You did not go over the top in criticizing Keith Olbermann. He would not have apologized FOR Shuster if criticism of Shuster had not been as strong as it was. In short, your response was appropriate. So please--no regrets.
Posted by Eileen Mitchell at February 9, 2008 09:43 AMI certainly think the Clinton's should boycott any debate on NBC. Yes, that is the best course of action -a very wise course of action. A 90 minute Obama show on a major network? I'm all for it. It'll show the depth of Clinton's experience.
...but I did not call for him to be suspended.
From your tone, you were calling for him to be lynched. You know, like the republi-cons when they perceive a media slight to the Mad King, idiot son of George. Call for heads, move Helen Thomas off the front row, Rather-gate, Fox news, reporters lose their jobs or their access. In their place you get a slew of media buffoons like Tucker Carlson, Anne Coulter, or Glenn Beck. What you did was absolutely no different from a hatchet-job by the republi-con noise machine, and the response of your followers was the same we would expect from any Faux news follower.
Posted by phidipides at February 9, 2008 09:46 AMClintons hate and anti-Clinton is not restricted to MSNBC. It's prevalent in the Netroots as well. The latter aren't milder or less obnoxious. As a matter of fact, the support for Obama by these progressives is made possible only by sexism and Clintons hate. After all, Obama is almost a Republican,
Posted by Koshembos at February 9, 2008 09:46 AMEileen,
I guess I will think about it some more. What is clear to me is that Olbermann has clearly lowered his standards in the past several weeks. I don't regret my criticism of him per se, since that is well deserved. I regret the tone I used to criticize him which was probably a bit too strong.
Anyway, I certainly have no qualms about my criticism of Shuster especially considering his behavior before and after his comments. Shuster is also the guy who said this:
Just one comment about Chris Matthews. I've worked with him for five and a half years. I've been alongside him, on camera, off, good times and bad. Nobody is more gracious and has a bigger heart, and has contributed more in a positive way to our political discourse than Chris Matthews.That was after Matthews had been forced to apologize for his misogyny and sexism. Posted by eriposte at February 9, 2008 10:01 AM
What you did was absolutely no different from a hatchet-job by the republi-con noise machine, and the response of your followers was the same we would expect from any Faux news follower.
And your calling all Clinton defenders Nazis, what was that? Reasoned discourse?
Posted by iamcoyote at February 9, 2008 10:32 AMOT, but eRiposte, I have been sending Obamaniacs to your link regarding Hillary, and it is funny because either nobody responds to it, or if they do they say 'metrics' aren't important. I have yet to have someone respond to the facts. Great Job and thanks for such a useful tool!
Posted by blogtopus at February 9, 2008 10:43 AMEriposte--Remember the environment you are in...and please quiet that need to be PERFECTLY fair...One better than expected apology does not alter the underlying policy or the overall coverage...They know how to use Olbermann effectively. But he has done some terrible and distorted reporting there, and all the apologies in the world won't change that...I did not hear any apology from him as to his slanted and inaccurate coverage.Nor any promise that the entire coverage would improve. So please...don't let that contemplative side sneak in and create the appearance of a loss of nerve...Don't question yourself...and certainly not in pubic...there is no perfect standard...your bending over backwards to give the benefit of the doubt is unnecessary...before examining over time how contrite they really are. Warriors don't let up...These are not nice people...don't forget it. And from what I can tell, their agenda remains the same. These are not moderate times...and you were not too tough. Get over it. The players may just be playing us better. Think more chess with a club. No loss of nerve or revised impressions. Nothing has changed.
Posted by lily15 at February 9, 2008 10:56 AMIt's not intellectual at this point...and your tone hardly needs to be questioned. Way to early to express reservations...I repeat...it does not show resolve...go with your gut...not the voice in your head busy second guessing. Don't back off...escalate. The stakes are very high. And there will be no hand wringing from the opposition.
Posted by lily15 at February 9, 2008 11:04 AMI guess they're "good guys," whatever that means. (how low is the bar set for being a "good guy?") I don't get the ganging up on Clinton with the kind of zeal they display. It feels like it's personal with them. Like it's become a contest to see who can hate her more. The more you hate her, the cooler you are. Do they think we enjoy seeing it? Do they think we believe them to be very kewl and sophisticated because of it?
I keep remembering the slimy wink-wink-nod-nod look exchanged between Olbermann and Matthews when they incorrectly said Tennessee was "too close to call" early in the evening. The little inside private look that maybe the bitch was finally finished for good.
