Olbermann just told a lie.

[Ravy]

He said Samantha Powers was immediately removed after her comment. It was actually three days before she resigned.

He went on to point out that it has been 15 days since Ferraro's comment, yet she just resigned, which I think is accurate.

[boston bean]

1. I think the article was published on March 7th. Either Hillary has ESP or its only 6 days. nt

[hueyshort]

70. Olbermann has become a dirtbag

[trueblue2007]

100. No....not Olbermann "has become" a dirtbag.....HE IS A DIRTBAG

I've emailed him and MSNBC and told them I'm gone. I'm on CNN now.



MSNBC you suck.

[Hoof Hearted]

106. And has been for some time now, way before he started fellating the Obama campaign

he became a buffoon, he is the Bill O'Reilly of the left.

[LittleClarkie]

107. Was he a dirtbag when it was Bush he was speaking against?

Just wondering.

[itcfish]

150. He Became a Dirt Bag

when he refused to do the same critique of Obama because he fears being labled a racist.

[Iceburg]

143. "Boy"cott the dirt bag/nt

[truebrit71]

158. CNN? Hahahahhahahahaha!!! How's that koolaid taste?

What a mucking foron...:eyes:

[jillan]

2. It was actually 5 days. Powers said it on a Monday, and she resigned on Friday.

[Ravy]

9. Thursday evening. Let's split it at 4 days.

It wasn't immediate.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/06/samantha-power-resigns-ov_n_90339.html

[movonne]

37. Let him know that he made a mistake...he has apologize before

when he has said something wrong...

[tabatha]

43. Wiki said the article was March 6, she resigned March 7.

[Ravy]

67. The time span he is using is the difference in comment made, and resignation.

At least, for Ferraro. He is obviously using a different standard with Powers.


It is like saying the score of the Superbowl was Patriots 32, Giants 17, but neglecting to mention that the Giants scored those points this year, and the Patriots scored theirs in 2004.

[grantcart]

24. Do you guys ever actually look anything up or just make it up as it goes

Power apologized for the "monster" remarks on the night of the March 6 interview, saying that they "do not reflect my feelings about Sen. Clinton, whose leadership and public service I have long admired."<14> In the wake of reaction to the remarks, she resigned from the campaign the next day. <15> Soon afterwards, the Weekly Standard said that it "might have been the most ill-starred book tour since the invention of movable type."<16>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samantha_Power

[Ravy]

36. She made her comments on the Monday before, according to the article about her resignation.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/06/samantha-power-resigns-ov_n_90339.html

[grantcart]

45. Yes and that was in Ireland when did news of that article reach the US

do you have no self respect for your own intellectual dignity?

[Ravy]

68. And when did Ferraro's comments become public knowledge????

We have been talking about this for 15 days now, right????

What was that about intellectual dignity?

[grantcart]

73. where is your citation your proof that anyone in the media in the US knew

about it. You made the allegation and you have nothing nothing to support what you say. Completely vacuousness. Make a charge and when challenged with facts respond with air. Because some fairly insignificant person says something to an obscure Irish newspaper you think that you have made a point and can accuse somebody of lying.

You made the charge now you provide the facts behind the charge. When exactly was the first press response to this in the United States.

[Ravy]

74. He was comparing when the remarks were MADE, not when

he found out about it. And if he found out about the Ferraro story 15 days ago, where was his outrage *then*.

In both cases, after the story became widespread knowledge, the person resigned. It was not 15 days vs immediate. KO knows it, and I trust you really do, too.

[grantcart]

83. This is how pathetically empty the Clinton campaign has become that

you will now argue that she should have been fired earlier even though no one in the United States was the least bit aware of what this fairly obscure person was saying on another continent, not doing campaign business but while she was on her own time doing a book promotion tour. How was it that they were supposed to be aware of these comments?

Your lack of any honest framing of the basic premise, that the Obama campaign waited to act after they were informed of it is a disgraceful tack of a charlatan. In accusing others of lie you twist the facts. When the facts are presented you obfusicate. When the logic is persued you pretend that you what is discussed on private business in Ireland is immediately known in the United States.

You have undertaken to call into disrepute the most courageous commentator in the media on a complete misrepresentation of facts and when called on the facts you rest on an irrelevent technichal detail. KO did not lie. The Obama campaign did not delay.

You have and continue to drag yourself down the intellectual cesspool that the Clinton campaign has now become in its last dying grasp to hold on to their dream of dynastic power.

[Ravy]

86. You wait until they do the same thing to Obama in the GE, and

present everything in the worst possible way. Or give equal time to Swiftboaters and the people with the official Navy records and eye-witness accounts.

You will want a more truthful press then.

[grantcart]

94. Your allegation that KO told a lie is a shamless lie

Nothing in your comments above has shown that comments made by a private person on a private country in another continent was known by anyone in the US let alone the Obama campaign.

You can now try and switch the discussion to the GE or any other subject your desperate imagination might put forth but the reality is that you have been completely expoused and if you cannot provide some proof that some media outlet in North America made the remarks known that the following statement is the most accurate.


quote
* In an interview with the BBC's HARDtalk on March 6, Power stated that Barack Obama's pledge to "have all U.S. combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months"<7> was a "best case scenario" that "he will revisit when he becomes president."<8> Challenged by the host as to whether this contradicted Obama's campaign commitment, she responded, "You can’t make a commitment in March 2008 about what circumstances will be like in January of 2009.... He will, of course, not rely on some plan that he’s crafted as a presidential candidate or a U.S. Senator. He will rely upon a plan – an operational plan – that he pulls together in consultation with people who are on the ground to whom he doesn’t have daily access now, as a result of not being the president." <9> She concluded by saying that "what we can take seriously is that he will try to get U.S. forces out of Iraq as quickly and responsibly as possible."<10>

* In a March 6 interview with The Scotsman, she said: "We fucked up in Ohio. In Ohio, they are obsessed and Hillary is going to town on it, because she knows Ohio's the only place they can win".<11> <12> "She is a monster, too -- that is off the record -- she is stooping to anything... You just look at her and think, 'Ergh.' But if you are poor and she is telling you some story about how Obama is going to take your job away, maybe it will be more effective. The amount of deceit she has put forward is really unattractive."

