i love olberman but this is waaayyyy too much and totally uncalled for. the true intention of clintons' remarks is obvious and harmless, and though i am a staunch obama supporter, i have to say that this issue needs to be forgotten asap... it's the kind of trifle that gives american politics a bad name.
You're both in denial to a degree I find troubling. Mutinyco, especially -- a bright and gifted filmmaker with a weirdly unshakable Hillary allegiance, no matter what shit she pulls. Guys who lay it on the line, clear and moral and no waffling around, always get "asshole" thrown at them. Every damn time. "Totally uncalled for," Erlich? Try "about fucking time!"
eh, olberman usually employees his righteous indignation schtick when a worthy cause presents itself... hillary is deader than dead and for a number of good reasons - this isn't one of them. she was merely attempting to point out that some very significant turning in electoral history have transpired later at a stage of an election year that we've yet to arrive at in 2008. were her words the unnecessary and vaguely inappropriate last gasps of a desperate politician? absolutely. do they deserve the vitriol that olberman usually reserves for bush and his cronies... no.
David, if Senator Kennedy hadn't been diagnosed with cancer earlier this week, I'm sure this would have warranted a Worst Person in the World (or whatever it is) mention instead of a special comment.
It was poor wording and timing on Hillary's part, but then again, she shouldn't be throwing terms like assassination out there. Anybody who's been around knows what happened in 1968 - she could have said something about tragedy or whatevs. She's just stirring the pot, trying to stay relevant. It really isn't working.
For the record, Bill O'Reilly IS a blowhard...and enormous blowhard. But how is Olbermann any worse? Oh, that's right...he's on YOUR side. He's only a blowhard if he speaks for the other side.
Honestly, Jeffrey... if Keith "I'll Win a Pulitzer For This One!" Olbermann were venting off like the raving gasbag that he is for Hillary or (God forbid!) McCain you'd be calling him out for being the self-important prick that he is.
Right now I'm just interested in who will reach their total, career-ending, on-camera meltdown first...Keith or Bill.
On a somewhat unrelated note: what was up with that noise at the 1:38 mark? It sounded like a lightbulb going off, and It was pretty funny the way Keith flinched in the middle of his diatribe.
Walter: "But how is Olbermann any worse? Oh, that's right...he's on YOUR side."
It has nothing to do with his ideology as much as his demand for some basic tact and decency in politics. O'Reilly doesn't care if he comes off disrespectful. That's the difference.
I'd be willing to give Clinton the benefit of the doubt on this one if her apology hadn't been so disingenuous (i.e., lying). But coming after a week of reports suggesting that she's angling for the VP spot, it seems downright ghoulish.
Jeff, I have thought that you were too tough on Hillary, but now I know she has to go. She cannot go on. She has to step aside and have Obama be declared the candidate. It will help the Democratic party in the upcoming campaign. Olberman was pissed off, and he showed it. I would say it was jsutified. I still find it hard to believe she said what she said.
He's an asshole because he prefers morality over reality. All politicians think like that. They're supposed to. Business leaders too. That's their job: to think out and strategize all scenarios, so that they can be prepared to take advantage of them in such a situation. The only thing Hillary did that was stupid was to admit the truth.
The fact of the matter is that Hillary specifically uttered "assassination." She did not say "the election year of '68" or something regarding the contest. So whatever her intention, the statement is entirely uncalled for and unnecessary. And, anyone who has any political sensibility knows that besides this kind of absurd desperation, Hillary, flat-out, needs to walk away... NOW. Even if she made wonderful, elegant points of how Rudolph was counted out, but then, he led the reindeer-- don't give up on the unlikely... it's irrelevant, annoying and untimely and she's making a fool of herself and her career... if not the entire American political landscape.
It's obvious that Hillary pandered to the lowest common denominator with her comments. It's an unspoken fear that if a black man is elected president, some racist nut will heed the call of God and refresh the tree of liberty with the blood of patriots or some other retarded shit he heard at a Klan meeting.
Her statements were deliberate and she knew what she was saying. This was a last ditch effort: "Don't even bother making him the candidate. They'll just shoot him."
Hats off to Keith Olbermann. Now somebody please start giving John McCain the Jeremiah Wright treatment for his ties to John Hagee. Nothing like a preacher that says Hitler was doing God's work killing the Jews. That's nice.
The problem is, Olberman ISN'T VERY GOOD AT THIS STUFF. He's a great anchor, hosts a good show, keeps it fast and loose, one of the closer genuine equivalents to a radio host in ability and style on any of the Cables. But the "Special Comment" things SUCK.
