Hey Olbermann! I'm-a callin' you out!

This diary is in response to Countdown last night, where Keith offered up a shoddy bit of reporting, much like the Lawrence O'Donnell incident, and a response is needed.  

Keith, of whom I'm a big fan normally, btw, made quite a big deal about Obama's comment questioning whether those who would vote for him will vote for Hillary.  Keith seemed aghast that he would suggest that the Democratic party will be anything but united come November, regardless of who is the nominee.

And, if as by clockwork, the troll diaries have been coming in ever since.

So what was wrong with what Keith said?

Follow me over the flip...

Here's the clip, so you can see for yourself.

Much like the Reagan comment, this is yet another Obama quote taken out of context and twisted into contortions to attempt to gin up a scandal.  Perhaps, the media has decided on an 'Obama on the ropes' narrative, and so must fit it's reporting into this.

But was Obama making any kind of 'split the party' threat here?

I don't think so.

I think any rational person would hear those comments, and know he was speaking about the many independents and Republicans who are willing to vote for him, but will definitely not vote for Hillary, regardless.  Nowhere did he say Democrats in his statement, and he was speaking about viability in the general election, so context should show what he was talking about. To a rational person.

Maybe Keith isn't getting enough sleep.

The fact that there is so much (ginned up?) outrage that Obama would point out the obvious (like that the tactical superiority of Reagan conservatism in building a coalition to get their (HORRIBLE!) ideas made into law) by twisting his words, and the fact that so many seem unable to confront the truth of what he says when it's not 'ra-ra Democrats', and the fact that so many don't seem to think it unwise to nominate the one freakin' person that could unify the other side while dividing our side, makes me pretty worried about November.

Keith, we need you to do better than this. The Clinton campaign is throwing as much mud in the water as possible, hoping they can emerge with the nomination, and thinking they will just be able to put it all back together for November. We need you to help people see through the bull, not help stir it up.  

•  Tips/Flames

  I hate writing a diary critical of my man Keith, but he really screwed the pooch on this one.

  by Aethern on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 03:51:08 AM PDT

  •  You should forward your diary to Keith

    I'm tired of the misrepresentation of the media about Obama. But for Keith information there will many democrats who will not vote for her no matter what Obama tells us.

    by ronnied on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:56:29 AM PDT

  •  This is another example of "are you going

    to believe me or your lying eyes."  I saw Obama say that the issue is going to be whether Hillary can get his supporters to follow her.  He said it.  Case closed.  

    by ceenatoli on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 05:19:15 AM PDT

•  Your man Obama is just as bad...

  He needs to apologize for talking Republican.

  by Superskepticalman on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 03:55:04 AM PDT

  •  good luck with that

    Oh yeah. Hillary's going put together a great big old coalition. I'm sure she'll pass all kinds of progressive reform packages.  

    by Aethern on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 03:57:10 AM PDT

    •  And your man'll get rolled by the GOP...

      They're really not into holding hands and singing Kumbaya.

      by Superskepticalman on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:05:11 AM PDT

      •  whatever

        And the fact that he said Reagan's name and didn't spit afterwards stings your soles, aye?  Save the straw man smears for somewhere else.

        by Aethern on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:06:40 AM PDT

        •  It's not a smear; Edwards and Clinton are running

          as more consistent Democrats.

          by Superskepticalman on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:09:52 AM PDT

          •  change the subject much?

            And how does that relate to your mischaracterization of holding hands and kumbaya? That's a smear just as bad as the one that said Bill Clinton called Obama a 'fairy tale' (and by that I mean Bill Clinton was the one being smeared).

            by Aethern on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:14:15 AM PDT

            •  That's criticism, not a smear.

              If BHO takes the nomination, let's hope he understands the difference.

              by labradog on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:53:39 AM PDT

      •  that is the problem with Obama's arguement

        he actually thinks that their will be no more extreme right wing or left wing if he wins.  There will always be divisions in politics...that is why there is more than one political party.

        by EricRSINY on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 05:01:59 AM PDT

        •  The only scenario in which this works is those

          smoke filled, dark, back rooms where soul sucking deals are made everyday. Partisanship is good in a two party system, it's like the checks and balances that prevent things like this happening.

          by Bad Juju on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 05:14:10 AM PDT

  •  Rec the diary up Super..needs to be discussed.

    by Larry Bailey on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 05:22:56 AM PDT

•  honestly i missed that part

  as i have fun putting kids to bed.  but thanks for alerting me to that.  it's a shame, really. the media likes to create the news, but keith has always been a beacon.  i hope the media aren't getting to him too.

  by ejpoeta on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 03:55:28 AM PDT

•  Don't be afraid...