* In a March 7 interview with The Daily Telegraph, she said, about the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, "I am confused by what's happened to Gordon Brown. I thought he was impressive."<13>

Power apologized for the "monster" remarks on the night of the March 6 interview, saying that they "do not reflect my feelings about Sen. Clinton, whose leadership and public service I have long admired."<14> In the wake of reaction to the remarks, she resigned from the campaign the next day. <15> Soon afterwards, the Weekly Standard said that it "might have been the most ill-starred book tour since the invention of movable type."<16>
unquote

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samantha_Power



You have no respect for the truth and no respect for your own intellectual integrity.

[Ravy]

105. You have a wiki entry. I have a Samantha Power's words and a contemporary news story.

Yet *I* am the one with no respect for the truth or intellectual integrity.

Right. Keep telling yourself that.

[Ravy]

91. Besides.. that was NOT my point.. and you know it.

I was not being critical of Obama's reaction, or the time it took, at ALL. It was swift, and the right thing to do. He did well.

I am just saying it wasn't 15 days versus immediate as the pablum they feed everyone said. Clinton's reaction to Ferraro's comment was swift and strong as well, as it should have been. She has said she thought it was wrong, and rejected the remarks for two days now.

But Keith doesn't want to report that. He wants to say Clinton took 15 days, and Obama was immediate.

I don't really care which one of them wins. Both have pluses and minuses. I just know that we won't choose choose the right one if we let the media choose for is in this way.

[mythyc]

133. are you REALLY calling Hillary's reaction to Ferraro

Let's deconstruct this hedged, equivocal definition of "strong" you've contrived to make excuses with, shall we:

"I don't agree" - Yeah, that's a strong rebuke. way to discipline that campaign member :eyes: love that take charge, clean house attitude :eyes:

"Regretable" - Racism is so so regretable :eyes: this is the strongest way to counter it indeed :eyes:

"supporters on both sides say things that veer off into the personal" - sure, just a personal quip (like 'you wear ugly ties') really :eyes:
and she just veered, fell asleep at the wheel so to speak :eyes: that's why she's still defending the comments, in HRC's name no less :eyes: that's why she still hasn't rejected that pathetic excuse for a resignation letter (i.e. blatant non-apology, bait more defamation) Ferraro wrote :eyes:

"we've all had to rein in members of our campaign from time to time" - like demanding Samantha Power's head on a stake within hours of the story breaking but then refusing to even hint at the possibility of merely scolding Feraro until it blows up as it has :eyes:

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

or how about Maggie Williams' pathetic attempt to blame Obama and deny any wrongdoing whatsoever (Williams is Clinton's campaign manager, is she not? If so I defy you to explain how this OFFICIAL campaign release is a swift and strong response:

"Senator Obama’s campaign staff seems to have forgotten his pledge. We have not. And, we reject these false, personal and politically calculated attacks on the eve of a primary. This campaign should be about the leadership we need for a better future and these attacks serve only to divide the Democratic Party and the American people." :eyes:
"eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: wait, not sure the point's across ---> :eyes:

False attack on HRC/GF????? yeah, strongresponse there :eyes:
Personal attack on HRC/GF????? yeah, strongresponse there :eyes:
Political attack on HRC/GF????? yeah, strongresponse there :eyes:
Calculated attack on HRC/GF????? yeah, strongresponse there :eyes:

so much eye rolling at your ridiculous attempt to wave off as a "strong" response the Clinton campaign's willful negligence in addresing this issue, that one could get an aneurysm.


Let's make sure we have you correctly ::: "strong, as it should have been" ...? some issues you should really let go of. Samantha Power was one for the entire Obama camp; Ferraro is one for HRC's. in my humble opinion :eyes:

[Ravy]

141. First of all, I don't think Powers' was that bad of a remark to begin with.

I think Hillary should have laughed and said "I have been called much worse", and left it at that, *particularly* since they were going to go on and use comments by Powers that seemed to indicate that Obama was being disingenuous in his Iraq withdrawal rhetoric. It was a Clinton campaign decision that forced it, and I think it was a stupid move.

Ferraro's, in my opinion, is quite different and probably needs more analysis than the knee-jerk reactions allow. She said some things I consider reprehensible, and she said some things I consider fair and accurate. Hillary was right, although a bit slow, in recognizing the reprehensible.

But for Olbermann to claim she let it slide for 15 days, and Obama reacted immediately is just wrong, and a lie.

I am a supporter of a Unity ticket. I don't really care which of them is on top, but I think Obama has earned the right to choose whether he will take the top or bottom of the ticket. I have explained why he may prefer to be VP this time around in other threads.

But when the camps, and the biased members of the media distort an event to make it sound worse than it actually is, it works not only against the concept of a Unity ticket, but it further divides us Democrats, and all based on the distortion rather than the facts.

[mythyc]

148. I made no response to the issues you laid out here. Address

...

whatever, for me in this frame of reference, abot KO and 15 days. Address "Strong".