It takes an insanely gifted and genuine performer to manage the switch between the shootin-the-shit "man, isn't life nuts today?" tone of the rest of the show and this kind of profound moral outrage... and Olberman doesn't have it. It comes off like he's FORCING himself to be angry - which is exactly what it is. He WANTS so badly to be Bill O'Reilly for liberals that he pulls this schtick, and it doesn't suit him.
Nobody who follows politics seriously long-term thinks this is anything more than a MASSIVELY idiotic gaffe, no more meaningful or darkly-intended than John Kerry's similarly-overblown "you get stuck in Iraq" blunder, remember that? Olberman is smart enough to know that, and it's painfully clear he's only talking it up because he thinks it'll help "his guy" Barack.
THIS is how liberals will LOSE this time around: They're more concerned with seeing Obama run than they are with seeing the Republicans lose. Points for idealism, children, at least - hope you enjoy four years stewing under McCain and then voting for an uncontested Hillary in 2012.
Right now I'm just interested in who will reach their total, career-ending, on-camera meltdown first...Keith or Bill.
Walter, right wing pundits don't have career ending meltdowns. Rush Limbaugh can make fun of a guy with Parkinson's, Ann Coulter can imply that the 9/11 widows take pleasure in their husbands' deaths, Bill Kristol can be wrong about ABSOLUTELY EVERY SINGLE THING, and there's no consequences.
On the other hand, if Olberman called for the deaths of Supreme Court justices Scalia and Alito, how long do you think it'd be before he was fired?
Oh, but I forgot. The media is lib'rul. Because, um, conservatives say it is.
If Olbie ever called for the deaths of scotus justices Scalia and Alito he SHOULD be fired. Are you kidding me?
You don't think that's a tad worse than what you accuse Limbaugh, Coulter and Kristol of doing?
(sigh....) And despite what you read on Kos, Limbaugh did not make fun of someone with Parkinsons and Coulter did not imply what you say she implied. And Kristol has been absolutely wrong about EVERYTHING? And that's as bad as calling for the death of somebody.
I look forward to the wickedly witty wags who'll now accuse me of having shrines to Rush, Ann and Bill at my home. Yes, it's true, I do love them SO much.
And no, the mainstream media is NOT liberal. I'm not one of those paranoids.
I feel certain that Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, Dan Abrams, Katie Couric, Bob Schieffer, Anderson Cooper, George Stephanapolous, Mike Wallace, Andy Rooney, Leslie Stahl, Tim Russert, Brian Williams, most of the staff of the New York Times and Washington Post often vote Republican.
Using the word assassination this week, of all weeks, was asinine. What pisses me off about the whole thing is that Hillary is, at bast, a fucking imbecile when it comes to referencing history. Robert Kennedy didn't even get INTO the race until March. The primaries started months later, so of course they went into June. June for those primaries was the equivalent of March this year. But why let facts muddy the water?
As for her husband not clinching into June...another fucking piece of absolute bullshit. Yeah, he didn't mathematically clinch until June, but he had sewn up the nomination far earlier. No one was arrogant and imbecilic enough to put the party at risk for their own personal ego-stroke-off.
Did any of you get a chance to hang in the Ambassador before it got razed? It basically spent its last few years as a location-for-hire.
We shot an NBC motw a few years ago and some old guy gave a couple of us a tour. We saw the kitchen where RFK was shot. Really eerie.
A shame they had to knock that place down, though. Remember a few years back when Trump was talking about building the world's tallest building on the site?
mutiny: " All politicians think like that. They're supposed to. Business leaders too. That's their job: to think out and strategize all scenarios, so that they can be prepared to take advantage of them in such a situation."
I'm not sure how hoping Obama gets shot is a good business strategy.
Bob: "Nobody who follows politics seriously long-term thinks this is anything more than a MASSIVELY idiotic gaffe, no more meaningful or darkly-intended than John Kerry's similarly-overblown "you get stuck in Iraq" blunder, remember that?"
Kerry didn't want the troops to be killed, though.
"THIS is how liberals will LOSE this time around: They're more concerned with seeing Obama run than they are with seeing the Republicans lose."
The Republicans already lost four years ago, when they had to pander to the lowest common denominator to expand their seats. Whether or not I liked Newt, this "we hate gays" approach was comparatively more divisive from the Contract with America.
Walt: "Limbaugh did not make fun of someone with Parkinsons"
He just denied Fox had it.
