Olbermann Downplaying Obama Win [quick update]

What the hell. I mean, what the hell Keith? Olbermann has continually belittled the Obama win here tonight. How exactly he has done so after the jump.

I have long suspected that Olbermann is not a huge fan of Obama, based on some anecdotal evidence. But tonight he is really taking the cake.

1. He attempts to claim that Obama's win is not the biggest story, but that of the huge turnout. Now, turnout is a big story, but I would point out that the increased turnout is due in part to OBAMA BRINGING THEM OUT!

2. He then tries some ridiculous spin, but claiming that if you subtract the 20% independents, Obama "only" wins 32-31. This is truly unbelievable. Not only does he not subtract the independents from the other campaigns, he attemps to diminish the fact that Obama just brought huge numbers of new people into the democratic fold.

I'm a big fan of Keith, but this attempt at spin is just unbelievable to me!

Edit: Argh! He did it again! What is the problem with BRINGING NEW AND INDEPENDENT VOTERS!?!?!?

Edit2: He continues to do it! I just don't understand what he is trying to prove. At least this time he pointed out that NH is 40% independent.

Edit3: And David Shuster smack Olbermann down, saying that the indy vote percentage was in line with previous years.

•  Tips

  GoBama!

  by turneresq on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:09:37 PM PDT

  •  and obama WON among democrats

    keep repeating that when you get the whole Republicans/indys stole our caucus meme.

    by blueterp on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:16:15 PM PDT

    •  A whole

      4% of republicans.

      by turneresq on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:43:14 PM PDT

    •  and he beat Edwards and Clinton

      in union households.

      by xndem on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 09:05:10 PM PDT

    •  And by the way

      Every one of them CHANGED THEIR REGISTRATION TO DEMOCRAT!!!

      by iowabosox on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 09:45:07 PM PDT

  •  You have to remember...

    Half of Keith's audience watches him on Crooks and Liars. He's got to stay in good with the netroots types, even if it means rooting for the loser.

    by Vincenzo Giambatista on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:22:34 PM PDT

  •  Hillary has been Olbermann's girl----he would

    never even say Obama's name on the air----maybe a couple brief mentions in passing, usually framing something about him in a dim light.  He has never given Obama fair coverage.  His truthtelling never included honesty about Obama.  You would never have known he was running for anything, let alone President, by watching his show.  I lost respect for him for that reason.  For all the good he's done, it has been very disappointing to discover that he is not fair and honest about everything.

    by dotster on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:26:08 PM PDT

    •  I don't watch the joker at all...

      but thanks for the update, Dotster.

      by Miles in WesternWA on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:34:36 PM PDT

    •  At least

      Shuster just smacked him down.

      by turneresq on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:42:33 PM PDT

      •  Now there's a guy that should have his own

        show on MSNBC.  Rachel Maddow was doing a great job of shilling for Hill earlier in the broadcast also.

        by lordcopper on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 09:21:04 PM PDT

  •  How quickly we turn.

    I can remember just like it was yesterday, Wait! maybe it was! When most on here were singing the praises of KO. Fame is a fleeting thing, isn't it?  

    by ichibon on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 10:12:56 PM PDT

•  IMHO

  I kinda dug it.  Sorry.

  by lzachary on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:11:30 PM PDT

  •  Huh

    You dug his lame attempt at spin. Okay, I guess.

    by turneresq on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:12:53 PM PDT

    •  I suppose...

      ...we should all dig your lame attempt at spin instead?

      by DawnG on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:23:38 PM PDT

      •  What spin?

        Or is this just a lame jab? I pointed out my  arguments. Point out yours.

        by turneresq on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:24:42 PM PDT

        •  My argument is that YOU are spinning...

          ...a decent but not overwhelming "win" into something bigger than it really is.  And I'm freaking tired of it all.  I was tired of it a week ago, and I'm even more tired of it now.

          I'm tired of the faery-dust and starry eyed day dreams of SYCHOPHANTS!

          I'M TIRED OF IT!!!!