[Ravy]

149. If you don't want to address the issue of the thread, fine.

But to me "strong" is the candidate personally saying she "rejects and renounces" the comments, and "disagrees" with them, as Hillary has *personally* said over the last few days.

I have yet to see any personal comments by Obama about Powers' remark. I will attempt to judge for myself how strong they were if I ever find one.

[mythyc]

152. equivocate with Hillary all you want -- she offers plenty of room for that.

I see your bluff and raise you 20.:

how about that *official* Maggie Williams campaign statement then? you still hold that that's "Strong"?

[Ravy]

153. I haven't even seen it. So I have no clue. Start your own thread if you

want to argue about the strength of statements. I have little interest other than exposing the lies that divide us, particularly by the media.

[mythyc]

154. it's right up there, in my original reply a few posts up. stop dodging - you either know ...

you either know you have nothing or are as Chris Rock calls it "ignant".

...............

"no clue" ???? :banghead: why not go look it up then, if looking at my original reply is too much work. know how I found it? I googled "Maggie Williams" and "Ferraro" there it was, 7 of the first 10 results.

...............

I am not going to start a new thread. From my first post I have been requesting a direct response to YOUR comments and claims. Claims which are not only patently false, but which, by your own admission, are based on an incomplete conception of everything (you didn't know about William's statement???? does that excuse you from taking back incorrect, negligent remarks???) that's happened in this issue.

Either respond DIRECTLY to this question or let it go:

it's an official release which means it represents HRC's response. I won't rest with this. I want you to tell me that this is a STRONG rebuke on HRC's campaign of Ferraro's coments:

"Senator Obama’s campaign staff seems to have forgotten his pledge. We have not. And, we reject these false, personal and politically calculated attacks on the eve of a primary. This campaign should be about the leadership we need for a better future and these attacks serve only to divide the Democratic Party and the American people."

...

edit: type-o and add :banghead:

[mythyc]

155. just in case you still neglect to read the orignal posts addresses to you I'll past the rest too:

False attack on HRC/GF????? yeah, strong response there
Personal attack on HRC/GF????? yeah, strong response there
Political attack on HRC/GF????? yeah, strong response there
Calculated attack on HRC/GF????? yeah, strong response there

[Ravy]

157. The reason I haven't responded to your little grid there is

because I don't understand what point you are trying to make with it.

If you are saying that Clinton responds very strongly against any real or perceived attack on her, yes, you are right. And I have posted in this thread and others saying how stupid that is.

But, that couldn't be any further off-the-point.

[Ravy]

156. No, Maggie Williams did not have a strong response. HRC did, in my opinion.

I don't care to look it up because I have no interest, the same as you have no interest in responding to, or staying on the topic of this thread.

I am for a Unity ticket. I have been, posted about it frequently. I think Obama should be given the choice to lead or be VP. I have also posted threads on why he might consider the VP slot, although I consider it unlikely.

Do you go around and try to get everyone to defend off-topic remarks after they have told you that they really don't care about your off-topic post?

If so, I consider you a *MAJOR* part of the problem that we are currently experiencing in both campaign's supporters. You stand for divisiveness. Just like other Obama supporters on this very post. They get really quiet when you point out how Olbermann lied and why that makes a difference. It doesn't matter to me which candidate he lied about to me. The fact he is taking sides and spreading falsehoods to further divide us Democrats should be an indication as to who supports division and who wants the sides to unify.

Thanks for your input on that matter.

[Ravy]

159. If you are wondering why I didn't respond point-by-point to your diatribe...

It is right at the top.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that all HRC said was "I don't agree". If you are that mis-informed on the issue, why should I bother even reading further. It is all based on a false premise.

[mythyc]

160. give it up. you're a sad sad little evader

you want to say that Clinton is respectful to all, and strong in her conviction that what Ferraro said is wrong? you've got to be kidding me. You have no interest in what Maggie Williams says? EXCUSE ME???! she's the chief campaign manager of the Clinton campaign. You want to make a claim about Hillary's response, it necessarily must include Williams' statements on the same issue. PERIOD.

ok, I understand you're slow. either that or a jackyl. either way, I'll lay it out in simple terms. Williams represents Clinton. On an OFFICIAL capacity. THUS, pea-brain, when Williams accuses Obama of making an false attack, Clinton is calling Obama a liar. When Williams accuses Obama of making a personal attack, Clinton is calling Obama an asshole. When Williams accuses Obama of making a poltical attack, Clinton is accusing him of attempting to monopolize on an insult to his race as well as to his democratic principles. And when Williams accuses Obama of making a calculated attack, Clinton is saying Obama has done all of this in a premeditated attempt to harm not just her but the party and the American people. Period.

You ---------------- YOU --------- said Clinton had a "swift and strong" reaction that what Ferraro did was "wrong". This is not so. You were wrong. You will not admit this. You keep changing the subject. I have no interest whatsoever in your STUPID original thread claim that KO was lying. I do have an interest in verifiable inaccuracies based either on willful ignorance/negligence or on a premeditated intention to harm. You're calling me divisive? hello pot, it's kettle and steam is coming out of your ass. The reality of this entire exchange, and the only purpose I've had or expressed from response one till now is You want to make a claim about HRC that is patently false, and I'm going to call you on it. And anyone with a bit of sense in their head will read this series of threads and see that all you've been doing is avoiding the issue. Avoiding the fact that you were wrong in a major premise of your argument. and therefore can't be trusted to form responsible, objective, and cogent logical conclusions. nothing you have to say on this topic has any meaning. enjoy your irrelevancy; you wear it well.

So adieu mon ami >>> this conversation is over. later :eyes:

[Ravy]

161. I never did say that "Clinton is respectful to all", nor want to say that

So when you start out a post like that, what am I supposed to think?

