Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Keith Olbermann - nobody does it better!
I saw this last night and I nearly had an asthma attack I was laughing so hard. To use a baseball metaphor (something of which I know he would approve), he hit this one clear out of the park and out on Yawkey Way (yes, I am a Sox fan!!)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9xI44haWkI
Enjoy!
Advertisement
Comments (64)
Thanks for pointing that out.
May 6, 2008 8:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
A BEAN SHOT OUT MY NOSE!
When Olberbama goes nutty of pantsuit it makes me want to down my phlegm cup!
Thanks Carol Soprano, now send back my disguise.
Sincerely
K. Rove
May 6, 2008 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
When I saw this last night, I was blown away because Olbermann used the actual words of the Clinton campaign. His style of broadcasting: rapid speech, rapid text overlays, and direct quotes make his rants so enjoyable. I recall several years ago he showed how all the increasing changes in the terrorist alert system (yellow to orange to red) occurred just after bad Bush hair days, in the same manner.
That was the first time I heard a traditional media person belittle Bush so directly.
His summary at the end could have been delivered only by a sports announcer describing a touchdown near home plate on home ice.
May 6, 2008 9:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yep, he is amazing! He really hit his stride with this one, though - just the sheer volume of idiotic remarks from her campaign and his rapid delivery made it all the more funny (and sad at the same time).
May 6, 2008 9:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
He used to do Sportcenter. Maybe that's where it comes from.
May 7, 2008 1:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Priceless.
May 6, 2008 9:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's so impressive how Hillary keeps winning the big states and the swing states despite very well financed distortions from the obama campaign and all the big media outlets so unfair in their treatment of her. Obama gets a pass on all of the dirty tactics they have employed...somehow he still gets treated like he is running like he talks (and talks and talks) about "new politics" and all that nonsense. Olberman and Mathews have basically been an instrument of the Obama campaign. Why can't he win anything but smaller republican states and mostly caucus states?
May 6, 2008 9:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Newish poster here, but I hope you are being facetious. Only Caucuses? Only small republican states? So Virginia is a small republican state? How about Wisconsin? From the shifting rationale, I had forgotten along the way that only the states that Hillary won are important, in her and her supporters minds. If I am not mistaken, Obama has won more caucuses and primaries then she has. That's why he has that delegate lead and all....
May 6, 2008 10:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Publius is an HRC talkingpoint HillShill who never has any facts, sources or links to back up any of his propaganda. So in answer to your question, yes, he's a comedian, whether he intends to be or not.
May 6, 2008 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually if you look at my posts, I refrain from ad hominem comments and while I express opinion, I tend to base my comments and analytically sound interpretation of the facts.
I am a Hillary supporter, but "hillshill" is a bit comical considering all you guys do is seem to enjoy your echo chamber.
That said, I stand by my comment. Imagine a scenario where the Democratic nominee loses CA, FL, MI, NY, NJ, OH, PA, MA, AZ...
Obama had no reason to lose PA except that working people and voters there spent 6 weeks examining him and he couldn't connect. Hillary is liked among these constituents because she proposes actual policies that affect peoples' lives. A vague notion of change is hogwash to the wage earner trying to pay the bills and worrying about health care.
One thing no one mentions about the gas tax is that it is a highly regressive tax. If it saves $70 for the average consumer, that means a lot more to a lower income person that it does to Obama's base.
I want a real democrat. One that doesn't pretend that the republicans will give it up once they take office.
May 6, 2008 10:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
You, sir, are an idiot. Anyone who uses the argument that Obama won't win California or New York (or any other "blue" state) in the general election because he didn't win them in the primaries has no grasp whatsoever on reality. It is a democratic primary and one of the two democrats is going to win in any given primary or caucus. That does NOT mean that those democrats who voted for one candidate or the other won't vote for the Democrat in the general. God, I don't understand why this is so difficult for people like you to understand. It is a Clinton campaign meme and it is just as disingenuous and intellectually dishonest as they come.
May 6, 2008 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
You, ma'am don't really make our "inspirational" candidate look good. What a high minded discussion...calling people idiots.