So I'm glad Keith-O got down off of his high horse and decided to apologize. Do I believe it will change the environment over there? No. Nothing will change until Matthews is gone. Nothing.
Posted by chrisss at February 9, 2008 11:07 AMNothing will change until we determine who is running the policy over there and what the directives have been. Keith literally changed over night...from his good interview with Hillary and positive coverage...to frat boy/hitman learning his new role as gladiator for the rich and powerful. The change was too sudden to be real. We must know the policy and agenda...we must get copies of emails...internal memos that reveal the strategy. The lawyers here should remember big tobacco...it lied and lied...until the truth came out...in litigation (and Bill Clinton as President)(these powerful corporations have since learned how to insulate themselves from scrutiny as the telecom immunity legislation indicates) We need to see the big picture here. This is not about individual acts of commission or contrition. It is something far worse and far bigger. It is of no less concern than the US Attorney manipulation.
We must not treat these actors with kid gloves. We should know better.
I've been through comment threads on 4-5 websites on this kerfluffle. What amazed me was the reaction of some of the Obama supporters. Many of them were asserting that this was all a cynical ploy by the Clinton campaign to gain sympathy.
Over the last 20 years our political discourse has become so degraded that these kind of comments are considered no big deal, especially if directed at the Clintons. And this is at liberal/progressive websites!
I agree with Josh Marshall and his (ironically misogynistic) "Bitch-slap Theory of Electoral Politics."
All this crap and sleaze is part of an effort to demean and denigrate Democrats.
Very rarely do you see this type of crap said about Republicans or their families.
Posted by myiq2xu at February 9, 2008 11:25 AMtpm and digby and others had similar reactions- as despicable as shuster's comment was, he was really made the fall guy for the larger pattern at msnbc, which is exemplified by matthews. shuster's a fine reporter, and i hope the time off helps him to realize how truly wrong he was. there's no excuse for tweety. none.
Posted by Turkana at February 9, 2008 11:29 AMAnd your calling all Clinton defenders Nazis, what was that? Reasoned discourse?
Please post my words calling anyone in the Hive a Nazi. I called you intolerant and gender-baiters (not a masturbation reference).
You've taken care of Shuster, a progressive voice. Now you are after Olbermann, a progressive voice. Shuster for "pimping" Chelsea -the poster child of political props, and Olbermann for daring to speak the truth about the "things that must never be spoken". You know what I mean, "things" like the truth.
So, while you engage in your circle-jerk (guy reference, kinda gay) of anti-anti-anti-"things that must never be spoken" in your little paroxysm of shutting down the media, I know someone you missed. Grab your flaming faggots! (a faggot is a flaming torch, not a gay reference). Will the media attacks never cease!?! Quickly, form a circle and jerk these people off of their smears. Circle jerk them off, I say! (kind of a guy reference, really kinda gay). How can you tolerate being on the bottom like this? Rally and be tops (this is a decidedly gay reference)!
Here is your next target, kids. Enjoy! You're doing a great job defending your candidate.
Posted by phidipides at February 9, 2008 12:16 PMMatthews is a Catholic. I believe it was HIS male chauvenist relatives that left all of the women empowerment material from the Bible on the cutting room floor at the Councils of Trent Lott.
These same Medieval Matthews worked with the Inquisition to approve extra hi-flow waterboarding of women and enacted the "small rocks" standard for Witch flotation investigations.
These changes can be directly linked to the current "75 cents on the male chauvenist dollar" conundrum.
Posted by TIKI AL at February 9, 2008 12:23 PMthe truth??..please..like the chinese say..the truth has a thousand faces..and if you don't think that olberman is doing someone else's bidding..i have some land in florida i'd like to sell you..
Posted by dennis at February 9, 2008 01:44 PMat this point in time calling anyone at msnbc a progressive is an oxymoron...
Posted by dennis at February 9, 2008 01:56 PMAt this point calling anyone at Kos a progressive is also an oxymoron. I have never seen such an anti-progressive organization in my life.
Posted by T at February 9, 2008 04:00 PMIf Hillary pushes the Shuster thing to get him fired...she will lose my vote (I voted for her in the primary)...
mountain out of a molehill and we don't need another eight years of that crap....
Posted by sheeple at February 9, 2008 04:24 PMsheeple...I think Hillary's overreacting by asking for his head here...because I do think you need to look at his history. Afaik, he doesn't have the extensive history of CDS and woman bashing that others who are far more prominent there (I'm talking Tweety,Scarborough, Tucker,) do. I do think Msnbc acted swiftly and appropriately. I really think Keith was sincere in his apology too. As far as Shuster, I dunno suspend him for few weeks and give him a warning, that anything even close to that again and he's out.
