Keith Olbermann

Countdown with Keith Olbermann - February 8, 2008 "COUNTDOWN WITH KEITH OLBERMANN" (8:00 P.M.-9:00 P.M. ET)

Host: Keith Olbermann

Topics/Guests:

<ul>[*]2008 ELECTION: Howard Fineman, Newsweek senior Washington correspondent and MSNBC political analyst; Jonathan Alter, Newsweek senior editor and MSNBC political analyst; Rachel Maddow, Err America radio host and MSNBC political analyst[*]THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION: John Dean, fmr. Nixon White House counsel and author of "Broken Government"[/list] The last opening spiel of the week: Dems battle on! Expectation lowering! Bush at CPAC! WaterboardingGate! An Oddball Extravanza. And a Special Apology! [Those pesky producers again, forcing him to cover something.] It's casual Friday at Olbermann Watch.



#5: The Great (election) Race. The Pundit for All Occasions (Imus supporter Fineman) chattered but was not Great Thanksed.

Clip of an unusually sedate Bill Jefferson Clinton. Hillary's cash flowing again, as is Obama's. Oralmann suggests Hill's poor-mouthing was a "ploy". KO was stunned that a candidate would loan money to the campaign: "Have we seen this before?" Lefty Alter nattered but was not Great Thanksed.



Then Herr Olbermahn turned to the "assiduous, excellent, keen" reportorial work of Slippery "Karl Rove will be indicted" Shuster, aka Robin. Bathman read the teleprompter script about the suspension and delivered one of his trademark Special Apologies: he and A-Mess-NBC were "dreadfully sorry", Uncle Albert. Grovel, grovel, was that good for you, Brock?

Fox Noise! [Ding!] #4: "Mister" Bush and his "historically low" approval ratings. No mention of the historically low approval ratings for Congress however. This is The Hour of Spin, after all. Comedian Rachel Maddow of Err America yammered about "warmonger" Bush and was Great Thanksed.

#3: WaterBoardingTapingBoardingNotInvestigatingWaterGate. Quote from Durbin (D). Quotes from ®: zero. Plus TeleComImmunityEavesdroppingGate. Time for another meeting of the Olbermann Criminal Rehabilitation Program with star subject: John Dean. Watergate! [Ding!] The felon bloviated about "war crimes" and a "grand conspiracy". Nixon! [Ding!] The disbarred lawyer opined that Cheney can be charged with "war crimes". Sure enough, he was Great Thanksed.

Fixed News! [Ding!] Fox Noise! [Ding!] #2: Steroids, K-Fed, Britney, Heath Ledger. #1: Oddballapalooza.

At various point tonight Oralmann repeatedly said that Fox "cancelled" its "best show". Another Olbermann Lie: the show in question was not cancelled--it's being revamped, not eliminated. But such fine distinctions are irrelevant on OlbyPlanet. (Olby's Blue Blog Source: TVNewser--Olby wouldn't dare credit the actual story source). The Media Matters Minute also brought us O'Reilly attack #414 (Blue Blog Source: Hillary Clinton's Media Matters), and Tom DeLay (Blue Blog Source: Conservation Value--note how Fat Ass converts the story from criticism of Chris Matthews to an attack on Delay).





If it's Friday, it's our weekly assessment of Krazy Keith's masculinity. Even though this was only a four day week, Monkeymann attacked Fox and other broadcasters 30 times. Olby's source (Hillary Clinton's Media Matters) criticized (MS)NBC 18 times, but Keithy protected his corporate masters with zero criticisms. That makes this week's Olbermann Manhood Quotient: -96 [pantywaist limp]. Tonight's MisterMeter reading: 4 <font color="#000099">[GUARDED]</font>

And that's The Hour of Spin for this, the 643rd day since the declaration that "Karl Rove will be indicted".