"and Coulter did not imply what you say she implied."
She just said blowing up and poisoning people with different ideologies than her own is fine and dandy.
walter -- as a kid, i spent a lot of time at the ambassador with my family...but sometime in the seventies i attended an aba convention there that included a panel discussion/q&a with mya angelou and groucho marx....it remains my fondest ambassador memory.......
a few years ago (when the building was razed) an on-line auction was held for furniture and appointments....i tried to bid on a few things but almost everything was snapped up by emilio estevez (i'd still kill for that lobby mailbox)........
thanks for jogging the memory....
Just to clarify the Limbaugh/Fox thing: Fox appeared in some political ads endorsing a candidate who supported stem cell research in my home state (Claire MacKaskill, in Missouri). (The opposition had ads featuring Jim what's-his-name from "Passion of the Christ".) You could see signs of his illness in the ad, and Limbaugh accused him of "acting" to make his symptoms look more advanced than they were.
I'm confused. Olbermann has vilified Clinton on numerous occasions and now he says repeatedly that "we have forgiven you..." for all the various things he's condemned her for. I didn't see any of those commentaries that addressed all the forgiveness he's ladling out now.
There is only one person idiotic enough to cause somebody to defend Clinton's simply dumb remark and that is keith Olbermann.
indiana jones and the search for the lost super-delegates
Jones travels from the forbidden swamplands of the florida everglades to deep under the placid waters of lake michigan to find the elusive undecided delegates.
Jones finds the delegates, but all is not well...
Hot on Jones tail is the are the nazi's, the communists, and worst of all, the Clinton's, who hopes to seize the delegates and dip them in the ponce de Leon's mythical fountain of youth.
If the delegates touch the water, they are renewed, and it all begins again.
Will Jones stop the clinton's and the rest of the "un dead" from stealing the delagates and taking over the nominatio...er...world.
"You're right, Walter. Coulter did not imply that they enjoyed their husbands' deaths. She said it outright, in her book:
“I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much.â€
That's not an implication. You're definitely right about that."
Walter? How you gonna BS your way out of this one? AndLimbaugh's treatment of Fox was one of the more disgusting things I've ever seen from a so called respected pundit. He should've been fired for it.
If that is, in fact, an actual quote from the book than you are right. It was a pretty crass thing to say and I won't defend it. I haven't read the book, being as I am not a liberal. (seriously, everyone I've known that has read an Ann Coulter book is a serious lefty...you guys love torturing yourselves)
I do, however, agree with the spirit of what Coulter and often Limbaugh say in regards to what she calls "emotional human shields".
It's a very low-class method often employed by liberals to make their arguments. Throw a highly sympathetic figure into the political arena and let them toss vitriol around and then excoriate anyone who addresses them.
The so-called "Jersey Girls" are a perfect example. These women, led by Kristen Breitweiser, were highly politicized pundits who, leading up to the '04 and '06 elections appeared almost daily on NBC savaging the Bush administration and imploring people to vote Democratic. Since they lost their husbands on 9/11 they were deemed "untouchable". Therefore, if you so much as asked any of them a challenging question, you were lambasted in the press for being heartless and cruel. ("How DARE you disagree with her? She's a 9/11 widow!")
Same goes for M.J. Fox. He entered the political arena by openly campaigning for various candidates, most notably Missouri's McCaskill. Limbaugh was not mocking Fox, but pointing out how, by not taking his meds, the severity of his appearance was used rather cynically to invoke empathy for his candidate. In other words, "A vote for Senator Talent is a vote to KILL lovable Michael J. Fox!"
As is often the case, both Limbaugh and Coulter, (being attention-seeking public celebrities), were over the top in making their points, but that's their thing. It's just a little more complicated than how it was described by some of you people.
"I haven't read the book, being as I am not a liberal. (seriously, everyone I've known that has read an Ann Coulter book is a serious lefty...you guys love torturing yourselves)"
So, basically, liberals are idiots for examining differing viewpoints before making a remark whereas conservatives know everything and therefore don't believe in reading. Okay, got it.
Just wanted to make sure we're clear on that. I always suspected as much but now I know for certain. Walter, I am in your debt.
"You're such a moron, and an apologist, and a bullshitter. Only a true moron could believe the crap you write."
Mjs - as always, erudite, cerebral...yet slyly droll and cleverly Wildeian in your reposte. Stay classy!
"So, basically, liberals are idiots for examining differing viewpoints before making a remark whereas conservatives know everything and therefore don't believe in reading."
