
On Friday night's Countdown, Keith Olbermann responded to Jon Stewart's mockery of the MNSBC host on the previous night's Daily Show, admitting, "I have been a little over the top lately. Point taken. Sorry."
On Thursday's Daily Show Stewart impersonated Olbermann in his own "Special Comment" and ridiculed Olbermann's over-the-top criticism of Massachusetts senator-elect Scott Brown. "Now you are just calling people names," Stewart said.
After playing The Daily Show segment in full, Olbermann initially struck back at Stewart: "This from a guy who reached his professional apex when he was the host of Short Attention Span Theater, 1991?" But he then relented: "Nah, you know what, you're right. I have been a little over the top lately. Point taken. Sorry."
Here's the video:
C. Simmons
January 25, 2010 9:40 AM
THIS is why comparing Keith Olbermann to Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh is fundamentally flawed: KO at least has the guts and the class to admit that he's sometimes over-the-top with his theatrics. You would NEVER see Beck or Limbaugh do the same thing.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
agostage
January 25, 2010 9:44 AM in reply to C. Simmons
agreed
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
RWN
January 26, 2010 10:58 AM in reply to agostage
and again....
best part Stewart is actually re-establishing his turf, but to Keith, an old acquaintance whom I am certain forgot the relationship...or to his producer/researchers...
we have fallen back to watching PBS Newshour again, we enjoyed the last 3 years or so but the name calling is not what we are looking for in truth telling, simply good old truth telling.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MzTicketyBoo
January 25, 2010 10:15 AM
Now make nice, guys. Kiss and make up. I'm still a fan of Steward/Olbermann/Maddow.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Libertine
January 25, 2010 10:24 AM
HAHAHA...watching Stewart's Olbermann rant is just as funny now as it was when I first saw it, and still as spot on. Olbermann is one of my faves but I cringe each time he goes more progressively over the top because each successive time he does he becomes an equally less effective spokesman for the left.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Skybolt
January 25, 2010 10:31 AM
Stewart never should have gone after Olbermann in public, and Olbermann shouldn't have apologized. Politics is war. You attack the enemy, not your allies, and you don't apologize for attacking as the enemy as fiercely as you can.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
RectoNoVerso
January 25, 2010 11:12 AM in reply to Skybolt
Double fail:
1/ Stewart is a comedian who ridicules those who go over the top regardless of their ideology, and KO was clearly over the top. He's not a political hack.
2/ Politicians and pundits may go at each others throat if it pleases them, but they lose all credibility with sane people when doing so.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Skybolt
January 25, 2010 4:39 PM in reply to RectoNoVerso
1) John Stewart has influence now, and with that comes additional responsibility. Unless he wants to help the Republicans, he can't go after people on his side of the line on the grounds of "civility" or being "over the top."
2) This claim is ridiculous. Politicians and pundits do not lose credibility with anyone important by going at the other side's throats. Any political partisan who wants to achieve anything knows that your politicians and pundits have to be on the attack all the time. When a guy like Olbermann gets vicious, he does not lose credibility with conservatives, because he never had any credibillity with conservatives. He loses credibility with David Broder, but David Broder is irrelevant. And he gains credibility with any liberal or Democrat who wants to win.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Homefries
January 25, 2010 8:34 PM in reply to Skybolt
Your two points might be more credible if you were talking about a percentage of the voting electorate that only numbers, at best, no more than 15 per cent.
Liberal Democrats have no chance of winning without convincing moderates and independents that they are worth voting for. Painting caricatures of your opponent might be useful at discrediting some policy positions, but if a policy position is popular (even if the premises are flawed), attacking it can backfire bigtime.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hotspur
January 25, 2010 9:12 PM in reply to Skybolt
If you relentlessly attack the other side and never criticize your own side, then you are an A-hole, and lose credibility with people who are not A-holes. Would I like Republicans more if their brand of politics were fact-based persuasion instead of all-out war? Yes. Would the country exist today if the founding fathers had practiced the brand of politics you favor, Skybolt? It would not; sayonara, Federalist Papers! I'll stick with the team that has faith in the merits of its ideas instead of its smears, and that realizes the only way to HAVE ideas is to criticize their own. That side for the past 14-15 years at least has been the Democrats.
