<p><a href=“http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3592217964261572444&q=keith+olbermann[/url]”>http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3592217964261572444&q=keith+olbermann</a></p>
<p>I’m a big fan of Countdown, and watch it daily. Keith can get fairly obnoxious at times, especially when he has Michael Musto, the “entertainment” commentator on, but when he gets himself in a righteous fury, his commentaries can’t be beat. I love his “Look,the emperor isn’t wearing any clothes!” approach to the stupidities that the government foists on us and expects us to swallow. It will be interesting to see what kind of “October surprise” the Bush administration comes up with, and what Keith’s analysis of it is. LOL, something to look forward to.</p>
<p>Right on, Keith!
BTW, does anyone know if he is still “engaged” to Stephanie Miller of Air America?</p>
<p>Wow. Impressive</p>
<p>My goodness. I didn’t know anyone was allowed to say those things any more…</p>
<p>Ol’ Keith is WAY OUT THERE, boy; he’s heading out past Matthews. Clinton took “triumphant action for honesty”? Talk about a Clinton apologist.
Ummm…I don’t think ol’ Keith will ever quite become “engaged.” Such a catch, I mean, really, you’d think someone would’ve snatched him up by now…
Edit: add winky face. ;)</p>
<p>After listening to Keith, and to Jack McCafferty this week, all I can say is Bravo, and it’s about time.</p>
<p>I’d have Keith’s baby (well, my age rather precludes the idea, but I do love the guy).</p>
<p>I’m using Firefox with high filtering and no vids. He is that bad/good that I have to use IE?</p>
<p>They don’t call it “MessNBC” for nothing. AM, I think you are his baby.</p>
<p>I am a bit confused. Maybe I did not see the interview or read about it, but what did Chris Wallace do that was so wrong. Can someone send me a link to that “slime’s” “slander” and “sandbagging”. I did see some interview with Chris Wallace and Clinton and Wallace was very polite and respectful and asked appropriate and tough questions. In fact the same questions he asked of Rumsfeld…but i guess i saw the wrong video. O and I had no idea Bush ALSO controls Chris Wallace</p>
<p>That would be quite a trick, Driver, but it’s an entertaining, and rather delicious, idea.</p>
<p>Golani89, I realize that all the right wing blogs are saying that Wallace asked Rumsfeld “the same questions” he asked Clinton, but he didn’t. The actual thrust of the questions to the two were pretty different, in tone and content. But I think that Clinton was responding to the TV show sliming he got the week before more than Wallace specifically… I think what pi$$ed him off was that the interview was scheduled as a discussion of other matters. Clinton’s not in office anymore. He gets to pick and choose his interviews, and if someone gets him to agree to an interview on, say, global warming, and uses it instead to ask him about Monica Lewinsky or something, he has every right to get angry. So Wallace was wrong to go off on that tangent, and Clinton had a right to slam him for it - and also to use it as an opportunity to slam the media and the right wing propagandistas for distorting the facts about what his administration did about bin Laden (and obscuring what the current administration did and didn’t do.) Whether it was spontaneous or a calculated act by Clinton I don’t know.</p>
<p>Too late…</p>
<p>What Wallace asked Rumsfeld is not important either is clinton’s response. What i find interesting is that people criticize Wallace for the question he asked. It really was a fair question. How can you possibly say it wasnt. Wallace brought the issue up in a respectable manner and he allowed Clinton to explain himself. I dont see what is wrong in asking it. It is on the minds of millions of Americans. I think it was a good chance for clinton to clarify the issue. Also I dont really know if i believe that Wallace promised to talk about one thing and then quickly switched the topic to “broadside” clinton. If you could show me where u read that that would be great.</p>
<p>Allmusic, you and I are going to have to fight for “our man.” I’ve been sending my daughter links to KO’s comments for several weeks now; with the first one I sent, I wrote “I want to have Keith Olbermann’s love child” as the subject line. My daughter e-mailed me back, asking me to continue to send the links…but without the “disgusting” subject lines!</p>
<p>What Clinton did or not do only has marginal meaning today. The politics of the party in power used to have a platform of being the party of and for the future. I find it discouraging to find that the party that I am registered with tends to fall back to the past when they are caught in a cornor. </p>
<p>We really should eat more prunes. Bush should eat more prunes, he always has the grimmace look. As for WJC, who cares.</p>
<p>Your view is certainly understandable, but wharfrat2 thought that it was also appropriate to raise the subject of Mr. Olberman and his kneepads.</p>
<p>You’re right, WJC is old news. Unfortunately he can’t buy into the fact that he is. </p>
<p>Dems and lefties have a difficult time being challenged. They want every interview to be like an interview from KO or Timmy Russert. When someone asks a tough question, they act as if no one on the planet has ever been asked a question like the one just posed to them. I’ve said it before on another thread, but Dems and lefties have a very difficult time when dealing with challenging questions because no one ever asks them those questions.</p>
<p>Repubs and righties deal with it on a daily basis. It’s not a big deal to a Repub to be called a racist or a Nazi because it’s a daily occurrence. Someone asks Clinton whether or not he did enough to capture bin laden and all hell breaks loose. That’s why the Dems won’t win over the long run. They’re soft.</p>
<p>The above poster is absolutely correct. How can anyone contend with what he posted.</p>
<p>not even worth responding to…apples and oranges…</p>
<p>but lets talk about the channel in question shall we? its always 3-1 righties vs lefties cause righties can’t handle a leftie on their own…take 3 to take on 1 …talk about weak</p>