          Obama supporters are talking in Jargon like some kind of freaking CULT.  Edwards supporters too but not as loudly or a freaking..CULTY!

          I'm TIRED of it!

          I'm tired of being told how everything will be freaking ALL RIGHT if we just vote for...whoever.

          It's NOT going to be ALL RIGHT!  No matter who wins!  It will be hard, we will still need to WORK.  The next president will NOT lead us to the next progressive age!  If we're lucky we'll need to DRAG them kicking and screaming into the next progressive age. And if we're not we'll still be bad off.

          This is all HYPE AND I'M SO FREAKING TIRED OF IT!

          by DawnG on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:37:07 PM PDT

          •  You speak for me in this.

            by Marcus Tullius on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:40:37 PM PDT

          •  I agree totally

            but I'd rather drag Obama or Edwards than Huck or Rmoney.

            by Webster on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:50:43 PM PDT

            •  I like Obama, but he's not the ONLY one I like.

              And his most ardent supporters are GETTING ON MY LAST NERVE!

              by DawnG on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:53:25 PM PDT

              •  and if you had won...

                we would be saying the same thing.  as i say downthread, i suggest not showing up on other candidates' victory night and expecting anything other than completely rational celebration.

                it's like showing up at redstate after bush's reelection and assuming they'll want to have a reasonable debate on policy-- NOT.  they'll spin it as a crushing defeat of liberalism.

                by tbird12861 on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:56:56 PM PDT

                •  *I* wasn't running.

                  I couldn't have won.  I haven't decided yet.

                  It's not just the "victory" thing.  This has been going on for WEEKS.  The volume and pitch are totally ramped up and it's really hard for me to take.

                  by DawnG on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 09:00:54 PM PDT

                  •  definition of insanity...

                    if you can't handle hyper-partisan candidate lobbying here, maybe you should stay out of it.  no offense, but that's the only way to save yourself the headache.

                    by tbird12861 on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 09:05:04 PM PDT

                    •  maybe I will.

                      I can see, between banging, a blood spot on the wall.

                      by DawnG on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 09:07:00 PM PDT

                      •  please remember...

                        you are continually subjecting yourself to some of the most partisan of the partisan... for every obama poster here there are thousands of ordinary americans who just caucused for him in iowa.  and millions more across america.

                        just as we shouldn't let bin laden speak for islam, we shouldn't let dKos rabid supporters speak for their candidate.  

                        (and fortunately, there are even fewer of those in america, who like you, subject yourself to torture by frequenting places like this thread... there are many more that are open to the message that the candidate is going to bring.)

                        by tbird12861 on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 09:12:16 PM PDT

                    •  I'm just disapointed.

                      I wanted this place to be different.

                      I wanted this place to be SANE.

                      I wanted it to be an oasis of reason from a crazy world.

                      But there are crazies here, and they're hungry, and they're loud.

                      by DawnG on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 09:11:08 PM PDT

                      •  hooting and hollering

                        there was a lot of gloating and irrational exuberance here post '06 elections that probably bordered on crazy and freakish/cultish/whatever.

                        your point?

                        i think that it looks that way whenever you're on the outside looking in... sorry..?

                        by tbird12861 on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 09:14:06 PM PDT

              •  I'm a precinct captain for Obama

                and he's not the only one I like.  Sorry on behalf of all of us.  BTW, I really glad Edwards is up in second.  If it comes down to the two of them, I won't even stay up on Super Tuesday.  I'll go to bed and sleep damn well.

                by Webster on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 09:20:49 PM PDT

          •  perhaps...

            i think all the candidates, especially obama, highlighted that in their speeches and their campaigns-- i don't think any candidate is assuming it's going to come without a lot of hard work.

            perhaps some people here are.. and if that bothers you that much, maybe you should take a break?  granted, they should take a much-needed reality check... but it sounds like you need to get away from a steady flow of other candidates' partisans.  (showing up here on their victory night probably won't help.)

            by tbird12861 on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:53:34 PM PDT

          •  Damm ! and I can't tip you for this.

