or his journalistic integrity at least, I used to love Countdown, I used to love watching Olbermann whack Bill O and call him out for things like Malmady, even feature Wes..

Now he is an Obama stooge, sowing hatred and playing to Obama's tune, he is now Obama's favorite little puppet, he has no journalistic integrity left... he sold his soul.

If Hillary is elected President, Obermann won't have Bush to kick around anymore, anyone want to bet who his new object of derision might be? I used to like him, and delight in his brave "comments". Now, they are just those of a "me too" cowardly echo.

is on my fav. blog list now. This is one powerful statement.

I fricken love her. Every post of hers is spot on.

Wes Clark Democrats...let the Clinton campaign know who sent you

KO does. You want to see virulent, go have a look over there.

And it's logical that responses to him would also change. No one is lockstep here.

guitrock- I know you didn't want any point by point discussions, but please indulge me - I had to respond. A certain General has implored me to continue to respond to these kinds of things. :)

1) Keith excoriated bush before Clinton, true. One subtle difference. Keith has been the lone voice on the right-owned corporate press for us Dems for a long time now.

Bush is a republican.

Clinton is a Dem.

It's an important difference. And in that respect, Keith has changed. (PS No fair citing LIEberman as an example- he's not a dem!)

2) "When she said that only she and McCain were qualified to be commander-in-chief"

No, she never said that. This is why reading original words and actual QUOTES are so important today. I know sixty brazillion bloggers have said she said that - and many more have said she "INFERRED" or "IMPLIED" that. I beg all of us to stop to recognize the differences between

SAID

and

IMPLIED

They are huge!

Implications, nuancing, inferences can all be inserted by the reader on their own while SAID or STATED can only be provided by the actual speaker. One happened. One didn't. Also, when writers - seeking a scoopy titillating story- characterize someone's comments but you only see one or two words in "quotations"... that means that the person only said those one or two words. Get yourself to an original transcript and you'll likely be surprised what was actually said.

Now back to Hillary. What she said was- that it was clear that McCain was going to run on NATIONAL SECURITY platform. (sorry for shouting but I am starting to feel nobody reads anything if you don't!)

Then she said that she and McCain would bring "a lifetime of experience" to that arena - singularly that one area of experience. It was specifically regarding national security experience comparisons. Not fitness to lead or to be president. That's only ONE aspect of the job - but one she thinks McCain will be running on. It has little or no bearing on one's economic plan, health care plan, energy policy, and a thousand other types of experience a president is responsible for and can be judged upon.

Here is the rest of that "lifetime of experience" quote that you don't often see printed for more clarification:

"--National security is a critical issue for Democrats as we go into the primary, because everyone knows that John McCain will make this election about national security. That is a given. And it will be imperative that we have a nominee who is able to stand on that stage with Senator McCain, and I believe I am the person best able to do that--"

McCain is perceptibly stronger in that one arena - and even if it's illusory - the electorate is already long-convinced of his Nat Sec creds. This would not come as breaking news to anyone, be it from the mouth of Obama or Clinton or the media in general, and surely wouldn't change
any voter's minds about his earlier service. Even if both Hillary and Obama refused to honor his experience or service... the concept of it was forged long ago. I mean
it's public record that he is a decorated veteran (Silver Star, Bronze Star, Legion of Merit, Purple Heart, Distinguished Flying Cross) with a 25 year record
in congress.

SO please make note of that significant difference next time you write about it and we will all be better served! :)

And please please please do not respond to this by saying "Well it was inferred-"....

Also- in terms of extolling McCain- here are a few quotes from Barack Obama recently of interest. I have no problem with them.

-----------

FEB 9 2008 Jefferson Jackson dinner in VA- Obama honors McCain

OBAMA: "This week, this week, we found out that the presumptive nominee of the Republican party will be Senator John McCain. Now, I believe John McCain is a good man and a genuine American hero. And we honor his half-century of service to this nation."

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2008/02/09/obamas-strategy-honor-mccains-half-century-service

------------

FEB 13 2008 - Obama honors McCain's experience

(from an article entitled "Obama links Clinton, McCain, Ecomony" in which he blames the recession on both Hillary and McCain! Talk about your fitness to be president during a recession...)

