The superdelegates need to be leaders, and end this. She's willing to go where even Nixon wouldn't.

Reup to the youtubes plz? I can't get the player to play

/also, in before people mock me with fail pics

bronyaur1: The superdelegates need to be leaders, and end this.

It's too bad this happened on the Friday afternoon before Memorial Day weekend. But I would really like to see a flood of super-delegates next week declare for Obama and put an end to this.

Olbermann v. Hillary? It's like when I watch Duke play UNC. I hope somehow both lose.

Here's a link to the text:

Link (pops)

oh god. this shiat again?

I'd handle her ass.

What? Nobody else thinks power is sexy?

my darned DVR cut off the last minute I think. He was really working up a head 'o steam when it did, though.

/comcast is clearly part of the conspiracy.

submitter: Hillary Clinton gets her ass handed to her by Keith Olbermann. Again.

And, man, are his arms tired.

listening to it now. Man he rips into her almost as harshly as she deserves.

Good.

Dayum. Olberman is pissed.

And rightly so.

King Something: Reup to the youtubes plz? I can't get the player to play

/also, in before people mock me with fail pics

Part 1 (^)

Part 2 (^)

There is no end to this until August in Denver unless Hillary caves. As I understand it, that's the rules..right?

In before the normal trolls? Good.

1. I shall equate Olbermann to O'reilly, despite the fact that the article/video in no way included O'reilly.
2. I shall complain about a liberal bias that Olbermann represents, despite the fact that this is once again about a conflict between two liberals.
3. I shall pretend that since he might possibly exhibit some traits of a douchebag that there is absolutely nothing he could possibly say that could have even a shred of value, anywhere, ever.

Did I miss anything?

GaryPDX: There is no end to this until August in Denver unless Hillary caves. As I understand it, that's the rules..right?

Pretty much. It's entirely possible she won't give in before then, even if Obama gets the 2025 delegates. She might just appeal decisions about Florida and Michigan all the way to the convention.

c7hu1hu fh746n: Did I miss anything?

i think a mention of the liberal media thrown in for good measure might be helpful.

She's not stupid..and if she was that stupid even someone with a brain stem could take her comments as a 'warning'. Given her past and the 'vast conspiracy' bringing up the specter of assination is a bad, bad thing. Very clumsy, no matter what the motives.

c7hu1hu fh746n: Did I miss anything?

You could take it to hillaryis44 levels and claim Obama paid off Olbermann and that he is sexist.

Hopefully the dems can oust her after these comments.

Not only has she blown any chance of the nomination, but she can kiss the VP spot goodbye.

Wow. That was some angry white dudery right there.

Keith Olbermann didn't hand Hillary her ass. That was self-inflicted.

KO is the Ric Romero of punditry.

JPJ007: You could take it to hillaryis44 levels

Speaking of which...

# Southern Born Says:
May 23rd, 2008 at 7:09 pm

Big no no...can't say assination or death watch if you are a BO opponent. As a matter of fact you probably could not even say you went to White Castle and ordered a belly bomber.

Other than Hillary saying, "I quit because I just realized that Obama is the ONE...all power to Obama...praise Obama." What else is left? Everything including the lovely Michelle is off limits or can be twisted.

DISGUSTING!

# texan4hillary Says:
May 23rd, 2008 at 7:42 pm

75pt of supers are men i read today. the male set of this party is lynching hillary. seems to me to its high time for real mass protests in dc. oh wait-hillary supporters are only half human and dont get any attn from their own party or msm. the party will know coem nov though

Paula Says:
May 23rd, 2008 at 8:47 pm

Bobby Kennedy Jr. backed her on this? Good!

More...

# ABM90 Says:
May 23rd, 2008 at 9:31 pm

Just caught that Psycopath Doberman on MSNBC.He is truly MAD.He is well paid for his ranting and raving against Hillary.I ab certain this will have some applause from CNN as well.This is journalism as it has never been seen before in our history and directed at the best candidate to ever to run for the Presidency.Shame on MSNBC and CNN.A new low in reporting on candidates has been reached.Someone must put a stop to this for the sake of our country and its future office seekers.This is one dangerous piece of human garbage and should be investigated.There has to be a way to stop Doberman and his ilk.Let us now see if Obama will condemn this insidious attack on such a amazing woman and our best hope for the only candidate to get our country back from the good old boys and the spineless members of every type of media that is attempting to subvert the outcome of our most popular woman and a true NATIONAL TREASURE.

By ABM90 Take me on Doberman.I am 90 and would love to level the playing field with your wretched body.

She's blowing any possibility of a woman ever becoming President during my lifetime.

/kicks off my shoes
//heads back to kitchen

And tonight's special comment from CtrlAltDelete.. I do not like 'professional' political commentators. They are no more qualified to form opinions about politics than any of us, really. Olbermann, Limbaugh, Hannity, any of them.