Also, for the record, I'd argue Stewart's primary target has always been the media itself -- how it amplifies or neglects various memes, ignorances, and hypocrisies.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Skybolt
January 26, 2010 8:28 AM in reply to hotspur
Internal disagreement is perfectly fine. Airing those disagreements in public is stupid. It only helps the other side. Republicans do not do "fact-based persuasion" because their ideas are not based on facts. It's their beliefs and policies that make them repulsive, not their tactics. Their tactics are how they win. Our tactics are how we lose.
Politicians were extremely vicious in the 18th and 19th centuries and they attacked each other mercilessly. But that is not relevant. We are talking about what works right now. Slapping each other around in public is one of the things that makes Democrats look weak and incompetent. Civility and openness amounts to letting the other side win.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jenesq
January 27, 2010 10:45 AM in reply to Skybolt
Excellent points. If only Democrats could take on Republicans as vigorously as they engage in the circular firing squad...
But lately I have become extremely depressed, realizing that when you operate under the assumption that you can create your own reality, that if you say something often enough it becomes a fact, and you also have a TV network at your disposal as well as an army of emailers who can make gullible recipients believe pretty much anything that suits their preconceived biases, it's almost impossible to win against that kind of willful delusion. THIS is what the death of hope looks like....realizing that the other guys truly are more interested in destroying our side than they are in making sure our country succeeds. People suck.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jenesq
January 27, 2010 10:54 AM in reply to hotspur
The founding fathers practiced dirty politics to an extreme that remains impressive even today. Hell, Burr and Hamilton actually dueled to the death over truly reprehensible mudslinging! These guys were not principled braniac philosophers who sat around drafting cogent arguments...those times of introspection were well-peppered with some pretty crazy stuff. We shouldn't fall into the trap of glorifying the founding fathers in ways that distort reality...we already have the teabaggers for that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
pattybee
January 25, 2010 1:36 PM in reply to Skybolt
Nah -- Stewart does satire -- everyone's fair game for a satirist. and altho' both Olbermann's original rant and Stewart's bit satirizing it were uncomfortable for me to watch, in the end it caused Olbermann to deflate a bit, admit he had gone a little too far, and that's a good thing, for it clearly separates the man from the (right-wing crazy) boys.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Skybolt
January 25, 2010 4:42 PM in reply to pattybee
What separates a guy like Olbermann from the right-wing wackos is that right wing-wackos are wrong and Olbermann is right. There is nothing wrong with Olbermann's tactics.
You'll never see a Republican or a conservative argue for the neutering of one of their own. That seems to be solely a Democratic weakness.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
farnsworth
January 26, 2010 12:03 AM in reply to Skybolt
So you are in favor of any tactic if you think it will help you win? You are in favor of beating the Republicans no matter what, including becoming them?
I disagree. Doing the right thing is the right thing. Winning by playing as dirty as the other side is a Pyrrhic Victory.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Skybolt
January 26, 2010 8:37 AM in reply to farnsworth
Trying to win does not make us Republicans. What makes the Republicans sleazy and disgusting is what they believe and what they try to accomplish, not the tactics they use. Becoming the Republicans means adopting the Republican viewpoint and working for the policies they prefer.
The goal of politics is not to show what a nice, polite person you are. The goal of politics is to have your personal beliefs and values enacted into law. You have to decide what is more important to you. Is it more important to win the political battle, which means saving millions of lives and probably the planet? Or is it more important to fulfill your personal image of yourself as reasonable and easy to be around?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ohyeathatsright
January 26, 2010 11:23 AM in reply to Skybolt
"The goal of politics is not to show what a nice, polite person you are. The goal of politics is to have your personal beliefs and values enacted into law."