            Obama supporters are talking in Jargon like some kind of freaking CULT

            . My main gripe about  of the Obama people from day one, hype over substance, like some rock star being fawned over by a bunch of teenie bopper air heads.  

            by ichibon on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 10:06:07 PM PDT

  •  I think he is trying to counterbalance

    the constant Tweety commentary on Clinton.  He's ranting on about her now.

    by litigatormom on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:24:23 PM PDT

    •  I thought the same after Fineman kept telling

      how this may have been the end of "the Clintons"

      the end of an era etc. etc. ...

      he was getting really over the top there ... too premature by far by a wellknown Clinton hater and Bushlover IMHO

      I did think someone in that group should speak up

      and thankfully, Olbermann, did. He did bring up a point worth mentioning.

      Tweety also said Hillary's speech was manipulative in comparison to the fab Obama speech. Was that nec.?

      Always when your name is Matthews.

      by FelisRufus on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:48:28 PM PDT

      •  Her speech was great

        I actually liked it better than the others, because she put the emphasis on the party -- that this was a big win for Dems.  That is a message we need to keep making to win in November.  That's when it matters, and she is telling us to keep our eyes on the prize.

        It's nice to win Iowa, but I also would rather win the White House.

        by Cream City on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 09:01:51 PM PDT

        •  Exactly, CC. I thought she spoke so well

          I could be wrong but didn't tweety think it was fine right after she was done?

          but of course, he had to malign her later just to make sure she did win over anybody with her speech (rolling eyes)

          you know, I should be used to him doing that sort of thing and worse to HC by now .... but again when I came up with "manipulative" out of the blue (like all the other nutty stuff he comes up with) I couldn't believe it that he was THAT obvious in his Hillary hating. AGAIN.

          by FelisRufus on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 11:07:39 PM PDT

          •  oops ... " just to make sure she didn't win over

            anybody..."

            ..."when he came up with "manipulative"...

            sorry, this was a long day!

            Go Dems!

            by FelisRufus on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 11:11:02 PM PDT

          •  I may have tuned out Tweetytwittyisms

            by then.:-)

            Even so, I also cannot get used to him being so obvious in his bias.  It used to be required to be more subtle about it, but these days, it has become okay to be biased and actually appallingly misognynist and rude in commentating (here, too, as well as on tv:-).  Too bad for this country in these serious times. . . .

            by Cream City on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 05:43:18 AM PDT

•  I saw that

  Douchebag.  But he's not going spoil my mood because Obama is giving a SPEECH FOR THE AGES.

  by chicago minx on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:11:35 PM PDT

  •  Oh please

    This is a speech for the ages? It's the same speech Edwards gave in 2004. Just subsitutute 'skinny kid from Kenya' for 'son of a mill worker' and you have Edwards speech exactly.

    by williams477 on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:17:41 PM PDT

    •  Not. Even. Close. n/t

      by Mother of Zeus on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:20:38 PM PDT

    •  Congrats on JRE's second place n/t

      by chicago minx on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:21:07 PM PDT

    •  LOL!! I am an Obama supporter but

      that just busted me up!
      Don't playa hate on us, Will!

      We will WIN!!!
      Go Obama!

      by Miles in WesternWA on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:24:48 PM PDT

    •  Not the same as the Edwards 2004 speech

      It's the same speech Obama gave in 2004 as the keynote speaker.

      Having said that, and as a Clinton supporter, I was moved by it.  It is a great thing to see a black man win a primary, even though I support someone else.