 

I ran across that site, which is every bit as witty and funny as Olbermann is (but actually accurate) while reading about this story below. It simply is stunning that MCNBC would suspend Shuster over nothing at all but lets Olbermann slander people every show without retribution. In Shuster's case, he offended a Democrat. In Olbermann's case, he slanders everyone but Democrats. Oh yeah, Jenna Bush wasn't off limits on Olbermann's Dec. 5 show.

Shuster's comment/question about the Clinton campaign "pimping out" Chelsea was downright astute. In the pimp/prostitute relationship, the pimp generally controls who the clients are and how much the woman works.


http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uui...094F2AEC2A275D8

Reporter initially defended Chelsea comment
By: Michael Calderone
February 8, 2008 10:45 PM EST

Before MSNBC's David Shuster was suspended by the network Friday for on-air comments he made about Chelsea Clinton, the television reporter engaged in a heated correspondence with a spokesman for Hillary Clinton in which he defended his appearance and refused demands to apologize.

A copy of the e-mail exchange between Shuster and Philippe Reines, a longtime Clinton aide, was obtained by Politico and is reprinted here.

On Thursday, Shuster guest-hosted Tucker Carlson's MSNBC show, "Tucker," and in referring to Chelsea Clinton's role in calling superdelegates on behalf of the Clinton presidential campaign, he asked if she was "sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way?"

Later that night, he heard from an outraged Reines, who called the remarks "absurdly offensive."

Shuster was unrepentant. He told Reines his commentary was justified because of the contrast between Chelsea Clinton's overt political role and the aggressive way campaign aides "jump down the throat" of reporters who seek to question her about it.

He was more contrite the next morning, apologizing on Joe Scarborough's MSNBC show, "Morning Joe."
But that didn't satisfy the Clinton campaign. Communications director Howard Wolfson told reporters in a conference call that Shuster's comment was "beneath contempt."

Wolfson also raised the possibility that Clinton would no longer participate in an MSNBC debate, scheduled for February 26.

In a statement before Shuster's second apology, on Friday evening's "Tucker," the network said that Shuster had "extended an apology to the Clinton family."

"NBC News takes these matters seriously, and offers our sincere regrets to the Clintons for the remarks," continued the statement.

Behind the scenes, Phil Griffin, senior vice president at MSNBC, took the criticism over Shuster's remarks from the Clinton camp especially seriously, and Tim Russert helped mediate the situation, according to sources.

But one high-level NBC source told Politico that apologizing was an act of cowardice on behalf of the network.

"This is at least the second time they've caved to the Hillary Clinton campaign," a source told Politico, referring to Chris Matthews' recent apology over remarks he recently made about Clinton that were widely denounced as sexist. "What does this do to journalism?"

Reines, reached by Politico, declined to comment. Shuster did not respond Friday night to an e-mail interview request.

In the Reines-Shuster corresondence which follows on page two, the e-mail addresses have been removed, as have the names of NBC and Clinton campaign officials who were copied on the exchange.



-----Original Message-----
From: Philippe Reines
To: David Shuster
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 7:14 p.m.

David - how hard is it for someone, anyone, in the vast MS/NBC universe to contact any one of us at the campaign for comment about Chelsea before going on air and saying that she is being "pimped out" ? It's absurdly offensive. And what the hell does that even mean?

Philippe Reines
Press Secretary
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton



-----Original Message-----
From: David Shuster
To: Philippe Reines
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 8:51 p.m.

Nice to hear from you, philippe.

It is a fact that chelsea has made calls to superdelegates, as your campaign colleagues have acknowledged. It is also a fact that the campaign has reacted quite harshly to any media who have sought to interview chelsea. That was the point. By slamming any reporter who seeks to chat with chelsea while simultaneously having chelsea do campaign tasks such as trying to convince super delegates to support her mom, that's the reference.

Chelsea is polite and does a fine job of saying "I don't want to talk.". But for campaign staff to then jump down the throat of a reporter who seeks to talk to chelsea...that's an issue.

--------------------------
Sent using BlackBerry



-----Original Message-----
From: Philippe Reines
To: David Shuster
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 9:00 p.m.