W...T...F
The "goal" of politics is to have the public's beliefs enacted into law. Your stated goal is the reason our democracy is in shambles. Republican or Democrat; doesn't matter.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Skybolt
January 26, 2010 3:14 PM in reply to ohyeathatsright
It is because of surrenderists like you that democracy is in shambles. What I obviously meant, since you seem determined to misunderstand me, is that people participate in politics in order to see their personal beliefs enacted into law. The political process is what determines whose beliefs those will be. If you are after anything else you're just trying to lose.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ohyeathatsright
January 26, 2010 5:02 PM in reply to Skybolt
We just have different motivations. Your motivation is to win the game as it is. My motivation is to change the game.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Skybolt
January 27, 2010 9:07 AM in reply to ohyeathatsright
If you want to change the game, you first have to win the game as it is.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jenesq
January 27, 2010 10:50 AM in reply to ohyeathatsright
I totally agree with your philosophy, but when you are dealing with people to whom facts do not matter and who care more about destroying you than in making sure this country succeeds, you simply cannot win. "Hope" and "change" have officially died for me...not because of Obama (whom I still like and respect, and think is doing as good a job as he possibly can under the circumstances), but because we can't defeat willfully ignorant crazy people. I had hoped that our problems were so great that people would actually try to come together, but I, ah, "misunderestimated" the deathgrip that the lunatic wingnuts have over their minions in Congress. Right now I fricking hate people...I really do.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ohyeathatsright
January 27, 2010 11:02 AM in reply to jenesq
The problem there imo is the media. A whole different game to change.
I do have hope that if people were truly given the facts and not told what they want to hear, then they would make the right decisions in the majority.
To do this there needs to be CLEAR delineation between fact and spin. News organizations can still have their pundits, but I feel that what is considered news should be regulated to separate channels. Give them all 2 cable channels and a common platform to compete and be monitored for objectivity.
Or perhaps if PBS was syndicated and built up as the non-profit news and investigative journalism arm of the people. Wishful thinking.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jenesq
January 27, 2010 2:50 PM in reply to ohyeathatsright
All true, but very, very, very wishful thinking. :-(
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
gh0st
January 26, 2010 2:45 PM in reply to Skybolt
Crud! There actually is a left wing moonbat! I have to eat my words several, several times over.
I don't think anyone in our military would be pleased to have someone with the "gall", "guts" and "dedication" of a Taliban bomber and the left certainly shouldn't be joyous that there are those who are just as borderline psychotic as some of the champions of the right. The best thing the right could do would be to disown many of the 'spokesmen'. Sky deserves all the derision you guys can muster.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Skybolt
January 26, 2010 3:20 PM in reply to gh0st
If you don't want to win, that's fine. Just don't pretend you aren't part of the problem.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
racetoinfinity
January 31, 2010 4:42 AM in reply to farnsworth
You are correct. In other famous words: The end does not justify the means. Only Machiavellians (amoral) like Karl Rove believe this.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tony
January 26, 2010 1:47 PM in reply to Skybolt
Everything I've read that you've said sounds completely ridiculous. Let me tell you a bit about myself.
I'm a republican. I watch fox news, MSNBC, CNN, and any other news I can watch. Even though I am a republican, I absolutely despise Glenn Beck, and I'm not much more fond of Rush Limbaugh. I'm pretty open-minded for a republican, despite being against gay marriage for the belief that I think it should be between a man and a woman (not for religious reasons), I think it should be legalized, because it's something that doesn't really affect the people who are against it. I think recreational marijuana should be legalized, because being able to tax it would bring so much revenue to the U.S., and keeping it illegal isn't going to stop people from doing it. I don't believe that global warming is a problem, I think it's the world going through it's natural cycles, but I hate pollution, and I like high MPG's, so I agree with what is being done about global warming, but for different reasons. The only "republican idea" I'm completely dead-set on is the opposition of universal health care. If somebody could find a way to do it so it wouldn't load up the hospitals with people that don't need hospital room care (hangnails, stomach aches), and put people who have serious problems on waiting lists, I would be all for it.
You said it shows that democrats are weak for what happened to happen. To be honest, I've always been a fan of Stewart/Colbert, but I've never liked KO. For the first time, I have some respect for him, even though, in my opinion, there was quite a bit of sarcasm in that apology.
"What separates a guy like Olbermann from the right-wing wackos is that right wing-wackos are wrong and Olbermann is right. There is nothing wrong with Olbermann's tactics."