  ...It shouldn't be only Christ that must be critisized.

  I also felt the same way last night but because I am an Obama supporter I thought may be it is just me.

  He was totally wrong yesterday for cherry picking Obama's single sound bite and not airing the rest, at least enough to allow viewers make their own judgement.

  by RedMask on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:00:45 AM PDT

  •  It keeps happening

    Over and over and over and over again. I expect it from Tweety and the rest, but I guess I look to Countdown for higher quality reporting than that.

    by Aethern on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:02:40 AM PDT

    •  How is Countdown now at fault?

      They are just trying to bring both sides of the story out. Maybe everyone should just stop covering this stuff. Its gradeschool politics.

      by Owllwoman on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:05:54 AM PDT

      •  both sides of the story

        only applies when there isn't an objective reality to report. Cherry-picking quotes out of context and reporting on the obvious mischaracterization is not reporting both sides of the story. It's just reporting bullshit.

        by Aethern on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:08:25 AM PDT

        •  So, you're okay with all the cherry picking he

          does on Clinton then, right? Why is it when it happens to Clinton it's ok, but when it happens to Obama it's some sort of travesty bred of moral indignation?

          by Bad Juju on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:38:03 AM PDT

          •  not at all

            I mentioned in another comment on this thread that I didn't like how Bill Clinton's 'fairy tale' comment was taken out of context.  There are plenty of solid reasons to oppose HRC.  I don't need bullshit.

            by Aethern on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:46:11 AM PDT

            •  Nah, I guess you don't need BS.

              From what I've seen so far it's Keith, it's cherry picking, it's imbalanced journalism, it's the media's fault, it's the complexity of his language, it's irrational people, it's taken out of context, it's Bill, it's Hillary, wah ... wah ... wah ...!

              by Bad Juju on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:55:25 AM PDT

              •  nope

                It's sponsoring an amendment to limit free speech, it's supporting the expansion of corporate power, it's supporting the unconstitutional use of executive power, it's voting for the IWR, and then never once having the integrity to say 'I made a mistake' (because maybe she doesn't really think she did).  I could go on.

                by Aethern on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:57:46 AM PDT

                •  Great misdirection. n/t

                  by Bad Juju on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 05:02:42 AM PDT

          •  Rec it up Bad Juju. Diary needs to be discussed.

            by Larry Bailey on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 05:23:35 AM PDT

      •  Because Obermann is LYING about Obama's words

        I just watched that clip in the other diary, waiting to hear Obama say he was not going to support HRC if she's the nominee, which is what KO accuses Obama of.

        KO: "One Democratic candidate for president hinting she and her supporters will back whoever is nominated, but a second candidate hinting just the opposite..."

        HUH? No matter what anyone thinks about what Obama DID say, he never "hinted" that he would not support HRC in the general election. Obermann just flat-out lied about this, and I don't feel "sorry" at all about calling him out on it. What a jerk.

        by hannahlk on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:38:52 AM PDT

        •  and so is Keith Olbermann! n/t

          by hannahlk on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:41:00 AM PDT

        •  Why is this a "lie"

          Could it maybe be the man had an honest opinion? Maybe even he was wrong but why does it have to be this malicious thing? Frankly, it's comments like this that make me less enthusiastic about supporting Obama after Edwards.

          by gladkov on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:49:46 AM PDT

          •  Why? Because he's saying Obama

            has "hinted" at something he clearly didn't. Obama obviously never said anything in his remarks about who he would or would not support in the general election. Is KO stupid? Is English not his first language? I don't think so. There's no way an honest person could interpret anything Obama said in that clip as saying he wouldn't support HRC in the general election. And KO has a responsibility as a journalist not to twist people's words for dramatic effect.

            I'm not defending what Obama DID say, and I don't know if I'm voting for him myself, so if you decide not to vote for him either, that's fine with me--although deciding not to vote for someone because someone on a blog called KO a liar is one of the less rational reasons I've heard of for not supporting someone. But, whatever. There's not much reasonableness around DKos these days.

            by hannahlk on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 05:00:17 AM PDT

            •  I don't really care

              It is an opinion. People do it every day. I think Kos has really been off base on other things, even misquoted things but LYING? No, I need more evidence for that.