Eeeeeasy there, redmond.... that ain't what I said. And by the way, if you think reading Ann Coulter books or checking up on out-of-context Rush quotes on MediaMatters is a way of "examining differing viewpoints" then no wonder you think conservatives are drooling monsters.
And D.Z. ......... just keep being D.Z. .... it's why we love ya.
Walter: "if you think reading Ann Coulter books or checking up on out-of-context Rush quotes on MediaMatters is a way of "examining differing viewpoints" then no wonder you think conservatives are drooling monsters."
No, I feel making a joke about missing WMDs and then giving up golf to show you're in solidarity with the troops is why conservatives are monsters.
To paraphrase an old Bobcat Goldthwaite joke, taking a Anne Coulter or Rush Limbaugh quote and using it to base an opinion of actual Republican leadership, is like blaming Ronald McDonald when you get a bad cheeseburger.
Walter really presented a well thought perspective on Rush and Coulter. It's satire, it's really no different than what Bill Maher does. Coulter is a caricature, nobody takes her seriously.
MJ, to read Walter's perspective and then respond by calling him an moron doesn't communicate the ability to discuss a subject rationally.
comment #1
mutinyco
says ...
What an asshole...
Posted by mutinyco
at May 24, 2008 10:29 AM
comment #2
David Ehrlich
says ...
i love olberman but this is waaayyyy too much and totally uncalled for. the true intention of clintons' remarks is obvious and harmless, and though i am a staunch obama supporter, i have to say that this issue needs to be forgotten asap... it's the kind of trifle that gives american politics a bad name.
Posted by David Ehrlich
at May 24, 2008 10:37 AM
comment #3
gruver1
says ...
You're both in denial to a degree I find troubling. Mutinyco, especially -- a bright and gifted filmmaker with a weirdly unshakable Hillary allegiance, no matter what shit she pulls. Guys who lay it on the line, clear and moral and no waffling around, always get "asshole" thrown at them. Every damn time. "Totally uncalled for," Erlich? Try "about fucking time!"
Posted by gruver1
at May 24, 2008 10:54 AM
comment #4
David Ehrlich
says ...
eh, olberman usually employees his righteous indignation schtick when a worthy cause presents itself... hillary is deader than dead and for a number of good reasons - this isn't one of them. she was merely attempting to point out that some very significant turning in electoral history have transpired later at a stage of an election year that we've yet to arrive at in 2008. were her words the unnecessary and vaguely inappropriate last gasps of a desperate politician? absolutely. do they deserve the vitriol that olberman usually reserves for bush and his cronies... no.
Posted by David Ehrlich
at May 24, 2008 11:08 AM
comment #5
David Ehrlich
says ...
ps - who is mutinyco?
Posted by David Ehrlich
at May 24, 2008 11:09 AM
comment #6
Dan Revill
says ...
David, if Senator Kennedy hadn't been diagnosed with cancer earlier this week, I'm sure this would have warranted a Worst Person in the World (or whatever it is) mention instead of a special comment.
It was poor wording and timing on Hillary's part, but then again, she shouldn't be throwing terms like assassination out there. Anybody who's been around knows what happened in 1968 - she could have said something about tragedy or whatevs. She's just stirring the pot, trying to stay relevant. It really isn't working.
Posted by Dan Revill
at May 24, 2008 11:25 AM
comment #7
Walter Sobchak
says ...
And people say Bill O'Reilly is a blowhard?
For the record, Bill O'Reilly IS a blowhard...and enormous blowhard. But how is Olbermann any worse? Oh, that's right...he's on YOUR side. He's only a blowhard if he speaks for the other side.
Honestly, Jeffrey... if Keith "I'll Win a Pulitzer For This One!" Olbermann were venting off like the raving gasbag that he is for Hillary or (God forbid!) McCain you'd be calling him out for being the self-important prick that he is.
Right now I'm just interested in who will reach their total, career-ending, on-camera meltdown first...Keith or Bill.
Posted by Walter Sobchak
at May 24, 2008 11:39 AM
comment #8
Ortega
says ...
On a somewhat unrelated note: what was up with that noise at the 1:38 mark? It sounded like a lightbulb going off, and It was pretty funny the way Keith flinched in the middle of his diatribe.
Posted by Ortega
at May 24, 2008 11:43 AM
comment #9
Roman
says ...
Give me a break. When you get a great candidate like Hillary every comparison she makes is TRUE.
Posted by Roman
at May 24, 2008 11:45 AM
comment #10
D.Z.
says ...