You base a rather long post on a false premise, then want to beat me up because I don't give any merit to your post?

Thankfully I won't see any more of yours. Bye.

[tabatha]

40. *** NO ****

The article was March 6, she resigned March 7.

See wiki and politico..

[Ravy]

72. Said Mar 3, resigned Mar 6th actually, according to a news article on Huff Post (late)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/06/samantha-power-resigns-ov_n_90339.html


But the point is that Ferraro's comments only became common knowledge yesterday, yet he counted the time from when she said it, and used that to distort the truth greatly. "15 days" for Ferraro to "immediate" for Powers.

[leftofcool]

3. We don't watch these guys anymore but have caught him in more than one lie

[grantcart]

27. Do you guys ever actually look anything up or just make it up as it goes

Power apologized for the "monster" remarks on the night of the March 6 interview, saying that they "do not reflect my feelings about Sen. Clinton, whose leadership and public service I have long admired."<14> In the wake of reaction to the remarks, she resigned from the campaign the next day. <15> Soon afterwards, the Weekly Standard said that it "might have been the most ill-starred book tour since the invention of movable type."<16>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samantha_Power

[islandmkl]

4. i believe he was referring to samantha's resignation happening within a day

of her comment getting attention in America....

but i might be wrong in that regard...

[boston bean]

6. so how does that help him in regards to Hillary, didn't that just come out yesterday. nt

[krawhitham]

14. It has been out longer than that

But I did not think it was 15 days

[boston bean]

23. Wasn't it just breaking news yesterday, or am I completely out of it. It was just yesterday! nt

[krawhitham]

41. Posted on February 27, 2008 said on the 26th

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqL_sm0J8jc

made News on 29th

http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/02/29/geraldine-ferraros-race-cards/

[boston bean]

47. ummmmmm so did samanthas make some news before, I'm talking breaking and so wasn't KO when talking

about Samantha, but when discussing Geraldine and Hillary, he goes to the date of the interview. He's an ass.

[Shakespeare]

8. No, you are correct. The Obama campaign acted immediately. n/t

[Ravy]

110. That wasn't the point I was trying to make, really.

I wasn't meaning to be critical of the Obama reaction. It was strong and swift.

But to say that, you have to go from when it was widely known to the time of the resignation. Ferarro's comments popped up yesterday, even though I suppose they were said 15 days ago. Perhaps the Obama campaign was holding their indignation to a day when people were at the polls, or perhaps they honestly just found out about it. Clinton's reaction was strong and swift as well, although it took Ferraro until today to resign.

It was not the "15 days vs immediate" picture that Olbermann hopes his viewers accepts as gospel.

[Ravy]

38. And Ferraro's comment got attention in America, when??????? nt

[HEyHEY]

5. It's not a lie, it's a mistake or a summation

As a reporter I get so sick of being called a "liar" everytime someone doesn't agree with how I phrased something or if I made an honest mistake. Fuck off.

[Cooley Hurd]

10. That's it, Jeremy...

:thumbsup:

[jlake]

11. Olbermann is a cold and calculating liar. He makes his career on calling others out - he

needs to stand up to the heat.

[boston bean]

13. He's KeithO, instead of BillO. nt

[Cooley Hurd]

15. Since John Gibson gives Clinton surrogate Ferraro a mike...

...does he pass your muster?:crazy:

[jlake]

21. John Gibson is an asshole of the highest order.... I don't like anyone in the MSM

and don't feel the need to worship the "best of the worst" because everyone else is even more vile.
KO is a tool and I have no use for him. Only the lemmings would follow such a deceitful and grotesque misogynist.

[HEyHEY]

88. So.... now he hates women?

[immoderate]

99. Can you give an example of his mysogyny, other than his criticism of Hillary?

I keep seeing these charges, but have not seen any examples. Thanks.

--IMM

[virtualobserver]

54. her employment as a Fox News Analyst........

guarantees that she is fair and balanced.

[Breeze54]

28. "Cold and Calculating"? - Get real! Put down that shot glass!

:silly:

[JTG of the PRB]

39. And I suppose you think BillO is a fine, upstanding journalist? n/t

[jlake]

52. Nope. You do realize I don't need to get in the middle of their lame and childish

(feigned feud) I dislike both and think they are a pair of horses asses.

[JTG of the PRB]

57. Well, I'll certainly agree with you regarding the Big Giant Head himself...

...but Keith Olbermann is one of the good guys. One of the very few good guys making their voice heard where it can reach enough people to have an impact.

[tabatha]

51. *** LOOK IT UP ***

The article was published March 6, she resigned March 7.

You are a liar.

[Ravy]

69. I did.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/06/samantha-power-resigns-ov_n_90339.html

The preceeding Monday was March 3.

I will accept your apology for the liar remark. I will not accuse you of the same.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

79. You're not a liar

You're an idiot. In the interview Powers is talking about the Ohio primary in the past tense. The Ohio Primary was on March 4th, so unless she's clairvoyant, she would have had no way of knowing how it turned out as of March 3.

And according to The Scotsman's website, the interview was on March 6 and published on March 7.

[Ravy]

84. Perhaps she made the same comment more than once.

"With deep regret, I am resigning from my role as an advisor the Obama campaign effective today. Last Monday, I made inexcusable remarks that are at marked variance from my oft-stated admiration for Senator Clinton and from the spirit, tenor, and purpose of the Obama campaign. And I extend my deepest apologies to Senator Clinton, Senator Obama, and the remarkable team I have worked with over these long 14 months," Power said in a statement."

The Huffpost article was dated Mar 6th, but with the time difference that can be accounted for.