              Let me be honest: I am an Edwards supporter and I am shopping around for who to support if he doesn't make it. For me it truly is a question of why crosses the finish line, we can have the biggest progressive in the world and if he/she loses, then it means nothing.
              For me, the test is also how well Obama will face unfair, unjust criticism, distortions and LIES. Anything Hillary or Bill may have thrown is a LOVE TAP. There will be overt racism. Every word WILL be twisted, Remember Al Gore "inventing the Internet"?? And I can tell you know there has to be a better strategy than "X LIED about Obama.." because all that does is make people defensive and angry, not willing to listen to the real story. If you are telling me Keith Olbermann, who has genuninely produced very balanced coverage, maliciously LIED about Obama, I do not want to hear what you have to say. If that a good strategy? Probably not.

              by gladkov on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 05:07:21 AM PDT

              •  You don't seem to understand

                that I'm not an Obama supporter. I'm not saying KO lied as part of a "strategy" on my part to defend Obama. I could care less about defending Obama right now.

                I'm pissed off that KO, who I used to like, would so obviously twist someone's words so he could gin up a phony controversy. He blatantly misrepresented Obama's words. (If that's not clear to you, maybe you should watch the clip again.) This kind of thing drives me nuts, no matter who does it or to which candidate.

                by hannahlk on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 05:15:10 AM PDT

      •  Keith already posted here

        and said he does not have a horse in this race. Who do you want doing the coverage, Jesus Christ? I'd say his coverage of this whole thing is about 300 times more balanced than anything else out there. If Keith was unfair to Barack once, Katie does it nightly.

        by gladkov on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:43:03 AM PDT

  •  olberman does it all the time

    He clearly favors Clinton, his stuff about Barack is always tendentious, at best.  He claimed otherwise in his diary here last week, but it's been quite obvious to me for a while, so much so that I quit watching his show.

    Keith may have been a refreshing voice against the Bush Adm, but he has no credibility when it comes to this election.

    by Dounia on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 06:11:57 AM PDT

    •  What a joke.

      That He Who May Not Be Criticized is questioned about anything is heresy!

      Who cares if we have to destroy a party or tear down a journalist is one of the only on television to express progressive views? We believe he questioned the Sun King.

      "Burn him." He is an infidel.

      Obama - President for Life. Emperor Obama!

      The Obama supporters have officially gone over the edge. Their extremism takes your breath away.

      by elesares on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 06:42:37 AM PDT

•  Obama insinuates much in his talks.

  And then gets angry when someone calls him on it. If you can't see it, your too close. Back away from the screen.

  by Owllwoman on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:03:17 AM PDT

  •  in what way?

    The insinuation seems to be coming from the other side here. Obama speaks pretty clearly, if you ask me, but occasionally he might actually talk about issues more complex than the one sentence excepts the media loves to play.

    by Aethern on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:04:52 AM PDT

    •  Sort of like Barbara Billingsley talking jive...

      Except she was better rehearsed in her lines in the movie.

      Obama's trying to cater to Republicans.

      by Superskepticalman on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:07:42 AM PDT

      •  did you ever think

        That maybe reality is a little deeper than left/right?  That maybe people aren't born with a donkey or elephant tatoo?  That maybe, just maybe there are people who can be convinced and persuaded to join the progressive coalition. It's what every single successful president has done, from FDR to LBJ. Obama is trying to appeal to Republicans, but that doesn't mean he's trying to appeal to the republican power structure.  It means he's trying to peel people away from that power structure.

        by Aethern on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:11:03 AM PDT

        •  Smells like

          sellout to me. "Reaching across the aisle" is code for capitulation.

          Maore than 60% of the people in this country identify with Democratic positions. Have the balls to stand up for our principles. If you don't stand up for anything then you stand for nothing.