That has to be the stupidest, most closed-minded thing I've ever heard. If you're talking about Limbaugh/Beck, it might seem a bit better, but even then, it's all a matter of perspective.
Be careful what you say, based on what you have already, you might get hired by one of the news networks to use "King Beck" tactics, and have you're own show. Although, that doesn't seem like something you'd oppose.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
pakaal
January 26, 2010 3:17 PM in reply to Tony
Thanks for posting that. It's always nice to see someone on the "other side of the bench" speak clearly and intelligibly.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Skybolt
January 26, 2010 3:18 PM in reply to Tony
Republicans are useless as far as understanding or solving real problems goes. Useful political discussion takes place among liberals and leftists. So don't waste my time.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tony
January 26, 2010 6:46 PM in reply to Skybolt
No, useful political discussion takes place among people who are out to better their country, not just their party. Say what you want, but until people in government (both left and right wings) whose ideas are stubborn as, let's say yours, this "Change" that Obama is talking about isn't going to happen.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jenesq
January 27, 2010 11:12 AM in reply to Tony
The problem lies in the two extremes, though...the death panel conservatives and the single payer liberals. Ask any Democrat and they will say that the Dems went above and beyond in engaging the GOP in health care discussions well past the point at which it was clear that the GOP was more interested in satisfying the "death panel" base by totally obstructing ANY reform, whereas the Dems were never even interested in trying to appease the "single payer left." In other words, extremists have a deathgrip on our government, with the advantage going to the GOP extremists right now. Nobody wins.
That is no way to run a country, but the GOP really does seem more interested in destroying Obama than in governing this country. This makes me SO angry...I hated George W. Bush, but by God, I would have been more than happy to be proven wrong about him if that meant things went well for our country. Today's GOP can't say the same thing.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tony
January 28, 2010 3:19 PM in reply to jenesq
That may be true about the public GOP members, but it's not something that's only going on on the one side. When Bush was president, no matter what he was doing, most Dems were out to destroy him. I have the same view on Obama that you did on Bush, where I'm hopeful to steer us away from the way we're going. I know he's not going to take the actions that I want him to, because we have differing opinions, I just hope that he can steer us away, even if it means taking a different route to get there. I hear so much during the presidential races about somebody being "The Peoples' President", but really, all the presidents that we've had since before I was born (1989) have been more about pleasing their party's members, and not the American population, which is what I see as the problem. And nobody's going to change this problem with everything based on GOP vs Dems, because neither party can get anything done without the other clawing at their ankles. I just hope Obama can figure this out, or somebody soon after him, because this bipartisanship thing isn't working.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jenesq
January 27, 2010 11:06 AM in reply to Tony
I appreciate what you are saying, and if there were more people like you, the debate about this country's future would be easier to have. I hope you speak up among your own political circles and advocate constructive discussion.
One point on universal healthcare, though....one of the biggest problems with our current system is that the uninsured often have only one option for healthcare--the ER, where they can't be turned away (by law). So they ARE getting hospital care for stomach aches and hangnails, right now, under the current system. And when they can't pay the huge ER bill, those costs get passed along to us. If everyone had health insurance, they could go to a much cheaper clinic for those simple problems and we would ALL save money.
In addition, without preventative care, the uninsured often let problems become so acute that they require a lot more care to deal with, when a little bit of preventative care would have cut the problem off at the beginning. This isn't the sole reason for hospital crowding, but I can tell you that I ("great" insurance and plenty of access to health care) still had to wait 6 weeks for a simple operation for a condition that was pretty painful in the interim. That was not fun, but I can't blame that on universal healthcare because we don't have it.
Indeed, the access to basic *preventative* care that universal coverage would provide would lessen the burden on our health care system...you know, an ounce of prevention and all that.