However, Monday was the day before the Ohio primary.

[HEyHEY]

81. Oops!

sorry!

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

75. Bullshit. Complete And Utter Bullshit

Link

This is the link to the Scotsman. You will notice that according to their website, this article was posted on March 7. This interview occurred on March 6.

Link

This is a corroborating link that confirms the interview occurred on Thursday and that Powers resigned on Friday. Just in case you're having trouble keeping track, here, that would be the next day.

All of which suggests that you are utterly and completely full of crap.

[HEyHEY]

76. You're a dumbass

Did you even read what I wrote?

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

82. I may be a dumbass, but at least I agree with you...

I think you're replying to someone else. Based on what I've seen, Powers appears to have resigned the next day. I agree with KO.

[HEyHEY]

85. oh, fuck, sorry dude!

Yeah, I was... ha ha ha

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

87. Not at all - I really AM a dumbass...

nt

[Ravy]

78. According to this Huffpost article on the 6th--

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/06/samantha-power-resigns-ov_n_90339.html

She said she made the comments on the Monday before (March 3rd)

I think it is fair to say, well, when the story broke about it it was fast (not immediate).. but if that is the case, Ferraro was within a day of her comments becoming widely known, too.

[HEyHEY]

77. Well, by your standards, if you can't back up what your'e saying

You're a liar. So, back it up. prove he's an actual LIAR.

[Exilednight]

16. Seconded. The amount of hate mail I have received from this election is ten fold compared to.....

previous elections.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

61. You? NAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH....

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Ravy]

19. I guess crappy reporters stick up for each other.

I don't know if it is an honest mistake or not, but he wouldn't let BillO get by with it, and everyone here knows it.

[HEyHEY]

134. HAHAHAHA

Crappy reporter? If only you knew who I am.

[TomInTib]

33. Whoa...

"Fuck off"?

Come on, man.

"As a reporter", you surely have a cooler head than that.

Hell, I know you do because I have read hundreds of your posts.

Tom

[HEyHEY]

135. You've read hundreds of my posts?

So, you're the guy ;-)

Dude, sometimes, "Fuck off" is all that's needed.

[TomInTib]

139. Yeah...

I'm your stalker...

Fuck off.

Just kidding (sort of)

Listening to real blues while under the influence will do that.
T.

[HEyHEY]

140. haha

this I know

[JVS]

131. OMG, you've come here now too. Welcome to the depths of hell!

:hi:

[HEyHEY]

136. Yes, tis a bold place

BTW, dick, I should visit you overseas.

[JVS]

137. I'll email you to let you know when and where I am.

[HEyHEY]

138. BOONUS!

[azmouse]

7. Grasp at straws much?

:eyes:

[Ravy]

12. You either get the truth, or you base your positions on a lie.

Your choice.

[AZBlue]

17. The interview was on March 6 and she resigned on March 7.

Must be the new Clinton math?

[Ravy]

26. She resigned on Thurs, March 6, citing the comment she made "last Monday" link:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/06/samantha-power-resigns-ov_n_90339.html

[AZBlue]

44. She may have made the comment on Monday but it wasn't published until the 6th.

[Ravy]

71. And when did we all find out about Ferraro's comment? Yesterday.

Has Olberman been raking her over the coals for 15 days? No.

Am I going to defend Ferraro's comments? No. But people need to be fed the honest facts to make an informed position, and here is another example of the MSM feeding us divisive crap.

[grantcart]

30. Here is the citation

Power apologized for the "monster" remarks on the night of the March 6 interview, saying that they "do not reflect my feelings about Sen. Clinton, whose leadership and public service I have long admired."<14> In the wake of reaction to the remarks, she resigned from the campaign the next day. <15> Soon afterwards, the Weekly Standard said that it "might have been the most ill-starred book tour since the invention of movable type."<16>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samantha_Power

[Ravy]

49. Here is her comment:

"With deep regret, I am resigning from my role as an advisor the Obama campaign effective today. Last Monday, I made inexcusable remarks that are at marked variance from my oft-stated admiration for Senator Clinton and from the spirit, tenor, and purpose of the Obama campaign. And I extend my deepest apologies to Senator Clinton, Senator Obama, and the remarkable team I have worked with over these long 14 months," Power said in a statement."


Emphasis mine.

[AZBlue]

53. She may have made the comment on Monday but it wasn't published until the 6th.

Yeah, I'm repeating myself but so are you, so I guess I have to.

[Ravy]

56. And when did everyone know about Ferraro's comment? Yesterday. nt

[itcfish]

151. No, It's Just

the new Obama Cult Math. nonsense

[islandmkl]

18. if you are incorrect, you are incorrect...

when you intentionally promote something you know is incorrect...

then you are a liar....

[Ravy]

31. So he looks back to see when Ferraro made the comment, not when

it became public knowledge to make a longer time frame, but was sloppy enough not to do the same for Samantha Power's remark?

Yeah, I believe that.




:sarcasm:

[grantcart]

20. Do you guys ever actually look anything up or just make it up as it goes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samantha_Power



Power apologized for the "monster" remarks on the night of the March 6 interview, saying that they "do not reflect my feelings about Sen. Clinton, whose leadership and public service I have long admired."<14> In the wake of reaction to the remarks, she resigned from the campaign the next day. <15> Soon afterwards, the Weekly Standard said that it "might have been the most ill-starred book tour since the invention of movable type."<16>

[Ravy]

55. Here is what she said on March 6th:

"With deep regret, I am resigning from my role as an advisor the Obama campaign effective today. Last Monday, I made inexcusable remarks that are at marked variance from my oft-stated admiration for Senator Clinton and from the spirit, tenor, and purpose of the Obama campaign. And I extend my deepest apologies to Senator Clinton, Senator Obama, and the remarkable team I have worked with over these long 14 months," Power said in a statement.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/06/samantha-power-resigns-ov_n_90339.html

The Monday preceeding the statement was March 3rd. So, do you actually look anything up, or make it up as it goes?