          Most Obama supporters seem content on a steady diet of mealy mouthed mush.

          by elesares on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 06:57:13 AM PDT

      •  Not in SC

        Obama led among most sub-groups, including men, women, liberals, conservatives, young, low-income, and union household voters. Clinton edged Obama out among the oldest voters, above age 70. Edwards led Obama among Republicans

        Reuters

        I would guess they are all picking up republican voters as I doubt all those voters over age 70 for Clinton are Dems.

        by Overseas on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:16:19 AM PDT

        •  But, Obama will receive most of the

          crucial "Independent" votes in the GENERAL ELECTION.  So many of them are socially liberal but registered "Indy" because they despised the Clinton and Bush administrations for their devisiveness, their political ploys and their corporate/MIC ties. Hillary will get her butt kicked, worse than Kerry, especially in our crucial Tampa Bay area.  Obama is actually bringing many people to the Democratic Party and the Clinton ploy of dividing our electorate by gender and race is really making me sick.                      As a military mom, I was already sick when Hillary voted "YES" on that dangerous, corporate/MIC enabling, war-mongering  Kyl/Lieberman Bill.  Is she just trying to look like a neocon for the general election or is she really one?    

          by mjd in florida on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 05:52:46 AM PDT

    •  No, in this video he insinuates

      that no one is going to vote for Hillary if she is the nominee, from his supporters. Hillary has already said she feels the Party will come together. Obama has no right to guess, or to put that out there to his followers, that he controls how they will vote. Thats just wrong. And if he didn't mean to say it, he shouldn't. We the People out here are not mind readers.

      by Owllwoman on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:10:38 AM PDT

      •  you don't have to be a mind reader

        if they don't take shit out of context.  But I see logic hasn't had it's coffee yet this morning.

        by Aethern on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:12:16 AM PDT

      •  Edwards said as much as well, that the primaries

        are about picking a candidate and once that candidate is chosen, he, his supporters and the Democratic party will unite around them.

        by Bad Juju on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:42:26 AM PDT

        •  Yes, Edwards did -- to his great credit...

          ...no pussy-footing around with party revolt for either him or Senator Clinton.  Obama is trying to form an ObamaCrat group.  Question is: will they walk or not.  Depends on whether he (and his supporters) cool their rhetoric.

          by Larry Bailey on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 05:04:02 AM PDT

      •  Not that "no one is going to," but rather

        that it's questionable. And I would agree with that. His statement is both true, and divisive-- making Keith's assessment a fair one, though his story should be at least as much about Hillary's negatives (if not more) as about Obama's divisiveness.

        I'm not an Obama supporter-- in truth, I find him deeply disappointing whenever I hear him speak-- but if he is the nominee, I will hold my nose and vote for him. I will not, on the other hand, vote for Hillary. Her orchestration of the theft of the Nevada caucus completely lost her my support. And I do not think that I am the only American who feels that way.

        by khereva on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 05:46:38 AM PDT

  •  people have a tendency to hear evil things

    when their candidate isn't talking.

    Obama's talking electability, whatever, that's fine.

    Clinton has said Edwards and Obama aren't ready to be president and would likely flub a terrorist attack, so a good, old fashioned "I'm more electable" appeal doesn't seem like much ground for outrage.

    by Stroszek on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:57:44 AM PDT

    •  Politics as usual. n/t

      by Bad Juju on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 05:18:47 AM PDT

•  If I recall correctly, Edwards outpolls both

  Clinton and Obama against all the Republican candidates.  Would I be incorrect to assume some of those polled were Republicans as well as independents and Democrats?

  by JFinNe on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:16:30 AM PDT

  •  I don't really know. I think it was a Zogby poll

    and the data should be online. But, these days polls don't seem to hold too much weight. What could've been true then doesn't stand true now and will continue to change the closer we get to the elections.

    Personally, I think all Dems beat out McCain. He's got some serious hurdles to get over. But then I don't think we've seen the NeoCon spin machine come out yet, and Mitt is their man.

    by Bad Juju on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 05:23:39 AM PDT

•  Maybe Keith is trying to

  BALANCE all the Obama love on MSNBC.
  Scarborough just did another scathing "It's all the Clinton's fault" with Mika by his side lamenting how unfairly poor Obama is being treated.

  Scarborough, Mika, Tucker, Matthews all HEART Obama. They love how he is reaching out and how it is inspiring for a democratic candidate to want to make the right and left come together.  And how AWFUL it is that the Clintons are partisan.

  Call me a cynic but I find it suspicious that NOW when there is a high probability that a democrat will win the WH and democrats might keep both houses, the right wing shills suddenly love the notion of "getting along," bipartisanship.  Scarborough who has never skewered his friends Rush, or any of the hate radio shock jocks, now skewers ONE democratic candidate for being partisan.  Give me a break.