Posted by emal at February 9, 2008 04:58 PMI have seen Schuster go after interviewees and press hard. He can be good.
But he can be bad too. MSNBC is not "news", it is there for "entertainment" as they all are, and they play by "entertainment" rules.
I think Hillary is probably hurting herself as much as she is helping herself with the political fallout from this incident. but I can't really fault her for taking it personally. And Chelsea probably should have counter-attacked on her own. I think she is probably old enough to do that.
Posted by gtash at February 9, 2008 06:08 PMAnd Chelsea probably should have counter-attacked on her own. I think she is probably old enough to do that.
Good point and I second that.
Having agreed here, I can't even begin to have that happen to my own children...no matter what the age, they're always your kid and I do think you instinctually want to "protect" them. So I can understand Hillary's response, but still Chelsea's old enough now to speak on this matter and should.
Posted by emal at February 9, 2008 06:27 PMOkay....
So, it's unfair when some MSNBC no-name makes an off handed comment about "pimping" (do we not "pimp" blog entries, but anyway) so Sen. Clinton goes off the bend?
Rush Limbaugh went after Chelsea repeatedly in the 90's (for those of you who weren't paying attention to politics prior to 2001). Guess he never hit so close to home by suggesting that one of the senior Clintons would ever be so cynical as to send their kid out to garner sympathy (she was a little too young for that, though).
And you think Rove and company are just going to "let Chelsea references slide?"
"Taken everything the Republicans have thrown at" her? Someone gets pissy about her use of her daughter and she plays the victim to shut him up. Here's a hint: That won't work in November. It will make her look weak ("What, she's going to file a sexual harassment suit against Hamas?").
Bill handled it better: He ignored it.
Oh, and by the way, it is personal with some of those MSNBC folks. The Clintons have pissed on a lot of people on their way to the top. Some of them work there now.
Nominate her and you'll get what you deserve: Another loss and another two term Republican president. Or will you try again and run Chelsea in 2016?
Signed, a moderate Republican (who is enjoying the self-immolation of Limbaugh and Coulter as McCain shoves them off the bus).
You have to place blame with the boss of Shuster, Matthews, etc. It's Tim Russert.
Posted by Sherry at February 9, 2008 08:49 PMThis is a copy of a letter I wrote to Keith Olbermann and MSNBC.
Dear Mr. Olbermann,
On your February 8, 2008 program you apologized to Senator Clinton and her family for remarks made by your fellow journalist David Schuster. I find your apology on behalf of your employer to be a double standard at best, and a question of your integrity as a journalist at worst.
During a Special Comment, titled appropriately enough, Your Hypocrisy is so Vast on your program on September 20, 2007, you stated; “And in **pimping** General David Petraeus, Sir, in violation of everything this country has been assiduously and vigilantly against for 220 years, you have tried to blur the gleaming **radioactive** demarcation between the military and the political, and to portray **your** party as the one associated with the military, and your opponents as the ones somehow antithetical to it.”
Mr. Olbermann, it is now your hypocrisy that is so vast.
Mr. Schuster’s comments, when placed in context, are no less insulting than yours. I supported you when you used such language. I understood that your comment was not an insult to General Petraeus, but a question of Mr. Bush’s motives to send him [General Petraeus] before Congress. When Mr. Schuster’s comments are placed in context they are not an insult to Chelsea Clinton, but a question to Senator Clinton’s motive as to why Chelsea was the person selected to make the calls in question.
If you truly feel that Mr. Schuster’s remarks deserved him a suspension, and the need for a public apology on behalf of your network, then you sir also deserve a suspension and a public apology to General Petraeus on behalf of your network. If you stand by your statement of General Petraeus; then Mr. Schuster deserves a public apology, from you, on behalf of your network.
I could have swallowed this apology from any other on air personality at your network, but I held you to a higher standard. You asked to be held to that higher standard. You spoke of integrity and equality when no other journalist would. Integrity and equality only work when they are applied universally and without prejudice to party or politician.
Where is that integrity and equality now when you, in your own language, used the same word, in the same context, on the same network? Please do not become a man who will sacrifice that integrity in exchange of your network to save face with Senator Clinton.
I still believe you to be man of integrity, and the voice of reason in unreasonable times. Please do not make me regret that belief. I hope you will do the right thing before it is to late and you tarnish your reputation.
Sincerely, Randall