[pdxmom]

22. The article in the Scotsman was published on March 7 (link inside)

and Powers left the campaign on March 8. Immediately. The interview may have happened previously, but remember that Powers thought that comment was off the record, so wouldn't have known it would be in the article, therefore I'm sure the campaign didn't know it was said, either.

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/latestnews/Inside-US-poll-battle-as.3854371.jp

[boston bean]

42. You think Hillary knew what Geraldine told some small time NP.

goodness gracious, the complete and utter failure of fairness.

[tabatha]

46. She actually resigned March 7.

[Ravy]

64. It was actually Mar 6 that she resigned, according to Huff Post, for comments made on mar 3.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/06/samantha-power-resigns-ov_n_90339.html

[jackson_dem]

25. General Electric endorsed "progressive" Obama long ago

Even KO has to serve his masters on some instances to keep his paycheck.

[Freida5]

32. That is because they want to sell more nuclear power plants.

[jackson_dem]

66. Ah...that explains it...

Almost the entire msm is for Obama but GE takes it to a Fox "News" level.

[slinkerwink]

29. interview was published march 7th. She resigned on the 8th.

Actually, about four hours after the Clinton campaign asked her to resign.

[Ravy]

58. So, with Ferraro's statement making news just yesterday...

the 15 day measurement he put on it was intended to do what????

[DURHAM D]

114. The Clinton campaign asked her to resign? Really.

How cute - Hillary is in charge of Obama's hiring and firing. Gheez.

David Axelrod is a despicable human being but one thing he won't tolerate is a staffer that does anything, repeat anything, that takes the campaign off message. They screw up - Daivd fires them immediately. Samantha screwed up.

[Levgreee]

34. Ravy just told a lie

[Ravy]

60. Then post it. Where did I lie????

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

35. Yikes.

Are you completely convinced you're a Democrat?

[Jacobin]

48. Good Gawd. In HillaryLand Olberman is the enemy?

Glad I support Obama

[backscatter712]

90. The cultists cannot tolerate criticism of Dear Leader.

Keith Olbermann is now the Enemy.
as is Rachel Maddow, Thom Hartmann, Randi Rhodes, Mike Malloy, Markos Moulitsas, Arianna Huffington, etc. etc. etc.

[Ravy]

101. I accept fair criticism of both candidates.

I don't care which wins.

I just want fair reporting of the issues. Then people may be smart enough to decide. Given the twisted facts that they are being fed, how can you expect them to get it right.

The media did it to Kerry in 2004. They put Swiftboaters right up there on the same stage as the people with the Navy records, and *who were actually there* when the medals were earned. They put the 1 in 50 scientist right up there with one of the other 49 and treat them as if they both have equal validity to their points.

Olbermann should report it right. If he is using time-said to time-resigned for one, he should use the same measurement for the other... not put them together and give a purposely inaccuate picture.

[Bright Eyes]

50. Dear God No!

Bet you tomorrow he apologizes.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

59. Not A Lie, He's Just Simply Deceiving With Spin.

The argument that would be made is that Power was removed immediately after the comments became public and drew much attention, which was the day before. He is saying on the other hand, that Ferraro's comments were public 15 days ago etc.

What is completely disingenuous about that, is that REGARDLESS of them being 15 days ago, it was only YESTERDAY that they began drawing widespread attention, so it is the exact same scenario, though he's twisting it wildly for sake of making a deceitful point.

What is seen in both camps is that it isn't the fact they said the comments that causes them to resign (or anyone else for that matter), it is when those comments reach objectionable levels enough to warrant such action.

So really, what we have here has NOTHING to do with Power resigning more promptly than Ferraro, etc, but simply that POWER's comments drew the attention of people far more rapidly than Ferraro's. Within a day, Power's comments were everywhere. It took 14 days for the ferraro interview to start gaining legs. But that has little to do with the candidates at all. In reality, and without deceitful spin, they both resigned within a similar timeframe.

[Ravy]

62. It was the worst kind of lie.

I guess I should be used to it by now.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

65. I've Temporarily Lost Respect For Him. These Definitely Aren't The Standards We Expect From Him.

I say temporarily, because I know in my heart his loss of integrity and accuracy, as well as his bias, will only be temporary. But watching it while it's happening is really sad, especially since I admire and respect him so much. I hope he breaks out of the haze soon...

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

126. I Want To Officially Rescind These Comments.

These comments were made prior to my watching, since I recorded it on DVR and didn't start watching it until after I made this post, and was going by what I read here. I had this image in my head as to what I thought he was going to say in his special comments, but that image turned out to be far more dramatic and unfair than the reality of his special comment ended up being. The fact is, though I don't agree with the spin he put on that small aspect, the overwhelming majority of what he said was sincere and spot on. I hereby rescind my previous comment.

[Ravy]

128. I posted this before his special comment. I haven't even watched it yet.

I have a feeling I will agree with it as well.

I am not a HRC supporter, I am not a BHO supporter. I am a Democrat who feels we need to insist on the highest standards of accuracy for media, particularly favorable media to progressive causes. Without those standards "our" news outlets have no more credibility than Fox News.

[HughMoran]

63. A guest on his show 2 nights ago said that there was hypocrisy - he used Shaheen in NH as an example

Stupid biased people on there lately can't even get their facts straight since Shaheen was dropped the same day he made his offensive remarks. The hypocrisy and lack of objectivity on the show lately is disturbing.