I think we all want the same things out of life and need to look beyond our preconceived biases to find ways to accomplish those things. But lots of people don't want to do that. And when I see people parroting anti-government Glenn Beck weirdness (ironically, in a great number of cases, these are low-income people who got a LOT of government benefits for various things over the years), I despair of ever being able to have a rational debate on anything....AND it makes me want to delete my Facebook account so i don't have to be confronted with it every day, lol.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
smuhlberger
January 25, 2010 10:31 AM
Damn funny!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Pete Bilderback
January 25, 2010 10:33 AM
Olbermann has been over the top with the theatrics for years. Maddow can do no wrong in my book though.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jenesq
January 25, 2010 10:34 AM
I hope Keith really does take this to heart. He very much needs to reconsider his overemotional responses to events, and this includes his jumping-the-gun criticisms of President Obama based on Naderite talking points--which can be as distorted as any teabagger fantasy, and which I believe have been profoundly damaging to this administration.
I'd also like to see more big-picture analysis, rather than hyperfocus on day-to-day petty squabbles in Washington...we really are missing the forest for the trees sometimes. I'm tired of hearing about some idiot member of Congress ginning up teabagger support with lame one-liners...we need to forget about this b.s. posturing and get down to the nuts and bolts of facts vs falsehoods.
Finally, this is probably a total pipe dream, but I would like to see some of today's events put into real context...not the fictional "FDR/LBJ got everything they wanted when they wanted it and never had a misstep!" framing of some parts of the left, and not the insane "socialism!" framing of the wingnuts, but real context.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
shortstop
January 25, 2010 11:53 AM in reply to jenesq
You're asking an entertainer to become a journalist.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
January 25, 2010 12:05 PM in reply to shortstop
If you're referring to K.O., he is a journalist. He spent the first 20 years of his career as a sports journalist. As for news journalism:
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
shortstop
January 25, 2010 3:43 PM in reply to Schmed
Schmedley, step away from the crunchy pile of dead laurels and tell me: Do you think that what Keith Olbermann practices these days -- right now -- is substantive, quality journalism? Don't frantically google before you answer; this question is about your standards.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bimble
January 25, 2010 10:35 AM
This is definitely nice to see - I hope Olbermann takes Stewart's mockery to heart. It's been getting harder and harder for me to watch Olbermann. The rants have been getting more an more pompous, the name-calling ridiculous, and the voices...don't get me started on the voices. So distracting. I get that you don't like Lou Dobbs, guy, you don't need to emphasize it with phlegmmy breathing when you quote him!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
shortstop
January 25, 2010 3:49 PM in reply to Bimble
The voices would be less annoying if a single one of them came within 1,000 miles of approximating the actual voice of the person being mocked...and if Olbermann didn't take four times as long as usual to make his hamhanded, super-obvious points while using The Voices (and his usual pace is already snail-like). Subtlety, timing and wit he ain't got, but hey, he does have crap graphics in spades. It's entertainment for the lowest common denominator on the left. Thank god for Maddow.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
boycottfaux
January 25, 2010 11:16 AM
I still love Keith . .
He always says what I seem to be thinking at the time!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
farnsworth
January 25, 2010 11:25 AM
I liked Olbermann a lot, until he started going off on Hillary Clinton. I thought that was out of line.
And no, I never supported her for president. That isn't the point. Olbermann ceded credibility with those attacks, and credibility isn't something the reality-based community can spare.
So let us hope he really does take this to heart, and reclaims his position as a man who really does speak truth to power.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FrJackHackett
January 25, 2010 11:46 AM
Well done, Keith. You're a class act. Now get back to work.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jana47
January 25, 2010 11:55 AM
Really like Keith and Jon nice to see the great exchange.