      If he wins the nomination, I'll be proud to vote for him. And work for him.

      by litigatormom on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:26:38 PM PDT

    •  funny, i thought obama was from america nt

      by blueterp on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:29:02 PM PDT

    •  Say what. Try cleaning your

      ears again? What sour grapes tonight?

      by africa on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 09:18:13 PM PDT

  •  Wasn't that speech amazing.? If that doesn't

    make everyone sit up and take notice....this is a movement.
     and it would be nice if Howard Fineman knew how to pronounce Barack.  Even tho he just made up for it by calling him a "major phenomenon" and praised his speech to the utmost and said people better start paying attention to this guy.
     And it would have been nice if Edwards would have mentioned Obama's name during his speech.  Not very gracious and a weird speech for that moment.

    by dotster on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:31:01 PM PDT

•  tonight we are one step closer

  I ain't listening to Keith. Obama is on right now. He's the man!

  Go Obama!

  by CocoaLove on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:11:58 PM PDT

  •  He's on FIRE

    by chicago minx on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:12:24 PM PDT

    •  Perhaps I should just enjoy the moment

      But it got my ire up.

      by turneresq on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:13:43 PM PDT

      •  Enjoy the moment

        by Andrew C White on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:19:40 PM PDT

      •  Enjoy the moment

        as a non partisan Democrat, I think you are reading too much into it.   Part one was directly from Howard Dean and the second part I didn't really pick up on and the station has been on all night.  I think it was a throw away remark and significant of nothing.

        by DanD on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:26:42 PM PDT

      •  You know he's not going to get his due

        from everyone.  I would be shocked if he did.

        But Obama's win resonated where it is really important: with the unbelievable amount of volunteers, activists and donors who have come to understand that something historic is happening here.  

        More importantly, those low information voters still persuaded by name recognition are realizing that they do not have to automatically vote for the most famous of our candidates.  

        Most importantly, this win will convince some of those still skeptical that Obama will do precisely what he says he can do: mobilize a cross-partisan coalition to push through a decidedly progressive agenda.  The rest won't be convinced until it happens, which is perfectly fine.  But Obama said he would fulfill the long-held Democratic goals of turning out the youth vote and bringing in support from others.  And tonight that's exactly what he did.

        I like Olbermann.  He takes Bush down on a daily basis and I will always appreciate him for his breath of fresh air among the rancid Bush-apologizing which was occuring when Olbermann's show first began.  He's a good man.  Obama will convince him, through deeds, just as he's convinced many other skeptics, including me.

        by GN1927 on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:41:11 PM PDT

      •  Yeah, I noticed it too

        and I had the same reaction. I just figured he'd been drinking a Big Gulp of haterade.

        by xndem on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:58:26 PM PDT

•  Please

  With Tweety in his hysterical Clinton bashing mode, Keith probably realized some perspective is needed.

  Love Keith...

  by GregNYC on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:12:40 PM PDT

•  I agree...

  ...it's silly and unfair. KO is clearly just falling prey to "oh God I'm live and need something superficially insightful to say" disease. It's common during times like these no matter who the commentator. I'm sure he'll be over it tomorrow when he's got time to prepare.

  by Addison on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:13:12 PM PDT

•  Keith is just stating facts

  instead of repeating Tweety's flirtation with Obama.

  by williams477 on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:13:33 PM PDT

  •  What facts

    Deducting 20% from Obama's count (which he noted still resulted in an Obama win), but not doing so for the other candidates.

    by turneresq on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:14:40 PM PDT

    •  Where is the proof?

      I heard those same numbers but I don't know how they obtained them. Show some proof

      by williams477 on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:16:03 PM PDT

      •  Olbermann said it on the air!

        What proof do you want me to provide?

        by turneresq on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:22:35 PM PDT

    •  He deducted the independents

      that voted which did so for Obama in huge numbers and then just compared the Democratic voters to show a much closer race.  This always happens in primary races and the other candidate still in this race will probably be doing the same tomorrow.

      by EricRSINY on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:18:36 PM PDT

•  Maybe trying to provide some balance to

  Tweety's Hillary obsession? Also, the turnout is a huge story...looks good for November.

  by tabbycat in tenn on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:14:03 PM PDT

  •  I heard the Repubs also had a big turnout n/t

    by auapplemac on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:52:28 PM PDT

•  I don't ever

  want to hear people bash young voters again. 57% of Obama's support came from the under-30. Guess what? That makes this the first presidential contest in history statistically swung by a huge youth turnout.

  by Nathaniel Ament Stone on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:15:02 PM PDT

  •  That is so impressive...