[ShaneGR]

80. This whole thing is retarded, and I'm sadded to see KO (who I really like) get so involved in it....

He needs to direct his venom at Republicans, Hillary Clinton is on his side too. So is Obama. To be honest, I'm saddened to see the whole primary season sink into oblivian like this. For a while I thought a brokered convention with Obama on top and Hillary as VP would be a great ticket, but the negativity, on both sides, has simply gone too far.

[DURHAM D]

115. "direct his venom at Republicans" - That assumes that KO is a Dem.

You have no reason to think that - he works for GE. Also, he has not been on MSNBC during a Democratic administration. I don't recall him really going to bat for John Kerry last time.

[ContinentalOp]

89. BOTH articles were originally published on March 7th!

http://www.dailybreeze.com/ci_8489268?source=rss_viewed

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/latestnews/Inside-US-poll-battle-as.3854371.jp

How ironic. Spin that Clinton fans.

[backscatter712]

92. I wish I could K&R individual comments!

You just debunked an entire thread of Hill-Shilling right here!

[ContinentalOp]

95. Actually to be fair,

I don't know the exact dates that those articles appeared online or in print. If they say March 7, they may have actually gone up a couple of days prior. But still...

[Ravy]

97. Clinton should have held her fake indignation until the day of the MS primary, too.

Makes for honest debate of the issues.

[ContinentalOp]

102. The real implication just occurred to me.

So both of these stories appeared on roughly the same day. The Clinton campaign pounced immediately on Powers' statement and demanded her resignation. The Obama campaign didn't go with the Ferarro thing for 15 days or so.

This means that the Clinton campaign probably has people constantly combing the news and monitoring every Obama staffer and surrogate to catch these kinds of slips while the Obama campaign doesn't! I mean, how likely is it that some random Clinton staffer just happened to be reading the Scotsman that day? They claim to not be attacking and yet they are obviously actively and successfully searching for any little thing to jump on.

[mmonk]

93. Do you really want to know the real difference in these instances?

Samantha Power's comments were off the cuff in frustration NOT intended to be put in the public sphere. All this race stuff WAS intended to be out in the public sphere. If you want to get to a real issue, THERE it is.

[Ravy]

96. Yeah, I wouldn't criticize that.

It is a great point, in fact.

I just hope that when and if it is debated, it is debated fairly and not twisted. But I am not seeing that on MSNBC.

[johnnydrama]

98. don't you think the fact

Here's the simple truth. We read about Powers statement. The next words out of her mouth were she regrets it and resigned.

We read about Ferraro's remarks. Then she goes on multiple talk shows saying she's being discriminated on because she's white. That it's all Obama's fault. That she stands by her words. The Clinton campaign comes out with a statement saying it's Obama's fault, he's using the race card.

And Ferraro's comments were reported Monday night at the latest. I'm looking at Ben Smith's politico blog right now and he mentions it at 9:30 on the 10th. It may have been reported earlier than that.

So that's almost 2 days.

2 drastically different cases.

Maybe Keith did mess up, he should have said after the comments were first reported, not said.

But other than that, the timeline shows what really happened after both were reported.

[Ravy]

103. Right... so say it is 2 days versus hours.. not 15 days vs immediate

That is all I am saying.

[Barack_America]

104. When did Ferraro FIRST make the comment?

On the radio show. Olbermann specifically pointed out that the newspaper interview was NOT the first time she made the comment.

[Ravy]

108. I don't know. I am going by the time it was really "news" and the

time of the resignations. Few hours vs. maybe a day and a half. Not immediate vs 15 days.

I don't think that the first time Samantha Powers called Hillary a monster or similar was to some reporter eiter.

I am just saying that if you are going to compare two events, compare them honestly.

Both campaigns acted swiftly to denounce the statements.

[ContinentalOp]

109. Both articles were originally published on March 7th

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/latestnews/Inside-US-poll-battle-as.3854371.jp

http://www.dailybreeze.com/ci_8489268?source=rss_viewed

[Ravy]

111. So, a few hours vs 5 days by that measurement.

Between the time of "making headlines" and resignation, a few hours vs 1 day.

Between the time said and time resigned, 4 days and 15 days.

None of this adds up to immediate vs 15 days as KO wants his viewers to believe.

[Barack_America]

116. I don't think that it's fair to equate the campaigns' responses.

Powers was gone.

With Ferraro, they pondered it a bit longer. First hoping they could just distance themselves, then eventually realizing they must sever.

I did think that Olbermann's remarks were too dramatic, however, and also too focused on Ferraro. There have been plenty of other incidents in which Hillary's aides have advised her wrongly, or at least unbefitting of a Democratic candidate.

I've been saying for a long time that her aides and surrogates are destroying her campaign.

[Johnny__Motown]

112. she thought that comment was off the record, she resigned as soon as it became public

[Barack_America]

117. Yeah, a bit different than saying it once...twice...three times...

...four...five... What are we up to anyway?

And then being pointedly asked if you regret the statement and saying, emphatically, "no".

[Ravy]

122. That is Ferraro vs Powers.

Not the campaign response vs the campaign response.

It makes a nice debate topic. But not in an atmosphere where we can quote "facts" from the media when the media is twisting them.

[Ravy]

120. An Ferraro resigned the day after her comment was widely known.

But Olberman says it was immediate vs 15 days.

I think it is fair to discuss the differences in the comments. I think Ferraro's was far more divisive, I think Hillary should have laughed and said she had been called worse than "Monster" before...

I think it is fair to ask why Obama waited to be indignant about Ferraro's comments until people were actually in the voting booths.

