I wonder how long this post will be allowed to stay.

NGU.

[opihimoimoi]

87. He is one of the warriors fighting the insane Party aka GOPers

Overall, I like the dude

[demmiblue]

96. .

:eyes:

[demmiblue]

97. GD, now? n/t

[fishwax]

99. what's wrong with comparing his behavior to McCain's?

I don't get why that's so hilarious? :shrug:

[Umbral]

101. Ahh, come on, don't we want to see this post again, and again?

[Hannah Bell]

102. ego? in media? say it ain't so. that must be the reason for his firing, then.

the rest of the talking heads are such a self-effacing bunch.

could you be any more obvious?

[tammywammy]

104. Is the OP psychic? This thread was started on Tuesday. n/t

[Hannah Bell]

106. didn't notice that. it's still a stupid op.

[Umbral]

107. In this case, 'stupid' really is to kind a word. nt

[The Gunslinger]

105. Once again, another "Democrat" fighting the fascists battle for them.

[jillan]

108. Thank god for his big ego! It enabled him to speak the truth, instead of being too afraid to stand

up for us.

[treestar]

111. Stand up for us? Gives him way too much credit..

He has not effectively accomplished anything but what he meant to - entertainment.

[H2O Man]

113. Horse shit.

[Paladin]

115. Well, Thank Christ He's Gone---Right?

Given that we have so many other eloquent, influential, liberal media figures crowding the airwaves these days, kicking the shit out of the right wing establishment on a daily basis.

(Sarcasm alert, for those in need of it....)

[bluestate10]

120. I give Olbermann credit for his work on behalf of charities on the air.

Olbermann has been a champion of Free Clinics, an organization which does roving medical clinics for poor and indigent people that can't afford treatment. Olbermann also championed the couple whose house was allowed to burn down because they had not paid a $75 fee to the county.

But having recognized Olbermann's good qualities, his on air behavior often detracted from the powerful and well researched messages that he was trying to convey. I particularly disliked the paper throwing and his taking on childlike women's voices when skewering Palin, Bachmann and Angel. Olbermann would have made more powerful impressions without the paper throwing and voices. They guy is a brilliant presenter when he uses his natural voice and avoids distracting antics.

[bluestate10]

116. Wow! That is all I can say. nt.

[WinkyDink]

114. Your timing is exquisite!

[Alexander]

117. Yay, hit-and-run flamebait from you!

This will go nicely with the three threads you had locked today for calling people out.

[meow mix]

119. this is why an unrec button is needed

what a pile of crap post

[bettyellen]

122. i wish we weren;t getting rid of unrec. what a POS OP