Even though I may agree with his position tonight- he articulated it well enough; I have to ask as he lists all the things 'we' have forgiven her for this year, culminating in the 'unforgivable' comment of today: who is this 'we' and why have they forgiven her for such things?

Does he mean The Media with a capital 'M'? Is he so arrogant to think that he can speak for all of media when editorial boards across the country have questioned her tactics, gaffs, errors, and lies throughout this campaign?

Does he mean MSNBC, who did cover her problems but diluted their measure by passing them through layer upon layer of talking heads and 'experts'?

Does he mean the public? The Democratic party? For whom does he speak?

If he read these threads, which he probably doesn't, I would ask which is the more unforgivable offense, sir: a questionable choice of words from an otherwise incompetent candidate- or one who masquerades as a journalist and allows a candidate folly after folly for the sake of stringing together ridiculously pretentious special comments taking no position at all until it is too late and the damage has been done; taking attention away from her shallow campaign in an effort to sound more intelligent yourself in some vain attempt to invoke Murrow-- an easy undertaking in a state of television news is to contrast the vernacular, condescending tone of the likes of Hannity and O'Reilly with someone who owns a thesaurus and a handy imitation of CBS in the 50's.

So how dare you, sir.

You have forgiven the candidate, Senator Clinton, for far too many things. You have placed yourself in a position of influence and neglected its ability to question and inspire change.

Not "we."

If you want to be a journalist, start acting like one.

Good night, and good luck.

/best I could do in five minutes
//I can do Dennis Miller better anyway

Of course she has thought about how much easier it would be if Obama happened to die before the convention.
Is it such a stretch to think that as her chances slip away more and more every day that she has become consumed by the though of wishing he would die?

CtrlAltDelete: And tonight's special comment from CtrlAltDelete.. I do not like 'professional' political commentators. They are no more qualified to form opinions about politics than any of us, really. Olbermann, Limbaugh, Hannity, any of them.

Even though I may agree with his position tonight- he articulated it well enough; I have to ask as he lists all the things 'we' have forgiven her for this year, culminating in the 'unforgivable' comment of today: who is this 'we' and why have they forgiven her for such things?

Does he mean The Media with a capital 'M'? Is he so arrogant to think that he can speak for all of media when editorial boards across the country have questioned her tactics, gaffs, errors, and lies throughout this campaign?

Does he mean MSNBC, who did cover her problems but diluted their measure by passing them through layer upon layer of talking heads and 'experts'?

Does he mean the public? The Democratic party? For whom does he speak?

If he read these threads, which he probably doesn't, I would ask which is the more unforgivable offense, sir: a questionable choice of words from an otherwise incompetent candidate- or one who masquerades as a journalist and allows a candidate folly after folly for the sake of stringing together ridiculously pretentious special comments taking no position at all until it is too late and the damage has been done; taking attention away from her shallow campaign in an effort to sound more intelligent yourself in some vain attempt to invoke Murrow-- an easy undertaking in a state of television news is to contrast the vernacular, condescending tone of the likes of Hannity and O'Reilly with someone who owns a thesaurus and a handy imitation of CBS in the 50's.

So how dare you, sir.

You have forgiven the candidate, Senator Clinton, for far too many things. You have placed yourself in a position of influence and neglected its ability to question and inspire change.

Not "we."

If you want to be a journalist, start acting like one.

Good night, and good luck.

/best I could do in five minutes
//I can do Dennis Miller better anyway


I think it was the royal "We" that he was referring to.

CtrlAltDelete: who is this 'we' and why have they forgiven her for such things?

I think he meant "we, the people", a majority of the voting public, because despite all the things that she has said and done that she should have been condemned for, enough people, the majority of "we, the people", have let them slide and let her stay in this race.

Psychotropic: Of course she has thought about how much easier it would be if Obama happened to die before the convention.
Is it such a stretch to think that as her chances slip away more and more every day that she has become consumed by the though of wishing he would die?

This is the root of the problem. She let something slip that she has thought about. She would never say such a thing out loud, but today she did.

Her whole campaign strategy for the last few weeks has been to stay in and attack Obama relentlessly hoping he either makes a huge mistake (like she just did) or that something comes to light that kills his chances.

And her statement afterward (it cannot be called an apology) shows she either did not grasp what she said or that she refused to acknowledge the impact it had. Either way she's farked.

Who cares what a former SportsCenter anchor says?

Rainbowtyedye: CtrlAltDelete: who is this 'we' and why have they forgiven her for such things?

I think he meant "we, the people", a majority of the voting public, because despite all the things that she has said and done that she should have been condemned for, enough people, the majority of "we, the people", have let them slide and let her stay in this race.

Hey you. This is a political thread that will soon be on the main page. Stop making sense. We don't take kindly to your types round here. Just wait until the trolls get here. You'll get yours, by god. Mark my words.