I do not think it was accurate, nor fair, to indicate that Obama took care of the problem immediately, and Clinton took 15 days.

[karmicglee]

113. Telling the truth is not a requirement these days

Disregard for the truth has been astounding lately.

[Ravy]

118. Yes, just take a look at this thread....

It tells me that we would willingly accept a false attack, as long as it favors our candidate.

We are just different flavors of the same ice cream we decried in 2004.

[karmicglee]

125. Prediction: The Daily Howler will take care of Olbermann tomorrow

Excellent media-criticism website. It spots the most subtle lies.

www.dailyhowler.com

[berni_mccoy]

119. Making it up as you go along, just like Hillary's campaign and policy plan.

[Ravy]

121. Making up what? I posted Samantha's own comments and a

contemporary news story from the Huffington Post to date her resignation.

What, exactly, have I made up?????

[berni_mccoy]

124. You said Keith told a lie. He did not. Powers resigned the day after the article was published.

[Ravy]

127. And Ferraro resigned 5 days after hers was published. 1day vs 5, not immediate vs 15 days.

If that is the standard you want to use.

He said he was using the standard of days said to resigned, though. Either way, it was a lie.

[McCamy Taylor]

123. KO did use a bogus list of "charges" --as I knew he would. Just like the people

he makes fun of on Worst Person in the World.


The "charges" have mostly been debunked. Media Matters debunked the Drudge charge about the 60 Minutes interview that the rest of the MSM exploited because it allowed them talk about their two favorite subjects---how Obama is a Muslim and Hillary is a Bitch. There were no racial overtones to the 3 AM ad. That was a fear ad pure and simple. She could have run that against any young person 15 years her junior. As for Clinton in South Carolina---Jesse Jackson himself said not to go there, where KO went tonight.

http://www.essence.com/essence/lifestyle/voices/0,16109...

Essence.com: Did you hear President Clinton’s comment yesterday in Columbia, South Carolina, after someone asked about it taking two Clintons to beat Obama, and he answered, “Jesse Jackson won South Carolina in ’84 and ‘88. Jackson ran a good campaign. And Obama ran a good campaign here.” Many people are taking that as President Clinton’s attempt to tie Obama to you or to inject race back into the discussion.

J.J: We are tied together. Barack is the result of all the struggles, from Selma to South Carolina. They are factors in his ascendancy, which is accurate. Again, I think it’s some more gotcha politics. I did win in ’84 and ’88, and because we ran in ’84, the Democrats regained the Senate in ’86. I just think that we’ve got to be very sensitive to what I call gotcha politics and not take the attention away from student loans? The reason I keep going back to that is, kids are going to college now graduating with these $60,000 debts. You know?

Maybe KO should take a break and let Jesse Jackson run his show for a while. I like Jackson. He has a cool head, and he has always known what is good for the Democratic Party.

This was the first time that I saw KO color and distort the facts to try to prove his conclusion. It was sad, in a way. It made him sound like O'Reilly.

I was hoping he would come out and say something like "Everybody stop fighting and focus on the common enemy. If we do not fight together, we will all die together." He had a great moment to do that for the Democratic Party. And he blew it.

Now the Hillary people are going to look at the "charges" and say "Those are all bullshit. KO is so biased!"

"And the Obama people will say, yeah! KO is on our side!"

And no one will be watching Bush dismantle the Constitution. Oh joy! Everyone here does realize that the Bush administration has used the distraction of this election to do their dirty work for the last several months, right? They could invade Iran and no one in DU would care.

Edit: and he sold his soul for nothing. He could have waited for this.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5050959&mesg_id=5050959

[StevieM]

129. Olberman wakes up lying, he goes to bed lying (eom)

x

[AGirl]

130. k and r

[bridgit]

132. Not Saint KO!!

[cooolandrew]

142. Her comment didnt hit the press till 3 days after, it was instant in the Ferraro case...

Barack wasn't awaretill it wasin American media and acted instantly. It first aired abroa . Ms power was in scotland.

[Ravy]

144. Ferraro's comments were not widely known until a few days ago.

I agree that Obama acted pretty much immediately after it was widely known. The implication that Clinton waited 15 days after it was widely known is wrong. Both articles were printed on Mar 7, I believe. (the Mar 6th and Mar 7th discrepancies can be explained by time zone differences in the US and Scotland.

My point is that if you are going to judge the reaction by the "days uttered" to "days resigned" for one, you should use it for both.

"Days known" to "Days resigned" is really a more accurate measure of the campaign's response, but he chose to use the most damaging statistic for the Clinton camp and compared it to the most favorable statistic for the Obama camp as though they were measuring the same campaign response time. That is what I objected to.

We have plenty to disagree on in this primary, but having the media distort events to add more fuel to the fire is not something I will sit silently about.

[SeaLyons]

145. KO is

a ratings whore and a dirt bag. It's hard for me to understand how anyone on this board could give kudo's to a media whore that uses his platform to scold one of our candidates. He can STFU. I will never watch him again. He's an arrogant buffoon.

I just hope and pray that after all the black eyes and bloodied faces that have been dished out to our candidates, both on this board and in the media, one of them has enough time to recuperate and win back the White House.

[Political Heretic]

146. You're wrong.

The day the story broke, she resigned.

[Ravy]

147. And Ferraro??? Was it 15 days until it was widely known until she resigned???

It was KO that used the measurment of "days said" to "days resigned" to make Clinton's response look more aggregious than it actually was. He should have used the same standard for measuring Obama's response time, when comparing them directly side-by-side.

I think "immediate" for Obama and 2 days for Clinton would have been fair, but he chose to mix the standards to divide us further.