"...He said that he honors McCain's experience as a war hero".

http://www.wnbc.com/politics/15289963/detail.html

3) A mild correction: Clark is not the "ultimate loyalist to the party" but your second statement is true- that he won't badmouth fellow Dems. But as for being a party loyalist-- he will speak out on any issue he feels strongly about that does NOT correspond to an official party platform any day of the week. I'm sure you know that, but maybe just forgot. He's the original guy who stands up for what's right when no one else will. That's no loyalist.

4) The Machiavellian mindset is not emanating from Hillary Clinton- look around! Go visit Kos. See my post earlier with the latest diary titles today alone. Turn on Air America. Wake up and smell the hate. It is pouring out of Obama people. It gets remarked upon everywhere- we are not unique in noticing it. We each make a decision when we post or broadcast hate. You can't blame Barack or Hillary every time some blogger or shock jock spews nasty mean spirited trash - it pollutes the air. They are all responsible for themselves - those who propagate this angry and agressive New Kind of Politics. Wes is not party to any of that nor does he feel Hillary is

OK, sorry for the long post. :)

No problem with the long post at all. Mine are certainly not models of brevity. It makes a difference that you've been on General Clark's site a long time, just like me. I've seen you name many, many times.

I appreciate you taking the time to give a thorough response to what I said. Again, I am a Wes Clark supporter, not a Hillary Clinton supporter.

You write, "He's the original guy who stands up for what's right when no one else will. That's no loyalist." Well said! I agree with you 100% about General Clark independent streak. I am an independent, and that's one reason why General Clark had the appeal he did in 2004 for me. I always wanted a president who would put country before party and personal ambition. Clark fit that bill. He is not the ultimate loyalist in the sense of acribing to all parts of the platform, and I didn't mean that he was. He is a party loyalist in that he seeks the best for the party and works hard to get good people elected to office as Democrats.

I can't agree with you on Olbermann. He genuinely dislikes Bush and thinks he has been a terrible thing for America. I agree with that. General Clark said Bush is the worst president ever as well as in incompetent commander-in-chief. Right again. Olbermann has a certain mindset to him, and he genuinely has been disgusted with some of Hillary Clinton's campaign tactics. He says what he thinks. I don't think he has changed at all. Whether the object of his disdain is a Democrat or Republican is not the issue for him.

When I said that I was taken aback by Senator Clinton's embrace of John McCain and the "you'll have to ask Senator Obama about his national security experience," it was in reaction to hearing her in the press conference. She threw Obama under the bus and directly equated her national security experience with that of John McCain. You don't need to look for nuance when the statement is as straight as it was from her mouth. It was a blatant attempt to align her "experience" with that of McCain - "I'm as strong as he is." You are right about the perceived perceptions of McCain being strong on national security, but that's basically a spin-off from what General Clark said about the Democratic party - it was perceived to be weak on defense after Vietnam, and the party hasn't gotten over it. Even General Clark voted for Republicans during and after that war.

I don't buy the experience factor which Clinton believes she has by being first lady in Arkansas and the White House. Her experience is limited to knowing how politics works. If you really think about it, experience is in many ways a red herring in the national security context. If a president wants to know how to handle a crisis, he gets people like Wes Clark to advise him. None of these candidates have any experience with the problems and crises which could come upon the country. You need good advisers, an open mind, and sound judgment. The president's advisors always know more than he does about these types of things.

John McCain - what good did his experience do him? He voted for the Iraq resolution, he still thinks it was a good idea, and he supported the surge and now revels in it. I heard him on TV when the war started saying we would be greeted as liberators in Iraq. Meanwhile, General Clark - and Senator Obama - were saying that the invasion would be a strategic blunder, that the Muslim extremists would be energized, and that we would take our eye off the real threat in Afghanistan. The best line from General Clark that I remember is that Bush believes you can kill the ants by stomping on the anthill. Classic Clark!!

John McCain is not George Bush. He is willing to listen. But John McCain's so-called experience is meaningless when America got into a crisis. Had he been president, hopefully he would have had the wise counsel of military leaders to advise him. As a senator, he struck out big-time. So did Clinton. This blog recognized this for years, and it was skeptical when General Clark first endorsed her.