  When this worm-tongues of the right start making noise about which dem they think is good for American, it is scary.  

  by Jjc2006 on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:24:00 AM PDT

  •  balance

    Call me a cynic but I find it suspicious that NOW when there is a high probability that a democrat will win the WH and democrats might keep both houses, the right wing shills suddenly love the notion of "getting along," bipartisanship.  

    There's two problems with that.  One, there is no guarantee that the Democrats win in November. Sorry, but Hillary vs. McCain lands us at least 4 more years of neocon rule, IMO.  The other is that, while you are right to point out the dishonest calls for bipartisanship, nobody seems to realize that we can use that against them to get our agenda accomplished.

    by Aethern on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:30:58 AM PDT

•  Good grief!

  Olbermann says something negative about Obama for the second time in the shows history and we have another another diary about it.

  I watch Olbermann loyally and he has consistently provided a fairly steady stream of negative feedback while trashing Clinton and ignoring Edwards but yet, I haven't seen one Clinton or Edwards diary calling Keith out about that.

  Jebus, its past time for real life perspective on our politicians.

  by Bad Juju on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:33:36 AM PDT

  •  This is what Mob Obama do...

    ...rush from one perceived outrage to the next.

    I think they're going to learn, the hard way, that age-old political adage: whiners can't be winners.

    by Larry Bailey on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 05:05:46 AM PDT

•  I saw the video, and it seemed pretty clear.

  Obama was talking about electability. And I'm sure he's right about many of his supporters not voting for Hillary. So while you're complaining about Keith Olbermann, Obama's message is getting exposure, which is probably not a bad thing for him. Perhaps you should be thanking KO.

  by HairyTrueMan on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:37:17 AM PDT

•  It seems that each election gets uglier

  than the last.

  And that the candidate who communicates on the issues with workable ideas without the backing of the media and has little hope of winning.

  Now I know why Al Gore is not running.
  He knows the game is rigged by those who edit the tv footage, and the media is in the grip of the handful of corporations that own it.

  The more I see what is happening to Obama, the more I realize the fix is on.

  by crystal eyes on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:38:22 AM PDT

  •  Keith stands alone as an independent voice

    when the national narrative is being set by corporate America.

    just in case Keith is reading this
    Thank You Sir, and keep it coming.

    by crystal eyes on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:47:39 AM PDT

  •  and just in case Keith is reading this

    You sir, are a lonely independent voice in a landscape dominated by big corporations and big money.

    Thank you and keep it coming.

    by crystal eyes on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:53:21 AM PDT

•  To be fair..

  A few Obama supporters here who constantly say "Hillary will never get my vote...ever, I'll vote Republican first.." do not help that impression. I know they do not speak for Barack but, if there are people here saying it, there are probably people on outside who say it too.
  I think both Obama and Hillary need to come out with serious statements saying "this ends in 2 weeks, sign me up to help the winner get into the White House.."

  by gladkov on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:40:30 AM PDT

  •  Hillary already has, it was on the same show. n/t

    by Bad Juju on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:46:03 AM PDT

  •  John Edwards agreed too..

    ... that he would encourage his supporters (assuming he was not the nominee, of course!) to unite behind the Democratic Party nominee.

    Based on the Obama clip, I assumed he meant the crossover voters (independents and Republicans) who supported him might not be as willing to support Hillary if she were the nominee. I don't think he was referring to Democrats.  I also suspect he was quite correct -- there are independents and Republicans who would not be as enthusiastic about voting Democratic if Obama was not the nominee.

    I think Keith's point was that due to how divisive the primary is getting, would the Democratic Party be able to pull together to support the eventual nominee in order to beat the Republicans and take the Oval Office. I certainly hope we can -- because it really IS important. Though it would be a lot EASIER to do so if we could have a little less rancor from the campaigns against their rivals....  grrr.    

    by JanetT in MD on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 05:12:57 AM PDT

    •  The next 2 weeks can't be over

      ..quick enough for me. And personally, I don't care who it is, it is going to be a damn hard slog to get whoever it is in the White House. The Repugs WANT us to think it will be a cakewalk, they love it when we fight among ourselves. They like Hillary best as the candidate because they have the attack templates already done. Believe me, if they can attack a war veteran like John Kerry, they WILL do it big time on Obama, they will distort, lie and twist every second.

      by gladkov on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 05:31:09 AM PDT

•  Olbermann probably made the comment...