Since you guys asked for the transcript - here specifically is what David said on air:

SHUSTER: "But doesn't it seem like she's being--but doesn't it seem as if Chelsea is sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way?"

I have a hunch that such offensive and unacceptable language was never used on MSNBC's air about Karenna Gore, the Bush twins, Venessa & Alex Kerry, Kate Edwards, the Romney sons - or any other adult offspring who chose to campaign on behalf of a parent.



-----Original Message-----
From: Philippe Reines
To: David Shuster
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 9:16: p.m.

David - I want to make sure I'm crystal clear here - you're saying that because she doesn't grant interviews and makes calls on behalf of her mother, you are right to say that she is being pimped out?

I don't need to read a the whole transcript for context, you were way out of line. Nobody's jumping down your throat about asking for an interview or talking about calls she made. And you know it.

There is simply no excuse for being so offensive.



-----Original Message-----
From: David Shuster
To: Philippe Reines
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 9:29 p.m.

No. That's not what I'm saying. And if you bothered to look at the transcript and saw all of the glowing things I said about chelsea and the way she was raised, you would know that.

The issue is not her making calls. As + said on the air, I have no problems with that what so ever. The issue is not her refusing interviews. The issue is that the campaign has come down hard on reporters who merely sought to ask chelsea questions. You can't have it both ways. Reporters have long respected the clintons desire that we avoid chelsea and let her have her space. But to get angry at reporters seeking to talk to her now is patently unfair. And you know that.

--------------------------
Sent using BlackBerry



-----Original Message-----
From: Philippe Reines
To: David Shuster
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 9:49 p.m.

I think we've each said what we have to say on this matter. Based on this email exchange, we're assuming two things:

1) You are not disputing that you said on air: "But doesn't it seem like she's being--but doesn't it seem as if Chelsea is sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way?"

2) You have no intention of apologizing for the above

 

So if you dress up bullshit in funny hyperbole, it's no longer bullshit? I look at the merit of what he says, and there isn't much there.

BTW, O'Reilly's been to Iraq and reported from there. So has Hannity. Regardless of their politics, it takes guts. Olbermann has never done it.

You didn't comment on the first post, which accurately ripped him to shreds and neatly copied his style and wit.

 

<div><object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/rhyQVawTG48&"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/rhyQVawTG48&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350" /></embed></object></div>

 

I'm no fan of O'Reilly (and I can't stomach Hannity much), but he has challenged people to find him homeless vets and that he'd take care of them... You'd think there'd be a big deal made of it if someone like Olbermann did find a homeless vet and O'Reilly didn't keep his word. Frankly, I'd love to see O'Reilly take care of homeless vets.

Here's some people with backbones protesting a bad war:







And this is just about what Olbermann is, cartoon and all:

 

I'll head this one off at the pass.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/20...ds-on-orei.html

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>In a campaign stop in Las Vegas, Nev., Democratic hopeful John Edwards defended himself against Bill O’Reilly’s slamming a regular part of his stump speech that thousands of homeless vets are sleeping under bridges.

“In a country with as much wealth as America has, for us to have as many as 200,000 veterans who go to bed under bridges, go to sleep under bridges, or on grates, and who are homeless... This is immoral, and it’s wrong. And we, America, we have a responsibility to do something about it,” Edwards repeated tonight, speaking at US Veterans, a non profit organization that reintegrates homeless vets back into society.

Last night, on Fox's "The O’Reilly Factor," guest Ed Schultz, a syndicated radio talk show host, suggested that Edwards needs to expand on his two Americas theme. O’Reilly jumped in:

O'REILLY: Well, we're still looking for all the veterans sleeping under the bridges, Ed. So, if you find anybody, let us know. Because that's all the guy said for the last...
SCHULTZ: Well, they're out there, Bill, don't kid yourself.
O'REILLY: They may be out there, but there are not many of them out there, OK. So, if you know where there is a veteran sleeping under a bridge, you call me immediately, and we will make sure that man does not do it.</div>

Let's be clear about this. Edwards is out on the campaign trail claiming there are homeless vets sleeping on grates or under bridges. O'Reilly called him on that, specifically. Olbermann seems to be talking about something else altogether - homeless veterans who are being cared for in some way, public or private, since they're not sleeping on grates or under bridges.