Walter: "But how is Olbermann any worse? Oh, that's right...he's on YOUR side."
It has nothing to do with his ideology as much as his demand for some basic tact and decency in politics. O'Reilly doesn't care if he comes off disrespectful. That's the difference.
Roman: What's so great about her?
Posted by D.Z.
at May 24, 2008 11:59 AM
comment #11
R. Hunt
says ...
I'd be willing to give Clinton the benefit of the doubt on this one if her apology hadn't been so disingenuous (i.e., lying). But coming after a week of reports suggesting that she's angling for the VP spot, it seems downright ghoulish.
Posted by R. Hunt
at May 24, 2008 12:03 PM
comment #12
Movie Watcher
says ...
Jeff, I have thought that you were too tough on Hillary, but now I know she has to go. She cannot go on. She has to step aside and have Obama be declared the candidate. It will help the Democratic party in the upcoming campaign. Olberman was pissed off, and he showed it. I would say it was jsutified. I still find it hard to believe she said what she said.
Posted by Movie Watcher
at May 24, 2008 12:15 PM
comment #13
mutinyco
says ...
He's an asshole because he prefers morality over reality. All politicians think like that. They're supposed to. Business leaders too. That's their job: to think out and strategize all scenarios, so that they can be prepared to take advantage of them in such a situation. The only thing Hillary did that was stupid was to admit the truth.
Posted by mutinyco
at May 24, 2008 12:22 PM
comment #14
Josh Massey
says ...
"It will help the Democratic party in the upcoming campaign."
You've seen this woman for 16 years now, at least. And you still think she could possibly give a rat's ass about the good of the Democrat party?
Posted by Josh Massey
at May 24, 2008 12:25 PM
comment #15
Devin Conroy
says ...
The fact of the matter is that Hillary specifically uttered "assassination." She did not say "the election year of '68" or something regarding the contest. So whatever her intention, the statement is entirely uncalled for and unnecessary. And, anyone who has any political sensibility knows that besides this kind of absurd desperation, Hillary, flat-out, needs to walk away... NOW. Even if she made wonderful, elegant points of how Rudolph was counted out, but then, he led the reindeer-- don't give up on the unlikely... it's irrelevant, annoying and untimely and she's making a fool of herself and her career... if not the entire American political landscape.
Posted by Devin Conroy
at May 24, 2008 12:30 PM
comment #16
Redmond
says ...
It's obvious that Hillary pandered to the lowest common denominator with her comments. It's an unspoken fear that if a black man is elected president, some racist nut will heed the call of God and refresh the tree of liberty with the blood of patriots or some other retarded shit he heard at a Klan meeting.
Her statements were deliberate and she knew what she was saying. This was a last ditch effort: "Don't even bother making him the candidate. They'll just shoot him."
Hats off to Keith Olbermann. Now somebody please start giving John McCain the Jeremiah Wright treatment for his ties to John Hagee. Nothing like a preacher that says Hitler was doing God's work killing the Jews. That's nice.
Posted by Redmond
at May 24, 2008 12:37 PM
comment #17
Joe Leydon
says ...
"He's an asshole because he prefers morality over reality."
Well, then maybe Hillary supporters are assholes for buying her claim that she's entitled to all the Michigan delegates.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/05/michigan-what-would-have-happened.html
Posted by Joe Leydon
at May 24, 2008 1:14 PM
comment #18
MovieBob
says ...
The problem is, Olberman ISN'T VERY GOOD AT THIS STUFF. He's a great anchor, hosts a good show, keeps it fast and loose, one of the closer genuine equivalents to a radio host in ability and style on any of the Cables. But the "Special Comment" things SUCK.
It takes an insanely gifted and genuine performer to manage the switch between the shootin-the-shit "man, isn't life nuts today?" tone of the rest of the show and this kind of profound moral outrage... and Olberman doesn't have it. It comes off like he's FORCING himself to be angry - which is exactly what it is. He WANTS so badly to be Bill O'Reilly for liberals that he pulls this schtick, and it doesn't suit him.
Nobody who follows politics seriously long-term thinks this is anything more than a MASSIVELY idiotic gaffe, no more meaningful or darkly-intended than John Kerry's similarly-overblown "you get stuck in Iraq" blunder, remember that? Olberman is smart enough to know that, and it's painfully clear he's only talking it up because he thinks it'll help "his guy" Barack.
THIS is how liberals will LOSE this time around: They're more concerned with seeing Obama run than they are with seeing the Republicans lose. Points for idealism, children, at least - hope you enjoy four years stewing under McCain and then voting for an uncontested Hillary in 2012.