  ...after reading some of the anti-HRC hysterics here.

  by labradog on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:56:14 AM PDT

•  listen you...

  you whining fucks, stfu. we have one, count em one, person of integrity on the nightly news blast that has our backs and gives a fair break to the dems and all you can do is kick him for an observation about remarks made. i guess you want a pony too?
  tung sol

  by tung sol on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:57:07 AM PDT

  •  I do want a pony, now that you mention it n/t

    by Aethern on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:58:57 AM PDT

    •  ask and...

      you'll receive. what a great way to start the morning,
      tung sol

      by tung sol on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 05:06:07 AM PDT

•  You're parroting thereisnospoon's same line...

  ...from diaries last night: that Obama was talking about "independents".  Having heard Obama's precise words last night on Olbermann and again thanks to your strip from Olbermann, I will repeat what I told thereisnospoon: no, he was NOT talking about Republicans and Independents (you're providing the context, not Obama).  He was talking about Clinton's "supporters" -- whom Obama-ites regularly describe as FREE of Independents and Republicans and constituted entirely by out-of-touch, regressive, Restoration-driven D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T-S.

  Once again, as with Obama's cc interest rate gaffe in the last debate, and as with his comments about Republicans being the party of ideas during a past-15-year-period (that consists of 2 Clinton I terms and 2 Bush II terms), Mob Obama are trying to deep their Dear Leader's buns out of the dirt.

  It won't work, gang.  Obama's words came thisclose to party betrayal and I imagine he'll make it all the way over that line -- probably sometime right after the Florida vote.

  One thing became clear on DKos weeks ago: you're take-my-ball-and-go-home crowd first, Democrats second (maybe even third or lower in some cases).

  by Larry Bailey on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 05:00:38 AM PDT

  •  Independents

    According to most polls almost go with Hillary as much as Obama.  The fact is most people believe that either Democrat will enact change over what we have now...

    by EricRSINY on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 05:03:01 AM PDT

    •  The Obama folk don't recognize that tho'...

      ...with them, they are the ONLY candidacy that can attract Independents.

      by Larry Bailey on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 05:08:38 AM PDT

      •  I never said that

        I think John Edwards would also do well with Independents and Republicans.  I think HRC would not.

        by Aethern on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 05:11:45 AM PDT

        •  While I disagree with your diary...

          ...you at least are nice in your responses while tending your diary -- which is more than I can same of some in the Mob.  

          by Larry Bailey on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 05:17:14 AM PDT

  •  I'm not even a Democrat

    As I diaried earlier, I'm not a Democrat.  I support the Democrats because their values more closely line up with mine, and a Democratic-controlled government is more likely to be one that does good things, but loyalty to the Democratic party is even farther down on my list than you imply.  Matter of fact, it doesn't even make the list.

    by Aethern on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 05:06:36 AM PDT

    •  That says it all aethern!

      And it may (or may not) work for you in pushing your point here, but does raise for you an important question: are you at all aware that Daily Kos is a web community with one overarching goal -- to elect Democrats?  We don't look at potential party-bolting as a potential positive to that cause.

      by Larry Bailey on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 05:11:41 AM PDT

      •  and while Democrats line up with my values

        I can support that cause.  When Democrats cease to do so, I will cease to support Democrats.  Just being honest.

        by Aethern on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 05:12:53 AM PDT

        •  That DOES seem honest. So...

          ...just as a guess, what percentage of Obama supporters here at Daily Kos do you think fit the same mindset?  

          by Larry Bailey on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 05:26:16 AM PDT

        •  That means

          that, because of your values of hating Clinton, you will help to destroy the party if she is the nominee.

          You need not analyze her positions because you already know how much you hate her. So fire away. If the Party loses and neocons retain the White House, then so be it. As long as the wicked bitch is slapped down.

          That about defines your "values" on the subject, right?

          by elesares on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 07:03:50 AM PDT

          •  I have analyzed her record

            I don't care what she says on the campaign trail, I care what she's done. And her record is one friendly to corporate interests, and very approving of expansions of executive power, among other things. I have nothing against Hillary Clinton, personally, but I do not think she is good for the oval office.  I have had this opinion since before Obama even gave that speech in 2004. But you can continue to put words in my mouth if you want. It's not as if the HRC camp seems to be interested in actually debating anything on the merits.

            by Aethern on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 08:17:00 AM PDT

•  Does Obama Talk "Out Of Context"

  Every time he speaks? It was very clear what he was saying, and very wrong.

  by Ky DEM on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 05:08:36 AM PDT

  •  Well, maybe not "everytime"...