Actually, the idiotic thing is that I never said he couldn't win CA in the general. What I said is how odd to have a democratic candidate that was unable to win any of those states in their nomination. I do think it says something about the candidate's electability.
An idependent analysis of the gas tax said it would save consumers $70 over the summer. As a percentage of income, that amount represents more for low income people than it does for high income people. Is it my favorite policy proposal? No, but it does reflect a material action in the short term about this situation.
Obama voted for the gas tax in IL 3 times, by the way.
May 6, 2008 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
You stated Obama voted for the gas tax holiday as a state senator, IF you listened to him the states this is how he knows the people that needed the break did NOT receive it.
May 6, 2008 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Imagine a election where a Dem loses Wisconsin, Minnesota, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Vermont, Hawaii, Washington, and Maryland. Using your same logic, Hillary also cannot win the election because she can't win these traditional solid Blue States . . . . See how stupid the "Obama won't win California" theory is?
May 6, 2008 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
And Oregon. If Hillary is the nominee, McCain takes both Washington and Oregon. Pretty pathetic. With Obama, both go Dem by 10-15.
May 7, 2008 3:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
And on the gas tax . . . why do you think every economists asked thinks it is stupid? I think Obama put it best, since they TRIED IT IN ILLINOIS AND IT DIDN'T WORK: the retailers don't drop the price 18 cents a gallon; they just keep it for THEIR profit. After all: you were already buying at $3.50 a gallon; your are not NOT going to buy at $3.50 per gallon just because that 18 cents is now going into the dealers pocket instead of George Bush's highway kitty.
May 6, 2008 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some of you like to think you're so smart because you say the gas tax holiday is a gimmick. There is a little more to it than that.
The Dept of Energy estimates that consumers would save $70 from this holiday. This is not a lot, but it is something and it is more for those of lower incomes. (i.e., $70 is more of my income if I make $40k/year than if I make $200k/per year).
Tax incidence does not mean that changing who remits the tax payment has NO impact. It means the party with the least elasticity will bear more of the tax regardless of how it's levied, but again--it doesn't mean that the mechanism is irrelevant.
Obama voted 3x for a gas tax when the ppg was
May 6, 2008 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
But people driving HUMMERS to their mansions would get the relief as well. Why pull that out of the system to save people pennies a day? $70 in 3 months is not much even if you are poor. It would do more harm than good, and besides:
HILLARY CAN'T EVEN MAKE IT HAPPEN IN THE FIRST PLACE! SHE CAN'T WIN ENOUGH VOTES TO MAKE IT COUNT, AND IF SHE DID, GW BUSH WOULD VETO THE WINDFALL PROFIT TAXES AND THEN WHERE WOULD WE BE?
The truth is, this is emblematic of what would happen if Hillary, through her corrupt methodology actually stole the nomination and by some miracle beat McCain -- say he had a stroke on November 1 for example. She would never be able to get anything accomplished because of her nasty attitude that ticks people off! Coalition? She doesn't know the meaning of the word.
This Gas-Tax holiday is a symptom. Hillary is the disease.
May 6, 2008 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
But the Department of Energy used economists to produce that figure, so it doesn't count.
May 6, 2008 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
So how do you account for the estimated 300,000 jobs lost in America because of the gas-tax? Clinton doesn't want to put the money back into the road infrastucutre maintainence, she wants to invest that money in green technology. A laudable goal to be sure, but not on the backs of 300,000 Americans.
If this had any chance of being passed and not vetoed, I'm sure you would be one of the people screaming about the massive increase in the unempolyment rate over the summer and blame it on the current administration. But your candidate would have been responsible (shared with McCain) and they will be to blame. And neither of them would acknowledge that fact.
Finally, the gas-tax is not a bad tax. It is you paying for the privledge of driving on well-maintained roads. Where current gas prices are at (and they will never get lower people) $0.18/gallon/$3.50/gallon=.051. A 5% tax so you can drive on good roads and help keep Americans with a job. That's less than sales tax in alot of states. I don't hear you or anyone else bitching about sales tax (I probably will after this post).
Either defend every aspect of your candidates proposal, or don't defend it at all. Man, I'm really sick of this.
May 6, 2008 7:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great stuff ty.