Posted by MovieBob
at May 24, 2008 1:39 PM
comment #19
dangovich
says ...
Right now I'm just interested in who will reach their total, career-ending, on-camera meltdown first...Keith or Bill.
Walter, right wing pundits don't have career ending meltdowns. Rush Limbaugh can make fun of a guy with Parkinson's, Ann Coulter can imply that the 9/11 widows take pleasure in their husbands' deaths, Bill Kristol can be wrong about ABSOLUTELY EVERY SINGLE THING, and there's no consequences.
On the other hand, if Olberman called for the deaths of Supreme Court justices Scalia and Alito, how long do you think it'd be before he was fired?
Oh, but I forgot. The media is lib'rul. Because, um, conservatives say it is.
Posted by dangovich
at May 24, 2008 1:47 PM
comment #20
Walter Sobchak
says ...
Dangovich...
If Olbie ever called for the deaths of scotus justices Scalia and Alito he SHOULD be fired. Are you kidding me?
You don't think that's a tad worse than what you accuse Limbaugh, Coulter and Kristol of doing?
(sigh....) And despite what you read on Kos, Limbaugh did not make fun of someone with Parkinsons and Coulter did not imply what you say she implied. And Kristol has been absolutely wrong about EVERYTHING? And that's as bad as calling for the death of somebody.
I look forward to the wickedly witty wags who'll now accuse me of having shrines to Rush, Ann and Bill at my home. Yes, it's true, I do love them SO much.
Posted by Walter Sobchak
at May 24, 2008 2:29 PM
comment #21
Walter Sobchak
says ...
And no, the mainstream media is NOT liberal. I'm not one of those paranoids.
I feel certain that Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, Dan Abrams, Katie Couric, Bob Schieffer, Anderson Cooper, George Stephanapolous, Mike Wallace, Andy Rooney, Leslie Stahl, Tim Russert, Brian Williams, most of the staff of the New York Times and Washington Post often vote Republican.
Posted by Walter Sobchak
at May 24, 2008 2:40 PM
comment #22
Walter Sobchak
says ...
So what's the consensus?
Is the new Indy movie worth seeing?
Tell me, people of HE.
(looks like a Vista screening is in the works but I'm not in a standing-in-line mood)
Posted by Walter Sobchak
at May 24, 2008 2:42 PM
comment #23
jse33
says ...
Saying "assassination" during a campaign is the same as saying "bomb" on an airplane. YOU CAN'T DO IT.
Posted by jse33
at May 24, 2008 2:54 PM
comment #24
Ponderer
says ...
Using the word assassination this week, of all weeks, was asinine. What pisses me off about the whole thing is that Hillary is, at bast, a fucking imbecile when it comes to referencing history. Robert Kennedy didn't even get INTO the race until March. The primaries started months later, so of course they went into June. June for those primaries was the equivalent of March this year. But why let facts muddy the water?
As for her husband not clinching into June...another fucking piece of absolute bullshit. Yeah, he didn't mathematically clinch until June, but he had sewn up the nomination far earlier. No one was arrogant and imbecilic enough to put the party at risk for their own personal ego-stroke-off.
Posted by Ponderer
at May 24, 2008 2:58 PM
comment #25
Walter Sobchak
says ...
Speaking of.......
Did any of you get a chance to hang in the Ambassador before it got razed? It basically spent its last few years as a location-for-hire.
We shot an NBC motw a few years ago and some old guy gave a couple of us a tour. We saw the kitchen where RFK was shot. Really eerie.
A shame they had to knock that place down, though. Remember a few years back when Trump was talking about building the world's tallest building on the site?
Posted by Walter Sobchak
at May 24, 2008 3:17 PM
comment #26
K. Bowen
says ...
Jeff, generally speaking, you don't really want to get sucked down the Olbermann rabbithole, do you?
Posted by K. Bowen
at May 24, 2008 5:18 PM
comment #27
D.Z.
says ...
mutiny: " All politicians think like that. They're supposed to. Business leaders too. That's their job: to think out and strategize all scenarios, so that they can be prepared to take advantage of them in such a situation."
I'm not sure how hoping Obama gets shot is a good business strategy.
Bob: "Nobody who follows politics seriously long-term thinks this is anything more than a MASSIVELY idiotic gaffe, no more meaningful or darkly-intended than John Kerry's similarly-overblown "you get stuck in Iraq" blunder, remember that?"