Now for the whole story, not just Olbermann's version.

<div><object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/waHIM4nEsAY&"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/waHIM4nEsAY&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350" /></embed></object></div>

<div><object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/W0qSfH4TI30&"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/W0qSfH4TI30&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350" /></embed></object></div>

LOL I would expect O'Reilly to donate $10K to some shelter and get the homeless vet who was sleeping under a bridge a place to stay. Olbermann is just so over the top on this one it's silly.

 

I thought I'd throw this in.

The VA budget for 2001 was $48B, and for 2009 it's $93B ($41B of it is gross discretionary spending).

Surely, Mr. Olbermann, there's the $6.4M, you claim is needed, in there somewhere to provide housing for these homeless vets.

 

Spent a bunch of time doing some research. I don't doubt there are homeless vets (never did), and the 200K figure seems reasonable to me. The issue is what "homeless" means - it doesn't mean living on the street. There are homeless shelters and other charitable sources of a warm bed and roof over your head at night. There are at least 100,000 beds available solely to homeless vets provided by the VA alone, and numerous programs designed to provide housing at ridiculously low prices.

There were 500,000+ homeless vets in 1999, and 800,000 who were homeless for at least one night that year. Considering we have more veterans now (those who returned from Iraq and Afghanistan), the 200K/400K figures represent pretty good progress and in the right ways. There are 25.5M veterans overall, so it's hard to make the case that the government isn't caring for returning vets (99% success rate is pretty good). Federal spending on veterans since 2001 has been more than we've spent on Iraq, and has increased by $10B/year the each of the past 3 years alone.

Maybe I didn't articulate the point that well, so I'll try it a different way. What Edwards is doing is mischaracterizing the plight of homeless veterans. He clearly wants people who hear him to picture 200,000 vets actually sleeping on grates or under bridges, which simply isn't so. It's a typical appeal to the bleeding hearts his audience tends to have. This is what O'Reilly called him on. If Edwards said "we have to do better for our vets, 200,000 of them are homeless and that's unacceptable!" I don't think O'Reilly would have said anything about it.

O'Reilly challenged people to bring to him actual vets sleeping under bridges. He was silent about homeless vets in general - in spite of claims he's said things he didn't say (such as there are few homeless vets, period). The event in front of Fox (and across from MSNBC) studios was staged, the veterans brought there were clearly misled, and none of them were sleeping under bridges on any night (they came from a homeless shelter).

 

Yeah, probably am.

I watch MSNBC for roughly 90% of my daily tv news, Fox and CNN about 5% each, PBS or network infrequently.

I try to watch Olbermann, but find myself changing the channel after being screamed at for a few minutes.

I'm more interested in stuff like the ratings. O'Reilly, for some reason I do not fathom, is the #1 ranked show on cable news. MSNBC is the lowest ranked (by far) cable news network, and probably should have been put out of its misery years ago if it hadn't been for Bill Gates' willingness to lose money over the short term for what the network could have been. MSNBC made a clear move to the left to try and get better ratings, but it's had little effect other than to piss me off. It used to be pretty centrist with some of the best young talent getting a lot of airtime to get better at their craft. That Olbermann is competing at the same time slot as O'Reilly and losing has to be feeding some of this.

 

CABLE NEWS RACE
TUESDAY, MARCH 18, 2008

FOXNEWS O'REILLY 2,987,000
FNC HANNITY/COLMES 2,407,000
FNC GRETA 1,851,000
FNC SHEP 1,734,000
FNC HUME 1,610,000
CNN DOBBS 1,259,000
CNN KING 1,165,000
CNN ELECTION 1,147,000
MSNBC OLBERMANN 993,000
CNN COOPER 973,000
CNN BLITZER 955,000
MSNBC GREGORY 721,000