Also, nice to know the "better than the experts" attitude of HRC is contagious with her supporters. Sounds like a certain white house I know. If you big brain HRC supporters could just go talk some sense into the silly little nobel prize winning economists' pea sized heads, we could then elect her queen for life, all go home and sleep securely. The bit about dirty tactics is just amazing, though- how do you type with a straight face?
May 6, 2008 8:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's pretty specific... care to provide a URL?
I'd like to take a look.
May 6, 2008 9:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is a flaw with your logic. While it is true that Hillary won several large "Blue" states, it is also true that primaries and the General Election are not the same thing. Does anyone seriously believe that Obama would not win CA, NY, NJ etc. in the General Election? Puh-leez. You might have a better arguement that Clinton is stronger in Florida in a hypothetical general election, but Obama can counter that by putting VA, CO and other states into play.
The truth is that Clinton and Obama have different strengths. On balance, however, the wave of enthusiastic new voters (who, by the way are voting in record numbers and thus blowing the arguement that they are unreliable out of the water...at least for this election) along with Obama's appeal to independents, his massive grassroots fundraising and organization ability, make him a very formidible General Election candidate.
May 6, 2008 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
No need to IMAGINE it! It's happening! Get used to it!
May 6, 2008 6:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
She is winning closed primary states and traditionally democratic states. She is also winning states that Obama will win since the general is an open election.
Of all the various talking points, this is the one that makes the least amount of historical sense given voting trends from the past with regards to primary versus general results.
Barack is winning open primary states by margins of 20 and 30 percent - 50 percent in Alaska! He is close in every contest. Clinton has managed small to medium-sized victories despite a huge lead going into the primaries.
Barack has come from no where to win by the metrics laid out before the contest began. No matter how you wish it were different, the rules are the rules. By those standards, Barack has run a flawless campaign.
There was very little chance he could overtake Hillary in the democratic bellwether states where old school dems have well-entrenched political machines. Barack's team designed a strategy that would win all those states Hillary ignored and keep himself close everywhere else.
Barack is playing chess while Hillary plays checkers.
May 6, 2008 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Georgia is NOT a "big state" but Massachusetts is? Virginia is not a "big state" but New Jersey IS? You "won" Michigan with non opposition, but lose Minnesota with opposition . . . and you think Michigan counts and Minnesota doesn't? With logic like that, no wonder you guys are losing!
May 6, 2008 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Red Sox Suck!
May 6, 2008 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Keith Rocks!
May 6, 2008 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
He might...but the Red Sox....still suck!
May 6, 2008 10:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Whatever ... I gonna bet that you're a Yankee fan, huh?
May 6, 2008 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Go Sox! (The 34 in my screen name stands for David Ortiz...) :)
May 6, 2008 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nice!!!!!! ;)
May 6, 2008 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
"all the big media outlets so unfair in their treatment of her"
She is proving that she cannot promote her message effectively. What better guage of that than the media's position? She's using old techniques that would have worked in the past and you/she are too stupid to see that Obama has changed the dynamic of modern campaigning. He is ruling the message, he is capturing the Mo. She can't adapt. She is irrelevant. She is losing. It happens, get used to it. With all the advantages she has at her disposal she still manages to fuck it up. Amazing.
waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahh!
May 6, 2008 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, check where I live....Indians Baby!
Ok, we choked. But, we were and still are the better team.
And, calling me a Yankees fan is hitting a little below the belt.
May 6, 2008 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
LOL - sorry about that! Wow, something we can agree on?? I totally agree - that is probably one of the worst insults that you could hurl at someone, isn't it? As a born-and-bred New Yorker I've always had an intense dislike of the Yankees (started off as a Mets fan until I married my hubby who's from Boston).
We'll see what happens this year, shall we? All of the "pundits" have predicted another Red Sox World Series victory (which would be very, very sweet!), but I'm not sure about their predictions (their pitching has been less than stellar this year). ;)
May 6, 2008 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Manny, will always be an Indian at heart. And a Clevelander, though he is from NYC.
Cubbies? .....I can't even laugh at them. Been 60 years for us.