Kerry didn't want the troops to be killed, though.
"THIS is how liberals will LOSE this time around: They're more concerned with seeing Obama run than they are with seeing the Republicans lose."
The Republicans already lost four years ago, when they had to pander to the lowest common denominator to expand their seats. Whether or not I liked Newt, this "we hate gays" approach was comparatively more divisive from the Contract with America.
Walt: "Limbaugh did not make fun of someone with Parkinsons"
He just denied Fox had it.
"and Coulter did not imply what you say she implied."
She just said blowing up and poisoning people with different ideologies than her own is fine and dandy.
Posted by D.Z.
at May 24, 2008 5:52 PM
comment #28
scooterzz
says ...
walter -- as a kid, i spent a lot of time at the ambassador with my family...but sometime in the seventies i attended an aba convention there that included a panel discussion/q&a with mya angelou and groucho marx....it remains my fondest ambassador memory.......
a few years ago (when the building was razed) an on-line auction was held for furniture and appointments....i tried to bid on a few things but almost everything was snapped up by emilio estevez (i'd still kill for that lobby mailbox)........
thanks for jogging the memory....
Posted by scooterzz
at May 24, 2008 7:49 PM
comment #29
R. Hunt
says ...
Just to clarify the Limbaugh/Fox thing: Fox appeared in some political ads endorsing a candidate who supported stem cell research in my home state (Claire MacKaskill, in Missouri). (The opposition had ads featuring Jim what's-his-name from "Passion of the Christ".) You could see signs of his illness in the ad, and Limbaugh accused him of "acting" to make his symptoms look more advanced than they were.
Posted by R. Hunt
at May 24, 2008 7:59 PM
comment #30
bb
says ...
I'm confused. Olbermann has vilified Clinton on numerous occasions and now he says repeatedly that "we have forgiven you..." for all the various things he's condemned her for. I didn't see any of those commentaries that addressed all the forgiveness he's ladling out now.
There is only one person idiotic enough to cause somebody to defend Clinton's simply dumb remark and that is keith Olbermann.
Posted by bb
at May 25, 2008 12:54 AM
comment #31
messiahcomplexio
says ...
indiana jones and the search for the lost super-delegates
Jones travels from the forbidden swamplands of the florida everglades to deep under the placid waters of lake michigan to find the elusive undecided delegates.
Jones finds the delegates, but all is not well...
Hot on Jones tail is the are the nazi's, the communists, and worst of all, the Clinton's, who hopes to seize the delegates and dip them in the ponce de Leon's mythical fountain of youth.
If the delegates touch the water, they are renewed, and it all begins again.
Will Jones stop the clinton's and the rest of the "un dead" from stealing the delagates and taking over the nominatio...er...world.
Find out this june!
Posted by messiahcomplexio
at May 25, 2008 8:02 AM
comment #32
Richardson
says ...
"Coulter did not imply what you say she implied."
You're right, Walter. Coulter did not imply that they enjoyed their husbands' deaths. She said it outright, in her book:
“I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much.â€
That's not an implication. You're definitely right about that.
Posted by Richardson
at May 25, 2008 8:51 AM
comment #33
Mjs
says ...
"Coulter did not imply what you say she implied."
"You're right, Walter. Coulter did not imply that they enjoyed their husbands' deaths. She said it outright, in her book:
“I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much.â€
That's not an implication. You're definitely right about that."
Walter? How you gonna BS your way out of this one? AndLimbaugh's treatment of Fox was one of the more disgusting things I've ever seen from a so called respected pundit. He should've been fired for it.
Posted by Mjs
at May 25, 2008 9:36 AM
comment #34
Walter Sobchak
says ...
If that is, in fact, an actual quote from the book than you are right. It was a pretty crass thing to say and I won't defend it. I haven't read the book, being as I am not a liberal. (seriously, everyone I've known that has read an Ann Coulter book is a serious lefty...you guys love torturing yourselves)
I do, however, agree with the spirit of what Coulter and often Limbaugh say in regards to what she calls "emotional human shields".
It's a very low-class method often employed by liberals to make their arguments. Throw a highly sympathetic figure into the political arena and let them toss vitriol around and then excoriate anyone who addresses them.
The so-called "Jersey Girls" are a perfect example. These women, led by Kristen Breitweiser, were highly politicized pundits who, leading up to the '04 and '06 elections appeared almost daily on NBC savaging the Bush administration and imploring people to vote Democratic. Since they lost their husbands on 9/11 they were deemed "untouchable". Therefore, if you so much as asked any of them a challenging question, you were lambasted in the press for being heartless and cruel. ("How DARE you disagree with her? She's a 9/11 widow!")