    Such a positive.

    If those numbers prove true Obama has truly made change in the Democratic Party. Wow.

    by Morgan Sandlin on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:16:55 PM PDT

  •  Agreed

    This will hopefully shut their mouths on this issue for awhile.

    by turneresq on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:21:01 PM PDT

    •  DONT shut mouths!

      Scream it from the highest rooftops! Challenge young voters in every succeeding state to out-do Iowa!

      by Andrew C White on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:22:26 PM PDT

  •  Keep it up

    I want to see those same youth numbers in every state from here on out.

    25% of turn-out on the democratic side was youth voters.

    22% is the percentage of youth voters in the state.

    They out performed their own numbers.

    Let's see that repeat itself state by state. Get'm voting now and see them vote forever afterward.

    Peace,

    Andrew

    by Andrew C White on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:21:40 PM PDT

    •  and that has NEVER happened

      going all the way back to the start of modern polling in the 1930s and '40s. Young people have always been less likely to vote...until now.

      by Nathaniel Ament Stone on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 09:07:47 PM PDT

    •  If we can get those same youth numbers

      in the general, especially for the down-ticket races, we'll get our super-majority in the House and the Senate and tell Lieberman to suck eggs...

      by Cali Scribe on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 09:16:14 PM PDT

      •  Exactly... more than just Lieberman

        and so I suggest to all of us that we challenge young voters in our own states to show that they can out-do Iowa young voters.

        by Andrew C White on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 07:38:16 AM PDT

  •  thank you!!!

    i'm sick of this talking point!

    by blueterp on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:29:58 PM PDT

  •  And this old fogey applauds them for it

    by mr crabby on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:42:24 PM PDT

•  To a certain extent

  Keith has to even out Chris Mathrews.  The guy has a crush on Obama :p

  by NickC on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:15:23 PM PDT

  •  I thought he was still hot for Grandpa Fred?

    Yech. Wish I hadn't thought that.

    by AndyT on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:22:49 PM PDT

    •  He dumped Grandpa Fred long ago

      That manly aroma of Aqua-Velva and cigar smoke wore off really fast when Fred turned out to be a drooling old man.

      by litigatormom on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:28:59 PM PDT

  •  don't

    interpret blind Hilary-hate as 'bama love.....

    by joojooluv on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:25:32 PM PDT

  •  so does everyone n/t

    by dotster on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:34:56 PM PDT

•  The facts are that independents

  Can only vote in a few more of the Democratic primaries and that the fact that young people voted in Iowa may not hold for the rest of the primary season and this is where Obama got most of his margin from.

  You might not like Keith's spin or viewpoint but if you ignore it then you do so at your own peril.

  by EricRSINY on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:16:00 PM PDT

  •  It certainly makes Obama more attractive...

    as a candidate in the General.

    If he can continue to attract Independents and young people to his candidacy he will increase his draw.

    by Morgan Sandlin on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:18:33 PM PDT

  •  There were plenty of Republicans

    that crossed over to caucus for Obama as well.  So we should be happy for him, but not lose our head over this.  There is a long election season to go and Edwards is not out yet. Neither is Clinton.

    by hairspray on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:19:21 PM PDT

    •  I don't think

      any of the top 3 will be dropping out any time soon.  It is going to be a close race, the polls have all been split with basically 1/3 for each for months now.  Obama won this one, which is fine, Edwards could win the next and Clinton the one after.  I prefer Edwards then Obama and then Clinton, but all are better than the Republicans by miles.