Do agree that Pesident Obama need more support from Keith, many like CNN this am attacking the Stimulus they are conveining and entire week on THE STIMULUS FAILED, EXCHANGING THE PUBLIC'S OUT CRY FOR CHANGE INTO WHAT THEY THINK WILL BE A RATINGS BONANZA
JUST THIS AM ON CNN CHRISTIANA ROMANS JOHN AND KAREN AND THE ENTIRE CAST OF CHARACTERS HAVE HUGE LABELS ON WHY TH STIMULUS FAILE
FORGET THAT THIS COUNTRY WAS FACING A GREAT DEPRESSION AND NO MATTER WHAT YOU SAY WE ARE NO LONGER FACING THAT AND THE JOBS DECREASE HAS CONTINUED TO DECLINE TREMENDOUSLY
Since CNN is loosing big time on the evening to keith rachael and others they are drastically trying to get viewers based on lies
It's sad that CNN chose to attack the entire Stimulus using a POLL THAT IS NOT REPRESENTATIVE OF THE 300 MILLION AMERICANS IN OR GREAT COUNTRY
IT'S TIME CNN TOLD AMERICA EXACTLY HOW MANY PEOPLE TOOK THE POOL, THEIR AFFILIATION DEM OR R REPUBLICIAN AND YOU CAN BE SURE THEIR SAMPLE
IS NOT AN I REPEAT A REPRESENTATIVE OF 300 MILLION AMERICANS
WHY WE LET THESE NETWORKS PLAY WITH POLLS THAT DON'T MEAN ABSOLUTELY NOTHING IS JUST RIDICULOUS
NOT ONE NETWORK WILL EVER SPEND THE MONEY TO DO A REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLE FOR 300 AMERICANS
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jenesq
January 25, 2010 12:09 PM in reply to jana47
The main fallacy is CNN's approach is their argument that the stimulus failed simply because people think it failed...not because of any empirical evidence that it was so. Basing their version of reality on public perception is mind-bogglingly stupid and it's **not news!!** It's not reality, either!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FebM
January 25, 2010 7:53 PM in reply to jana47
The reason people think stimulus failed is because no one says it succeded and people are too lazy to go to recovery.gov to do their own research
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
desert rain
January 25, 2010 12:14 PM
I sure hope Jon has Keith on his show ASAP. They plus Maddow and Colbert can take much credit for helping Americans see past the unpatriotic BS promulgated by Cheney/BushCo when 'most everyone else was too cowed to do so.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Apphouse50
January 25, 2010 1:30 PM
I like having a bombthrower on our side. In fact, I wish we had more.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
sompas
January 25, 2010 6:46 PM
And true to form, Keith responds like the gigantic a-hole he is. Instead of apologizing to the guy he actually wronged, he offers a footnote apology only to serve as a safety measure for Jon's response to his response: 'See! I did apologize!"
I love how KO tries to belittle Jon and introduce red-herrings into the discussion in order to distract the less sensible members of his tiny audience from his massive failings ("coming from a guy who reached his apex on some variety show.") And how he attempts to assert that the only reason Jon said it was because he didn't go on Jon's show, which just happens to be light years ahead in numbers.
Best line, "Me, Rachel, and Jon are the only truth tellers. Now its just me and Rachel."
What a jackass.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Joe Buck
January 26, 2010 9:28 PM
You guys are assuming that Jon Stewart is a progressive. He's more of a centrist, slightly to the left, and he buys into many right-wing tropes. For example, he's a deficit hawk; he's repeatedly demonstrated that he believes that the deficit is more of a danger than high unemployment, he's booked a number of guests who argue this point, and he agrees with them.
He is also extremely reverent about the military, and sucks up to any guest who has a military background.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
racetoinfinity
January 31, 2010 4:51 AM in reply to Joe Buck
Colbert is much more progressive than Stewart.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DugFmJamul
February 6, 2010 9:00 PM
It is so ironic the Progressive Movement owes its allegiance to MSNBC.
Keith Olbermann bows down at the alter of the 'Daily Show' and asks Jon Stewart for forgiveness, I remember Keith Olbermann slamming Micheal Steele for apologizing to Rush, doesn't that make Olbermann a hypocrite and a suck ass?
Keith Olbermann is such a sad sack and he's show reflects his namesake, he's show is direct towards the 37% of the Democratic Party that call themselves 'Progressive' while 'The Daily Show' can be watched by all Americans regardless of political stance and Stewart is much funnier than Olbermann.
Keith Olbermann is unwatchable--period!
The ratings for Olbermann are in the tank and getting worst because most people are tired of Liberal slanted news, they get enough of it from the alphabet channel news media.
The Progressive Movement and MSNBC are connected at the hip with Obama, as Obama gets less popular so does Progressivism and MSNBC.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tosh
March 9, 2010 4:46 PM
thanks for the post.
kamagra m65 jacket
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?