I also have no problem with Obama saying what he did about McCain. McCain has served the country honorably and with courage. So did many others. The fact remains that John McCain showed a serious lack of judgment on Iraq, and he still won't recognize it. As Pat Buchanan said about McCain's hawkishness: (1) he's just George Bush on steroids, and (2) he makes Bush look like Ghandi.

Has McCain's experience helped him? Do you want him to make the next war decision?

When I said that Senator Clinton has a Machiavelian attitude about winning, I was referring solely to her. Actually, such an attitude is nothing new in politics. I don't think I need to "wake up and smell the hate." I have tried to read some of the posts on Daily Kos and other blogs, but the ideological mentality and the mean-spirited, hateful comments turn me away. I am not saying this blog is nearly as hateful as Kos - it's nowhere near that point. I've just noticed a change in people's perceptions here. You're right that neither Clinton nor Obama can control the hatred emanating from their respective supporters, but that's not the issue to me. I've tried to stay informed throughout the primary season, even though my interest was diminished after General Clark said he wasn't going to run. I've been disappointed in Senator Clinton - that's been my reaction to her. Like I said before, General Clark supports her and I certainly respect his decision. If she wins the nomination, his endorsement will be the silver lining of the event.

Again, thanks for taking the time to give such a detailed response.

It is always refreshing to have a civil conversation instead of childish name calling. I can tell you don't frequent Kos by your reasoned and thoughtful argument and calm non accusatory manner in delivering it. So thanks for that. It means a lot to me. I value communications so highly (too highly) and that is what seems to have so severely eroded with this campaign. On all sides. I'd love to be able to restore what Wes so well taught us- how to debate and discuss without getting ugly or personal.

It's late here and I need to sleep off my persistent flu cough now so although we still don't agree on some of the issues, I am happy to be able to read your entire post without once having that horrible pained feeling arise that I so often get from Obama supporters. I am always pleased to find those exceptions to the rule and give them appreciation when I do. We take an awful lot of attacking us Hillary backers - and especially here on the home court.

Goodnight and thanks again!

that KO never pans the Obama campaign, although they are certainly guilty of many, many episodes of less than civil behavior? I would start out by questioning his designated goon, Jesse Jackson Jr. about his threatening tactics in "convincing" superdelegates to vote for O - and his statement that Hillary's "tears" were a concerted effort to win the sympathy vote. Then he could move on to the volatile Michelle Obama, who has certainly made comments that equal or better those of Geradine Ferraro. And then there's the Great One, himself, running away from the press after they've asked some embarassing questions. And on and on, including the heavy-handed method his campaign uses in insuring his wins at TX - and others- caucuses.

But, I guess it depends on whose ox is being gored.

Impeach the MSM! Then Cheney, then Chimpy

the memo is to hold back on everything on Obama and release it all at once in an onslaught once he- if he- gets the nomination. I have long said- if I have this bursting file on him, an ordinary curious blogger, the Rovebots surely have 10 tines the detail. There is no logical reason they would sit on that unless the plan was to keep it under lock and key and Shock and Awe everyone once the nom is granted.

I am not looking forward to the possibility of the opening of that box... :/

but I believe a lot of the vitriol comes from some guilt-driven desire to see a black elected President. People who think this way must harbor ugly racist feelings deep within themselves while outwardly appearing to be bigotry free. The nastiness of Jack Cafferty and Olbermann is truly astonishing. They treat Hillary as though she were some upstart usurper who barged into Obama's sweetness-and-light campaign and started slinging mud! They howl for her to get out of the way and let history be made--as though the first woman President isn't profoundly historical! (I didn't hear a single commentator remark on her winning a Presidential primary, though they crowed on and on about Obama's doing so, when Jesse did it first). (Hmmm...is this a racist remark?) Cafferty even said, right before the Ohio and Texas races, that she "can't get out of her own way"(!). I believe these Hillary-haters saw the writing on the wall and thus became desperate for her to drop out--before she won OH and TX. The drumbeat was deafening, wasn't it?

what I've been thinking -- only you said it better than I could have.