      The numbers are important especially if Huckabee is the Republican nominee, we need to send a message that this country rejects the Republican platform and the best way to do that is to completely swamp the Republicans in November.  Huckabee is a step backward and the Democrats need to be the party of moving forward and a large turnout for Democrats means that more people want the country to move forward.

      by pgm 01 on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 09:30:57 PM PDT

      •  My choices are Clinton and then Edwards

        After Iraq, I want to see Health Care reformed and I believe Krugman when he says Obama is naive on this.  We can't afford another failure on this issue, like 1993.  I don't blame Hillary for that, but the forces against change. Only HRC and JRE understand the dangers and will get it done.  Clinton over Edwards because of Iraq.  But either one would be good for me.

        by hairspray on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 09:42:14 AM PDT

  •  Perhaps that is true,

    But it certainly rebuts the Clinton spin leading up to the caucus that Hillary is better positioned to win the general election.  Obama obviously has serious crossover appeals.  Personally, I'd rather nominate someone who actually has some crossover appeal.  And, before anyone accuses Obama of selling out progressive principles, let us not forget that Hillary's whole strategy was to run to the center during the primary/coronation, shitting on the party base for purposes of winning the general election.

    by Man in Black on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:21:13 PM PDT

•  Plus there is the weird second vote

  Do they give figures on the first choices? From what I have seen, it appears that Obama and Clinton were very close on the first go round. It was the second vote that put him up and over.

  by DaleA on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:17:45 PM PDT

  •  I was wanting to hear more on that

    thanks for sharing. Obama gained on a second round, Hillary and Edwards did not - interesting.

    by AndyT on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:21:03 PM PDT

  •  What did you see that suggests that?

    If you are relying on the early reported precincts, that does not reflect anything like that.

    by Mother of Zeus on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:25:52 PM PDT

  •  Nope

    According to entry polls, Obama already had a substantial lead on the first ballot.  Although I'm not sure, I think Edwards improved on the second ballot more than Clinton.

    If you're referring to the fact that Edwards and Clinton started out at 1 and 2 as actual results were reported, that was because the smaller precincts reported first because they were easier to count.  Most of those came from rural areas supporting Edwards.  The precincts where Obama had most of his support reported later in the night.  It also wasn't just arm twisting.  The live blog at TNR reported that Dodd apparently threw his support to Clinton, and that didn't seem to do her much good.

    The bad news is that if he is the general election candidate, Obama must get heavy turnouts in cities and towns.  The good news is that appears to be well within the range of possibilities.

    by DelRPCV on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:43:55 PM PDT

•  The turn-out doubling

  from 2004 is HUGE.

  The "prodigious" youth turn-out of 25% out performing the percentage of youth voters (22%) is even BIGGER.

  I didn't catch Olbermann and do think that is kinda odd.

  But an African-American man just won the Iowa Presidential Caucus and now has a seriously good chance (it is far from over) to be the Democratic nominee and therefore the next President of the United States of America.

  That is frickin BIG all by itself.

  by Andrew C White on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:19:04 PM PDT

  •  It was 89% higher.

    Last I heard turnout was 236000.

    by xndem on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 09:01:38 PM PDT

    •  Does this mean

      that Bush finally kept his promise, that he is a uniter not a divider?  It seems like a pretty sound rejection of Bush and the Republican party.

      by pgm 01 on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 09:32:49 PM PDT

•  The big turnout is because

  people are sick and fucking tired of republicans.  It has nothing to do with Obama, Edwards or Clinton.  We want the culture of corruption removed from our lives.

  by pkbarbiedoll on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:19:31 PM PDT

  •  True...

    but if the Dems didn't have great candidates then the big turnout never would have happened.

    by Kyle the Mainer on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:26:01 PM PDT

•  it was beyond belief

  lets lose with Hillary because dems didn't crush her.

  by nevadadem on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:20:44 PM PDT

  •  I am just befuddled by Olbermann's logic

    So what if Obama is bringing in huge numbers of Indy's to vote DEMOCRATIC. That's a good thing.

    by turneresq on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:31:31 PM PDT

•  Isnt he usually pro-Clinton anyway?

  That's what I've heard. Oh well, let people keep underestimating Obama. I certainly have no problem with that.

  by jj32 on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:21:38 PM PDT

•  I like Keith, but...