    ...but he sure does have a tendency lately to spend today revising and extending what he said yesterday.

    by Larry Bailey on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 05:13:01 AM PDT

•  Clntn & Edwds Supporters Should Rec UP This Diary

  This is a diary written by a well-meaning and decent-sounding Obama supporter and while some of us may disagree with it, it (and its subject matter) are worthy of today's Rec List.  This is important and should get a thorough discussion from the community.  So, please, ring 'er up.

  by Larry Bailey on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 05:20:03 AM PDT

  •  what's your angle?!?!

    What are you trying to pull, here, Larry Bailey?  You expect me to believe that you want to actually have a rational debate and discussion?!  What's your angle, buddy?  I'm on to you!

    /snark

    Seriously, thanks for the kind words.  Like I said in another comment, I have my reasons for support BHO, just like I have my reasons to also like JRE, just like I have my reasons to oppose HRC, and I'd like to think they are all rational. And I'm more than willing to discuss them with anyone, and not think anyone is some type of horrible person for disagreeing with me. Actually, this is one of the reasons I support Obama, though I admit some of his support here gets a bit overzealous with the torches and pitchforks.

    by Aethern on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 05:28:09 AM PDT

    •  LOL. You're as fun as you are sincere.

      I just think you've raised two important issues (KO's fairness and Obama's comment yesterday), which need a thorough discussion here at Daily Kos.

      Good luck. You may have to spend the day tending this thing, though.

      by Larry Bailey on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 05:32:29 AM PDT

•  Keith clearly blew it

  I felt like I was watching Fox Noise.

  by PrometheusSpeaks on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 05:29:30 AM PDT

•  It was clear what O was saying

  he was saying that many who would vote for him wouldn't vote for that other candidate.  That is just stating the truth.

  Now where he was wrong, IMHO, is in stating that that other candidate's supporters would back him; actually I disagree with that.  That other candidate would, IMHO, build a bridge to many women in the GOP (some of the less hard core conservative ones) and independents and draw voters that he wouldn't get.

  But that is just a difference of opinion.

  But as far as saying that he wouldn't back the nominee?  He said no such thing.

  Smart people understand that.  

  by onanyes on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 05:42:56 AM PDT

•  It seems that

  Obama admits his support comes from Independents, whereas Clinton's comes from Democrats. Should that not give us pause to question Obama's progressive credentials?

  by leberquesgue on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 05:50:27 AM PDT

•  If Edwards or Clinton

  would have said this they'd be fried.  I think the troubling part is, he should have said that he would urge his supporters to support the nominee, he just further pushed the idea that Hillary is divisive not as a gesture of honesty, but as a means to gain votes.  End of story.

  He's campaigning just like all the others.

  by Ellinorianne on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 06:00:19 AM PDT

•  Wow, just wow

  I watched Olbermann last night and didn't see any problem with his reporting on this.  I think you need to be a partisan to interpret it this way.  I am still undecided in this race. (I wanted Feingold, who is still not progressive enough to match my views.) Reading diaries here, it seems people are overinvested in their candidate and see everything through that prism.  I hate the way the media is covering the race, and most of the time you'd think the only Democrats running are Clinton and Obama.  Such a tiny portion of the country has voted, why can't we let things play out a little and react to real, rather than hypothetical, events?  

  by SharaiP on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 06:29:05 AM PDT

•  Keith's doing a good job..

  He's keeping his broadcasts as balanced on time and content as possible, and highlighting both the good and the bad of all the candidates.  It may vary from show to show, but I watch him and PBS NewsHour every night and both are doing a great job of voluntarily sticking to the fairness and equal time doctrines.

  It's nice to see this kind of reporting that hasn't been around since the 1980s.  Wouldn't you agree?

  by Scoopster on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 06:31:21 AM PDT

•  Obama Never Said He Wouldnt Support The Nominee.

  He just made a very valid point. Hillary and Bill Clinton have run such a nasty and disgusting campaign against him that many of his supporters just will probably stay home on election night.