Same goes for M.J. Fox. He entered the political arena by openly campaigning for various candidates, most notably Missouri's McCaskill. Limbaugh was not mocking Fox, but pointing out how, by not taking his meds, the severity of his appearance was used rather cynically to invoke empathy for his candidate. In other words, "A vote for Senator Talent is a vote to KILL lovable Michael J. Fox!"
As is often the case, both Limbaugh and Coulter, (being attention-seeking public celebrities), were over the top in making their points, but that's their thing. It's just a little more complicated than how it was described by some of you people.
Posted by Walter Sobchak
at May 25, 2008 12:02 PM
comment #35
Mjs
says ...
Walter,
You're such a moron, and an apologist, and a bullshitter. Only a true moron could believe the crap you write.
Posted by Mjs
at May 25, 2008 12:19 PM
comment #36
Redmond
says ...
"I haven't read the book, being as I am not a liberal. (seriously, everyone I've known that has read an Ann Coulter book is a serious lefty...you guys love torturing yourselves)"
So, basically, liberals are idiots for examining differing viewpoints before making a remark whereas conservatives know everything and therefore don't believe in reading. Okay, got it.
Just wanted to make sure we're clear on that. I always suspected as much but now I know for certain. Walter, I am in your debt.
Posted by Redmond
at May 25, 2008 1:21 PM
comment #37
D.Z.
says ...
http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/318699
Posted by D.Z.
at May 25, 2008 2:04 PM
comment #38
Walter Sobchak
says ...
"You're such a moron, and an apologist, and a bullshitter. Only a true moron could believe the crap you write."
Mjs - as always, erudite, cerebral...yet slyly droll and cleverly Wildeian in your reposte. Stay classy!
"So, basically, liberals are idiots for examining differing viewpoints before making a remark whereas conservatives know everything and therefore don't believe in reading."
Eeeeeasy there, redmond.... that ain't what I said. And by the way, if you think reading Ann Coulter books or checking up on out-of-context Rush quotes on MediaMatters is a way of "examining differing viewpoints" then no wonder you think conservatives are drooling monsters.
And D.Z. ......... just keep being D.Z. .... it's why we love ya.
Posted by Walter Sobchak
at May 25, 2008 4:23 PM
comment #39
D.Z.
says ...
Walter: "if you think reading Ann Coulter books or checking up on out-of-context Rush quotes on MediaMatters is a way of "examining differing viewpoints" then no wonder you think conservatives are drooling monsters."
No, I feel making a joke about missing WMDs and then giving up golf to show you're in solidarity with the troops is why conservatives are monsters.
Posted by D.Z.
at May 25, 2008 4:42 PM
comment #40
Walter Sobchak
says ...
We wouldn't have it any other way, Zelter.
Posted by Walter Sobchak
at May 25, 2008 5:11 PM
comment #41
storymark
says ...
I love the standard Rush defense: "His comments were taken out of context".
Yet, when you go and watch/listen to the full diatribes, he actually comes off as worse.
Anyone who claims he wasn't making fun of Fox should just have "appologist" tattooed across their forhead.
Posted by storymark
at May 25, 2008 6:23 PM
comment #42
Seal Pup
says ...
"Mjs - as always, erudite, cerebral...yet slyly droll and cleverly Wildeian in your reposte. Stay classy!"
I think you'll find it's should be 'riposte', Walter. If you will insist on being such such a smart arse, at least try and spell correctly.
Posted by Seal Pup
at May 25, 2008 10:18 PM
comment #43
Seal Pup
says ...
Bugger. Meanwhile, I shall make a mental note not to repeat the word 'such' unnecessarily before next embarking on being a smart arse myself.
Posted by Seal Pup
at May 25, 2008 10:21 PM
comment #44
MDOC
says ...
To paraphrase an old Bobcat Goldthwaite joke, taking a Anne Coulter or Rush Limbaugh quote and using it to base an opinion of actual Republican leadership, is like blaming Ronald McDonald when you get a bad cheeseburger.
Walter really presented a well thought perspective on Rush and Coulter. It's satire, it's really no different than what Bill Maher does. Coulter is a caricature, nobody takes her seriously.
MJ, to read Walter's perspective and then respond by calling him an moron doesn't communicate the ability to discuss a subject rationally.
Posted by MDOC
at May 26, 2008 5:18 PM