  ... I do detect a pro-Hillary bias in his reporting on the Democratic nomination process - at all times.

  I never see him interviewing any of the other candidates on Countdown, but I've seen him interview Hillary.  I'm going to be interested if he does get those interviews how he acts, or if he'll ever ask Hillary a tough question.

  by pkohan on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:21:47 PM PDT

  •  He did have Edwards on once, that I know of.

    But no Obama as far as I know.

    by Kyle the Mainer on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:27:49 PM PDT

    •  I think Alison Stewart interviewed

      Chris Dodd a few times as well as Elizabeth Edwards.

      by justmy2 on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:31:58 PM PDT

    •  3 times total

      Hillary only once. He likes Edwards just fine. Not sure about Obama, but I think he had him on once too.

      by dougymi on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:44:57 PM PDT

    •  Obama on Countdown

      Obama has definitely been on Countdown.

      by Korkenzieher on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:50:29 PM PDT

    •  I saw Obama on "Countdown"

      a few months ago, and Keith has had Dodd on several times (most notably last Thursday to discuss the Bhutto nomination, since Dodd is chair of Senate Foreign Relations IIRC).

      by Cali Scribe on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:52:49 PM PDT

•  Believe me ...

  ... there's no spinning away this victory.  

  by VirginiaDem on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:22:08 PM PDT

  •  But it sure won't stop folks

    from trying, will it???

    "Whirrrrrrrrrrrrr!!!"

    Hear that?  Non-stop spinning all the way to NH. lol

    by Miles in WesternWA on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:31:12 PM PDT

  •  Isn't stopping people from trying

    Oh well, I'm going to enjoy this.

    by turneresq on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:44:41 PM PDT

•  You think they ALL came out for Obama?

  There's ridiculous spin goin on all right.

  Obama got a narrow victory.  Still a victory, but don't upplay it like he DOMINATED the caucus when he didn't.

  He did well.  But Clinton and Edwards did well too.  Obama just did a little bit better.

  by DawnG on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:23:12 PM PDT

  •  seven point win in a three way race

    That's pretty solid victory IMO.

    by jj32 on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:24:38 PM PDT

    •  it's a decent win...

      ...but it's not an overwhelming win.  Obama didn't DOMINATE as some would believe.

      by DawnG on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:30:42 PM PDT

      •  he did as well as Kerry in 2004

        and even beat Edwards by a wider margin than Kerry did. It's not a landslide but it's a decisive victory.

        by Stroszek on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:34:03 PM PDT

      •  and it is just the first in a long line

        until the convention. yes a great deal for him and he deserves applause, but just the first one.

        by tony the American Mutt on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:39:14 PM PDT

        •  I just want it to unfold...

          ...without someone telling me what it means.

          I like Obama, I got nothing against him, but his supporters are completely creeping me out, and I'm not afraid to admit it.

          by DawnG on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:40:46 PM PDT

          •  a few seem to be a bit too personal

            about it.

            by tony the American Mutt on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:43:16 PM PDT

            •  if by a "few" you mean...

              ...a raging SWARM.

              Then yes I agree.

              by DawnG on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:46:04 PM PDT

      •  No win in Iowa is ever going to be

        overwhelming. Unless it's an incumbent VP, no is going to win by 10 points or more. I look it like this: Obama was 1st in a strong field.

        by jj32 on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 09:25:53 PM PDT

    •  Just be fair

      Look, I'm not trying to take anything away from Obama.  If Edwards had won with that margin I'd be psyched.  But it is what it is.  It was a solid win that will create a lot of momentum.  

      And it wasn't a 3-way race.  It was a 7-way race, in which many of the 2nd and 3rd tier candidates directed their supporters to vote for Obama.  Again, not taking that away from him, but that isn't going to happen in other states.  Dodd and Biden are out.  Their supporters will migrate to whomever they individually prefer.  Same with Kucinich and Richardson supporters.