May 6, 2008 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Manny has a hard enough time knowing where he is in the present. Let alone six years ago. And this is coming from someone who loves the guy.
May 6, 2008 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not true. Manny love C-town. Just check his stats. I'd say he hits better here than fenway.
May 6, 2008 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, but Manny knows exactly where he is when he steps up to the plate and that's all I care about LOL!
May 6, 2008 6:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah....who traded away Babe Ruth! :)
May 6, 2008 6:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, that's so 20th century of you! That curse has been lifted big time - I think it settled over Yankee Stadium now (especially now that they're tearing it down)!
May 7, 2008 7:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
You were probably a Mets fan in 1986, Red Sox in 2004 and 2007, let me guess, you like the Patriots too, right?
I'm shocked that you are marching along behind Obama...
May 6, 2008 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are quite the wit, aren't you? For your information, I've been a Mets fan since I could talk and I remember watching the '69 World Series in my classroom (I was born and raised in Flushing so the nuns pulled the TV's into the classrooms during day games!) I've been a diehard Mets fan my entire life (I'm 49, by the way), and I became a rabid Red Sox fan as well when I married my husband, who's from Boston. No, sorry, I am an extraordinarily loyal person and I am not a fair weather fan. Sorry to disappoint you.
May 6, 2008 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does have a point about Red Sox Nation......
May 6, 2008 6:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
And, no, I'm not a Pats fan - I am a Giants fan through and through! Woohoo!!! ;)
May 6, 2008 6:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Giants and Red Sox? Carol.....
May 6, 2008 6:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Louisville1975: Can you talk some sense into CC Sabathia for me? He's crushing my Fantasy team... :(
May 6, 2008 8:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Olbermann is the BEST...and so are my Cubbies.
May 6, 2008 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Funny, yes, but so sad that every thing he says here is true.
May 6, 2008 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Heard a young fella recently, after watching his dad stumble on a memory, describe it as "A McCain moment."
Not a senior moment, but "a McCain moment"
"McCain moment" as a coined-phrase is very versatile, could be used in response to a temper tantrum, a flip-flop, or an awkward lie.
Or a dumb statement like "100 years."
The vernacular of street politics and it's ongoing evolution never ceases to amuse me.
May 6, 2008 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
To: Wade Hussein Blazingame34
Is the "Blazingame" also a baseball reference? If so, I know who it is.
May 6, 2008 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Elizabeth2: Good eye! I'm also a lawyer that sues dogs:
VIDEO - http://thetravisty.com/Saturday_Night_Live/wmv/Wade_Blasingame_-_Dog_Lawyer.htm
TRANSCRIPT - http://snltranscripts.jt.org/00/00gblasingame.phtml
May 6, 2008 8:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hah! Actually, I was thinking of Don Blasingame (started with Cardinals in 1955)whose nickname was "The Blazer"
May 6, 2008 9:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Olbermann Rocks!
May 6, 2008 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Carol You are a woman after my own heart. But one correction. Its Lansdowne street. You knock one out of the park and on to Lansdown street. If you knock one on to Yawkey way it is a foul ball.
May 6, 2008 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whichever, knock the stupid CITGO sign down.
May 6, 2008 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are absolutely correct - that was a real "duh" statement and my husband would have my head if he read my original post LOL!!! ;)
May 6, 2008 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I laughed so hard when I saw this I fell out the bed. I've learned not to eat nor drink while Keith is on, he will make you choke if you are so careless to do so.
May 6, 2008 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bed? NavyDad was with you?
May 6, 2008 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ya don't think he might have a vanity issue?
May 6, 2008 6:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
who?
May 6, 2008 6:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, Carol, for introducing me to Keith Olbermann. I live overseas, and I did not know.
Great stuff.
May 6, 2008 10:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
GO SOX! Louisville,
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/09/22/boston_official_wants_citgo_sign_removed?mode=PF
It's already been proposed, thanks to our good friend Hugo Chavez.
And for that matter, go C's.
May 7, 2008 1:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
am I correct in assuming that you found videocafeblog@youtube the same way I did - they're always the 1st to have 'Real Time with Bill Maher' up?
May 7, 2008 4:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment