Keith Olberman's Tweets in response to Jon Stewart

[dennis4868]

It wasn't a big shark but Jon Stewart jumped one just now with the "everybody on Thr cable is the same" naiveté
less than a minute ago via Twittelator
Keith Olbermann
KeithOlbermann



The America before today's cable wasn't reasonable discussion.It was the 1-sided lockstep of Fox and people afraid of Fox.That got us Iraq.
less than a minute ago via Twittelator
Keith Olbermann
KeithOlbermann


I wish it were otherwise. But you can tone down all you want and the result will be: the Right will only get LOUDER. Sorry.
less than a minute ago via Twittelator
Keith Olbermann
KeithOlbermann

I AGREE WITH KO 100%. If the progressives were shouting before the Iraq war, perhaps over 4,000 americans and several thousands Iraqis would be alive today. Yelling for the truth is fine (KO), yelling for hate and lies is wrong (FOX News).

[otohara]

1. No Amount of Shouting

would have prevented Cheney/Bush/Rumsfeld from having their war.
It's was MSNBC who fired Phil Donahue.

[dennis4868]

2. how do you know?

If those in the media were shouting and asking the tough questons of Bush and his thugs, I think things would have been different....the media was not only silent during the run up to the war, they were PROMOTING IT!

[RaleighNCDUer]

9. And just how do you conlflate 'progressives' with 'media'?

The progressives were shouting - turning out in the streets by the MILLIONS against the war.

The media is owned by corporations who wanted war. THAT is why the boosterism, and the diminishment of the protests. And those in the media who DID ask tough questions wound up out of a job.

As said above, Bush/Cheney would have their war, regardless.

[dennis4868]

13. I agree with you 100%....

I don't think repub politicians give a damn what people in the streets are saying or shouting but if the fucking media as a whole were LOUD and asking tough questions and not simply supporting the war, the outcome would have been different.

[_ed_]

15. Exactly

Olbermann works for MSNBC who works for GE. Don't forget that. GE wouldn't allow a real progressive voice anywhere near their microphones.

[otohara]

38. There WAS No Progressive Media

the one liberal that was against the war completely, was fired by MSNBC, that is a fact

ABC fired Bill Maher, CBS fired Dan Rather.

Air America didn't exist, and NPR doesn't have much pull in Washington.

There was no progressive media!

Except for Democracy Now!

You did see all those protests around the world right? The citizens of the world couldn't stop them, Phil Donahue got fired while trying!

[CommonSensePLZ]

39. This was at the same time Fox was convincing people of "liberal media bias" nt

[walldude]

58. Are you serious? 3 days before the war Saddam

offered to surrender and go into exile. Why do you think we didn't take him up on it? Because they hate us for our freedoms? Because if Saddam was still alive he could plot an attack against us? Because he had WMD's? Gimme a fucking break. Once 9/11 happened nothing was going to stop the attack on Iraq. Nothing. Try reading some of the documents released by PNAC. THey spell out how they wanted to get into Iraq but they needed a "Pearl Harbor" type of event. Enter 9/11 and all their dreams came true. And all of our nightmares.

[Voice for Peace]

3. I really wonder if KO is playing along w/Jon Stewart.

The so-called fearmongering clips from the "liberals" & "progressives" were so tame compared to the other stuff.

[Larkspur]

7. I notice when Stewart tries to mock Maddow or Olbermann he doesn't get

much reaction from his audience; whereas, when he slams Fox, who makes the most outlandish claims on an everyday basis, he scores bit laughs from his audience. Both Maddow and Olbermann care about the truth, so their passion is reined in by their love for the Truth; whereas Fox is a pure propaganda arm of the Repuke Party.

[seabeyond]

10. i know when he has gone after maddow, she addresses respectfully and he apologizes. hence

leaving her out of the mix.

the few times he has gone after olberman, once olberman to the criticism and said he would mellow

[Solly Mack]

4. Progressives were shouting before the Iraq invasion.

Some folks just opted to not listen.

[chillspike]

5. Keith has been unfairly demonized

The partisan talk on MSNBC didn't exist until Fox News and conservatives like Bob Grant, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity started demonizing all other news sources as "Leftist", including MSNBC. Keith Olberman only changed his focus from purely reporting to commentary when conservatives and Fox started to make their ridiculous "leftist" accusations to the public. I remember because I've watched Keith a long time and saw the transition.

Keith switched to commentary as defense, not to peddle hate or demonize others.

[flamingdem]

6. +1 for historical details nt

[glen123098]

8. I can't stand Keith Olbermann.

He seems so full of himself and always seems to think he is right and no one else is. I liked him better 5 years ago before he started to become like this. He has made a career out of insulting Bill O'reilly, but more and more, he is turning into a liberal version of him. I don't think Olbermann really does much to help our cause, and I think Ben Affleck's parody of him was dead on. My house hold has 3 liberals in it and we all can't stand him. But we all love Rachel Maddow. Rachel Maddow has a much better tone to her, and she never seems full of herself. I understand why Stewart doesn't like Olbermann. Stewart and Maddow are both people who try to reach out, unlike Olbermann.

[_ed_]

12. Same here

He never has a guest on who challenges his point of view or even disagrees with his premises. It's the ultimate echo chamber. At least O'Reilly has the balls to have guests on who disagree with him. Keith Olbermann is somehow capable of usually coming to the correct conclusion, but for all the wrong reasons.

And let's not forget that Olbermann spent the 1990s reporting daily on Bill Clinton's penis and all the horror it wrought on the country.

[dennis4868]

why would KO....

have on any repub to offer a different viewpoint. It's a total waste of time because all they do is lie....

[dennis4868]

17. why would KO....

have on any repub to offer a different viewpoint. It's a total waste of time because all they do is lie....

[immoderate]

19. Which of his points of view would you challenge?

He did spend much of the 90s pointing to the Republican idiocracy. (Ironically, so did Geraldo Rivera.)

--imm

[laughingliberal]

26. Right! O'Reilly is fair and balanced

:rofl:

Yes, he has the balls to have guests who disagree with him so he can yell, "Shut up," and cut their mic if they don't.

[CommonSensePLZ]

43. +10000

[RaleighNCDUer]

14. Who cares if he's full of himself, so long as he's telling the truth?

You prefer a humble liar? It is not a matter of 'right' and 'wrong' - which is always subjective - but of 'truth' and 'lies'. There is nothing subjective about truth - what is, is. And that's the way he tells it.

[glen123098]

21. Well there are other people who tell the truth who don't have to act like a total dick about it.

O'reilly is a total dick who lies. Olbermann is a total dick who I generally agree with on the issues who doesn't lie, at least not that I know of. Rachel Maddow is neither a total dick nor lies. I don't have to choose between humility and honesty. You can get both.


We can agree that O'reilly absolutely sucks. He yells he screams he called anti war protestors "unamerican." Well that is how conservatives see Olbermann. Olbermann does not attempt to find common ground with anyone and instead decides to insult everyone he doesn't like. That doesn't win over any hearts. Rachel Maddow on the other hand goes out of her way to always seem respectful and as a result, she is miles ahead of Olbermann in my opinion.

[RaleighNCDUer]

30. You do understand that he's not there to win their hearts - his job is

exposing their lies and hypocrisy.

Maybe it's a character flaw in me, but when somebody pushes me I push back. If somebody punches me, I don't seek common ground with them, I try to put them on the ground. If someone calls me elitist for not believing the world is 6000 years old and Fred Flintstone dino-commuted with Jesus, I say "Fuck yeah, I AM smarter and I AM better educated than you and the only way to redress that imbalance if for YOU to fucking educate yourself."

There is no reason to play nice with people who themselves refuse to play nice.

[gkhouston]

44. Make that yelling the truth. I changed channels after a minute or two of his

"these are what the Tea Party candidates are like" segment last night because he was on the verge of shouting the information. First, I turned the volume down a couple of notches, thinking he'd ease up, but when he kept going on like he was having a Howard Beale moment, I changed the channel. He sounds like a kook at a Metro station when he goes on and on like that, as if what he says won't capture your attention unless he yells it. And he needs to dial back on "Fox News personality said this or that". I don't give a shit about Fox News; I'd like to spend some time digging into real news, instead of watching someone bash another cable channel every night.

[immoderate]

16. Thinks people who agree with him are wrong?

Eye of the beholder. Keith has not changed much from "The Big Show" before he went to FOX sports.

--imm

[immoderate]

18. Thinks people who agree with him are wrong?

Eye of the beholder. Keith has not changed much from "The Big Show" before he went to FOX sports.

--imm

[Le Taz Hot]

25. I agree.

It's basically a one-sided, self-affirming ego trip for him now. I don't know about anybody else but if I'm going to tune in to a current events program, it would be nice to learn something. Jon Stewart gets it. Olbermann is in it for the money and notoriety.

[dennis4868]

36. You think Jon Stewart...

does his Daily Show out of the kindness of his heart and not for the money....HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!:rofl:

[CommonSensePLZ]

42. If I could make fun of politics and get millions of $ for it I'd consider it

Maybe =)

[CommonSensePLZ]

46. You get more news with Keith though

Jon you get a couple of stories, some jokes and a guest, a good un-stressful and un-scary approach to the news found primarily on Comedy Central and a few other places. With Keith you get 5 topics, sometimes more than one story under it, daily events, guests, details and opinions.

Jon's not perfect either and you get opinions with him too, like that CNN is supposedly neutral and that Keith Olbermann is bad because he gets angry and that this supposedly throws all the details he points out about the things that angered him out the window.

[CommonSensePLZ]

40. "Liberal version of O'Reilly" - That's below the belt

I think the world honestly needs someone to take O'Reilly down a peg, it used to be people would get too scared he might yell at them, cut their mic, or attack them endlessly like he just did to NPR. At least Keith can now and then apologize, at least Keith doesn't use bigotry as a legitimate debate point. Bill O'Reilly is like a real-life version of Archie Bunker.

BTW both Keith and Rachel don't see a point in the democrats trying as hard as they've done to work with the republicans since the republicans haven't tried to work with the dems. I think Keith takes politics too seriously sometimes, but he's a guy that reads about the Chinese giving millions to the republicans and hates it with a passion where most of us might not care, he can snap us out of it.

Angry? Yeah, I agree, but I like to think that he wouldn't be so harsh against the conservatives if they weren't so awful.

[glen123098]

56. You're right I was probably a little too harsh.

O'reilly has done some terrible things such as sexual harrassment lawsuit, and once he even blamed a woman for getting raped and murdered. Olbermann is not nearly that bad, so maybe I should have said he is the Liberal version of Hannity.

[CommonSensePLZ]

57. Not better...

Keith has caught Hannity showing clips taken out of context. To me he's just one of MSNBC's main, occasionally angry, pundits. ;-)

[chillspike]

52. Even though I still like Keith, as well as Ed Shultz

I see your point and it is a good one. Rachel can make a strong argument without being a disagreeable person or hurling insults.

[no limit]

60. I hate to say this but I agree.

[xchrom]

11. recommend

[stray cat]

20. How many people change their mind by people screaming and yelling

Opposition doesn't require the appearance of insanity

[Doctor_J]

24. Lots, given how much the fascists have gained since Hate Radio took hold

You can utter all of the platitudes you want, but the screaming, fear-mongering, lying, and threatening are working.

Wake the hell up!!

[Doctor_J]

22. He nailed that one

I wish it were otherwise. But you can tone down all you want and the result will be: the Right will only get LOUDER. Sorry.

Does anyone here think this isn't true? If so, what hartmann netherworld do you inhabit? we've gotten to this desperate state by appeasement. Time to stop

[Poboy]

35. Yes sir. -nt

[Poboy]

23. Ratings/appearance of 'objectivity'. Thats all its about.

Stewart does a lot to be thankful for, but he absolutely does the very thing he accuses others of.
He always has that convienient 'out', too. He's a 'comedian'. Yes he is, but whenever the critical eye gazes on him, he uses that as an easy excuse to not hold him accountable.

But LYING about Kieth Olberman is disgraceful.

I'd said this in an earlier thread, but who else but KIETH OLBERMANN brought us real news in those darkest days?
Who brought Rachel to MSNBC?

Without people like KO, Ed (Union fighter), etc., what have we got?

NOFUCKINGBODY!

WHO ELSE is going to tell it like it is and call the wing nuts out?

[dennis4868]

29. Could not have said it better myself....

Can you imagive being lumped in with Beck and other hateful people on a jumbo wide screen in front of 250,000 people... I WOULD BE PISSED OFF BIG TIME. Stewart was an A-Hole for doing that. When Bush was pResident all we had on the cables was KO....

[AndrewP]

33. Well said n/t

[laughingliberal]

27. K & R for KO. nm

[DefenseLawyer]

28. That is my only beef with Stewart's position.

The whole "they are all the same" and "it's just as bad on both sides" take is just simplistic and lazy. If one person yells "the President is from Kenya" and another person yells in response "You are a fool and a liar", those are not examples of "both sides" being out of control. One is right and one is wrong. The response to a lie ought to be loud and disdainful.

[uponit7771]

31. Yeap, Stewart can't name a handfull of the left who do what the right do frequently

[DirkGently]

34. Agreed. "Sanity" was a nice theme, but the equivalency he keeps trying is false.

We don't have liberals and progressives strapping on guns, burning members of Congress in effigy, and making up insane mythology about conservative leaders being The Anti-Christ from Kenya. We don't have liberal groups curb-stomping young conservative women for carrying a FUCKING SIGN. We don't have liberal "pundits" hosting hour-long television specials on how likely it is that people are going to start shooting cops because income tax is so "unconstitutional."

There are liberals and progressives who are wrong. Or corrupt. Or inept. Or speak intemperately. But we do not have militia groups "practicing" fighting the U.S. Military. We do not have candidates for national office proposing to dismantle the EPA, he FDA, and the Department of Education and who have posited that flouride is a government mind-control conspiracy, or we need to make America a medieval theocracy.

Our "extremists" propose national healthcare. Ending fruitless, ill-considered wars. Returning to progressive taxation that demonstrably WORKED for decades. Our "crazy" does not resemble their CRAZY, at all.






editted for speling.

[Cosmocat]

37. in 2006, did Howard Dean drive across the country ...

in a bus pained "fire Denny Hastert"?

No, it is not NEAR the same, not even close ...

I love Stewart and Olbermann, and this in the weeds stuff - both are MASSIVE truth tellers and important voices that manage to creep through the GOP/MSM crape on occassion ...

[MaeScott]

32. There has to be a voice for the left shouting...

Or all you will hear are the lies from the right.

Both guys have their place and purpose. I like both Keith and Stewart....but someone has to point out fox tea bagging lies loudly.

[RaleighNCDUer]

54. Exactly. Without the truth-telling progressives shouting, the ONLY

voice would be Stewart's, and he would be, very literally, nothing more than a comic. He would be as much a political force as SNL - i.e., nothing at all. It is the truth coming from Olberman, Maddow, Big Ed, O'Donnel (No Relation) that makes Stewart's voice resonate. If they didn't exist, HE would be the target of O'Reily, Beck, Hannity, et al, and he would be far less effective. He'd be smothered by RW invective despite his being clearly more moderate than our 'professional left'.

The simple fact is, this WAS an anti-teaparty rally, simply in that there was NOTHING about it that would draw ANY teapartiers. It was a plea for moderation, and the tea party is not, and has not been since its inception, moderate. At the same time it did not exclude the left because the left is devoted to facts and reason, just as the rally was.

[Renew Deal]

41. Olberman is jealous

[Poboy]

45. Stewart equates Olbermann to Beck. Olberman takes objection, and it shows he's 'jealous'?

Yeah, I'm sure thats it. What a childish post.
Stewart Fanboys are lightweights.

[Renew Deal]

50. Olbermann is jealous

He's jealous that Stewart is getting more attention than him. Olbermann is a blowhard. Beck is a delusional blowhard. Although entertaining, Olberman is still a blowhard. And lets not get into Olberman's "history."

[CommonSensePLZ]

48. His is apparently the most viewed news show that's not on Fox

Jealous of what?

[Renew Deal]

51. Attention

Stewart is getting tons of it.

[CommonSensePLZ]

53. Clearly you didn't see the rally

Keith made these statements in protest to Jon portraying him as one of the people as crazy as the teabaggers.

[rucky]

47. Olbermann is a response to the one-sidedness of Hannity & co.

It has given our side a much-needed voice, and paved the way for others - but Stewart wants to move beyond the need to balance out the media with one-sided shows from both sides.

Olbermann shouldn't be lumped in with Beck, that's for sure. But if Stewart is asking for an environment where opinion is based on facts, and ideas stand on their merits, then Olbermann has no reason to sweat it.

[FirstTimeVoterAt37]

49. Three or four cable shows from a progressive perspective...

That a lot of people (like me) can't even get on their televisions is not an effing propaganda network.

Grr.

[felix_numinous]

55. Keith Olbermann's outrage is in response to propaganda

and the idiocy created by this propaganda. He filled a vacuum all by himself for a long time and has done progressive a great service over the years.

I think KO may be referring to a lack of progressives yelling on the air before the Iraq invasion, because there certainly were millions of people yelling in the streets in March of '03, dismissed as a focus group. I agree with him if there were more progressives allowed voice on MSM before the war, and if these gigantic demonstrations were actually covered on television, who knows what may have happened.

[JuniperLea]

59. bull fucking shit

We were all screaming before the fucking war. Wake the fuck up.







Millions marched, millions screamed.

There has to be someone actually listening for any of that to matter.