      If Obama isn't able to repeat the performance in NH, expect the CW to change so face, Iowa will be an instant historical footnote.

      by space on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:35:31 PM PDT

      •  Fair points

        And that's all I said. It was a solid victory. A clear victory.

        by jj32 on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 09:29:57 PM PDT

•  I think I mistook his point

  what I got from it is what Matthews later explained;

  that Obama won because he appealed outside the realm of registered Democrats and party partisans, which you can win with (while Huckabee won with the base).

  Clinton doesn't appeal to independents and that would make it hard, although not impossible, to win nationwide.

  ALSO, Obama beat Clinton among Democrats. Obama did beat "the incumbent"

  by nrafter530 on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:23:20 PM PDT

  •  Obama won't be able to count on the Independents

    in primary states except for those with open primaries -- though his showing among Independents might impress Democrats in those states who can see beyond their primary to the general election.

    Iowa's an anomaly by virtue of the fact that the process is closed off to those who are either unable to get the time off work, or those who are out of the state at the time of the caucus. We'll see if he can maintain the positive force in states with more traditional voting methods.

    I am pleased that Edwards made a strong showing -- and that it seems that the Clinton Inevitability Express seems to have hit some rough trackage.

    by Cali Scribe on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:58:23 PM PDT

    •  No I know

      and that's what makes Clinton viable in the primaries

      but in the general, those independents will be necessary. Obama (and Edwards for that matter) appeals to them much more than Clinton.

      And no Republican really does.

      by nrafter530 on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 09:58:14 PM PDT

•  The Irony

  It was Matthews who said that Hillary is essentially the incumbent, and that independents who voted in the Democratic caucus will likely vote Democratic in November.

  by RandySF on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:23:48 PM PDT

•  Seven Percent.

  Last I saw, it was Obama 37% to Clinton and Edwards 30%.

  It's a win. But it's not a huge win. It's Iowa, and it's 7%.

  We'll talk next week.

  by homogenius on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:25:31 PM PDT

•  Calm down

  Everything is a conspiracy against Obama!

  Olbermann might make such an analysis to get a sense of how Obama will fare in the vast majority of Democratic primaries that do not allow independents to vote. Did that ever occur to you?

  by space on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:27:44 PM PDT

•  OMG - Keith just did it AGAIN

  All he does is play up the fact that independents helped carry Obama to victory.  

  DUH!

  Stop carrying Clinton's water!

  by pkohan on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:29:42 PM PDT

  •  his argument is ridiculous

    Obama created thousands of new Democrats tonight. Not independents. REGISTERED DEMOCRATS. Olbermann doesn't understand that this is how a majority is made.

    by Stroszek on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:32:31 PM PDT

  •  Because now Tweety is blathering on

    about how Obama has been delivered to us from Indonesia.

    I almost thought he was going to say that Obama glimmered with a sunny nobility, which is what Tweety once said about George W. Bush.

    Obama won tonight. It's not a huge win with two other candidates getting 30%, but it's a win. Can't take it away.

    However, it is premature to anoint Obama as unstoppable, just as it was premature to say that Clinton was inevitable.

    Iowa isn't the end all and be all.  Let's hope not, at least, on the GOP side, because no matter how much I hear people say that Huckabee is such a loon that he'd be a great adversary for us, he scares the Bejesus out of me. Literally.

    by litigatormom on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:33:41 PM PDT

    •  My problem is his dishonest

      Cutting of the margin of victory.

      by turneresq on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:34:55 PM PDT

    •  Hucky does not believe in evolution

      this is the kind of guy who might win this thing by

      turning back

      its a diff. kind of change

      Repubs love that .... always go backwards. They are still fighting the 60's.

      by FelisRufus on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:57:35 PM PDT

•  I am a Keith fan

  but he is certainly trying to downplay the win...he did  it again...

  If you take independents away...HE STILL WINS...

  what's the point...

  Chris Matthews certainly like Obama...but that speech was up there with the best of them...

  by justmy2 on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 08:30:30 PM PDT

  •  It's only one race