  I really dont think Keith twisted anything as much as I think he is speaking out of frustration, like he slammed Bill Clinton on that comment he made about liking Hillary and Barack go at each others throats basically. That is SOOO UNBECOMING for a former president to say.

  The problem the Clintons will have when Billary is the nominee is uniting the party. I can safely wish them good luck. If its Hillary a lot of Obama and Edwards supporters will just not care if she makes it to the WH or not.

  Hillary is no change from Bush. If she wins our troops will still be in Iraq 4 years into her administration, her position on the war is not credible, she wont even say her vote was a mistake, come on everybody, how can you trust someone like that. WAKE THE FUCK UP!

  Also, it looks like McCain will be the nominee. Both Edwards and Barack will do better against him than Hillary, its a proven fact backed up by real numbers, she is a hawk on war matters, exactly what rethugs need to neutralize the huge advantage we have with independents on the war in Iraq. Barack was against the war from the beginning, the winning and strongest contrast any of our candidates can make, which appeals to tons of independents, 70% of americans of both parties are tired of the war in Iraq, and Edwards has already said he regret that vote, at least that gives him a fighting chance to get some independents his way too, but Hillary? She does not say it was a mistake, the looser position to go against the rethugs on the war.

  If Hillary is the nominee we are fucked wether we support her or not, she has negatives as high as the sky can see, and by the end of this nasty campaign (Courtesy of the Shaheens, Penns et al in the HRC campaign) there would be more people that will never vote for her than those who will, she is not likeable as Bill Clinton was, she has no mojo at all.

  Hillary is like a salad with no dressing (likability), you might eat it cause you have no choice (courtesy of the DLC) but not cause you want to.

  For an Obama or Edwards supporter to be excited, fired up about Hillary would be like asking a dying man to get excited about his brand new coffin. Why would he care knowing he will die anyways?

  So why would we care, knowing she will loose anyways.

  Lets not do what republicans do, have a coronation and call it a race.

  by DFutureIsNow on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 06:31:51 AM PDT

•  Pretzels?

  The verbal contortions that Obama supporters go throyugh to explain the many mystifying Obama comments is a sight to behold.

  And let no one, not a fellow Democrat, not Keith Olbermann, not Kos, not a former Democratic President who presided over eight years of peace and prosperity dare stand in their way lest they become "toast" through the virtue of the Obama jihad.

  The Obama supporters have made quite clear in their nonstop verbal assault on HRC as a "bitch", "corrupt", neocon, yadda yadda yadda , that they will not support her if she wins the Democratic nomination.

  How is Keith's analysis incorrect?

  by elesares on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 06:35:03 AM PDT

•  A few things

  First, I'm an Obama supporter.

  Second, maybe Keith's wording wasn't correct(and it wasn't), but the gist of what he was saying is correct.

  Even if Senator Obama is speaking the truth(and for the most part he is), he should not make comments like that.

  Much of Senator Obama's new kind of politics are refreshing. Tell the truth and keep telling the truth is a good motton. In most cases.

  But there is no need to expand on the truth to the point of damaging the Party.

  by DAVE DIAL on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 06:43:38 AM PDT

  •  A question.

    What are Obama supporters saying?

    Almost every Obama supporter post I read makes very clear that they won't support HRC if she becomes the nominee. That some may interpret that Obama infers the same is not illogical. In fact, it makes a great deal of sense.

    Obama supporters are destroying the party. By the tone and tenor of many of the posts on this site, it seems clear that there are many trolls hiding amongst the faithful in order to hurl invective and cause division. And the Obama supporters are willing accomplices in this assault on the Democratic Party.

    The anti-Hillary robocalls in SC are indicative of the hate filled invective that flows from the top on down.

    by elesares on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 06:52:10 AM PDT

    •  I think just the opposite is true

      I think just the opposite is true. It's HRC(and WJC and their surrogates) that's dividing the Party, in most cases.

      I think most of the posts that say, I won't support HRC if she is nominated, is based on reactions to her/their distortions, misleading statesments and sometimes outright lies.

      You say:

      Almost every Obama supporter post I read makes very clear that they won't support HRC if she becomes the nominee.

      Which I think is hardly the truth. Like I said, there are some that do say that(out of reactions for the most part), but hardly the majority, much less 'every'.

      by DAVE DIAL on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 07:18:37 AM PDT