/I keed.
// But the trolls will be here soon.

CravenMorehead: Psychotropic: Of course she has thought about how much easier it would be if Obama happened to die before the convention.
Is it such a stretch to think that as her chances slip away more and more every day that she has become consumed by the though of wishing he would die?

This is the root of the problem. She let something slip that she has thought about. She would never say such a thing out loud, but today she did.

Her whole campaign strategy for the last few weeks has been to stay in and attack Obama relentlessly hoping he either makes a huge mistake (like she just did) or that something comes to light that kills his chances.

And her statement afterward (it cannot be called an apology) shows she either did not grasp what she said or that she refused to acknowledge the impact it had. Either way she's farked.

That was definitely not an apology. It was a half-assed "take-back" of a horrible statement.

jetzzfan: Who cares what a former SportsCenter anchor says?

You, because you're posting about it?

ElQue: I think it was the royal "We" that he was referring to.

All the more patronizing.

Rainbowtyedye: I think he meant "we, the people", a majority of the voting public, because despite all the things that she has said and done that she should have been condemned for, enough people, the majority of "we, the people", have let them slide and let her stay in this race.

Then his choice of words is condescending; to include himself in a population of the baffled- to say: I am among you. We must not put up with this. How could we have known. I was with you up until this point, but now I lead the charge forward against her.

He is not the ultimate voice of dissent.

ElQue: That was definitely not an apology. It was a half-assed "take-back" of a horrible statement.

It wasn't even a take-back. It was just a "I said what I said, sorry if you didn't like it".

Obdicut: jetzzfan: Who cares what a former SportsCenter anchor says?

You, because you're posting about it?

I just "don't get" Olbermann's popularity, nor do I get O'Reilly's or Hannity's et cetera.

I realize that the Fark populace leans left, but I don't know why Olbermann is deified, much the same way Obama is.

CtrlAltDelete: ElQue: I think it was the royal "We" that he was referring to.

All the more patronizing.


Indeed. I'm not defending Olbermann here. I agree with his points more often than not, but he's awfully self-righteous and a bit of a smug prick.

CravenMorehead: ElQue: That was definitely not an apology. It was a half-assed "take-back" of a horrible statement.

It wasn't even a take-back. It was just a "I said what I said, sorry if you didn't like it".

To the Obama camp, yes. Her "apology" seemed like damage control to the Kennedy clan. Some of whom actually support her, for some unknown reason.

ElQue: Indeed. I'm not defending Olbermann here. I agree with his points more often than not, but he's awfully self-righteous and a bit of a smug prick.

seconded

ElQue: I think it was the royal "We" that he was referring to.

You know, the editorial...

Megain: ElQue: Indeed. I'm not defending Olbermann here. I agree with his points more often than not, but he's awfully self-righteous and a bit of a smug prick.

seconded

Yeah, but he IS entertaining when he gets a full head of steam.

ImOscar: You know, the editorial...

YOU F*CKED IT UP, WALTER!!

Atillathepun: Megain: ElQue: Indeed. I'm not defending Olbermann here. I agree with his points more often than not, but he's awfully self-righteous and a bit of a smug prick.

seconded

Yeah, but he IS entertaining when he gets a full head of steam.

Agreed. His rant against Bush a week or two ago was epic.

CtrlAltDelete: //I can do Dennis Miller better anyway

Anybody can with a few beers. And he's actually a more natural sportscaster than Olbermann, at least more sports news people tend to imitate him more...;)

But seriously, while it might have been fun to dog on Clinton for her insincerity and lust for power, the question of "what the hell are you still doing in the election" hasn't been too pressing until recently. The cannonfodder simply wasn't there.

What's funny to me is, I really have to wonder if she'll be able to maintain her senate seat when she comes up for reelection.

whidbey: Anybody can with a few beers. And he's actually a more natural sportscaster than Olbermann, at least more sports news people tend to imitate him more...;)

I'll try to find the thread, but I usually get it dead on. :)

But seriously, while it might have been fun to dog on Clinton for her insincerity and lust for power, the question of "what the hell are you still doing in the election" hasn't been too pressing until recently. The cannonfodder simply wasn't there.

I submit that there was more than enough 'cannonfodder', and it was the stuff of substance- of direct lies; of illicit tactics, questions of her competency- rather than something as irrelevant as misstatements or minor gaffs.

whidbey: CtrlAltDelete: //I can do Dennis Miller better anyway

Anybody can with a few beers. And he's actually a more natural sportscaster than Olbermann, at least more sports news people tend to imitate him more...;)

But seriously, while it might have been fun to dog on Clinton for her insincerity and lust for power, the question of "what the hell are you still doing in the election" hasn't been too pressing until recently. The cannonfodder simply wasn't there.

Dennis Miller failed as a sportscaster because his similes/metaphors were too erudite for the average Monday Night Footbal viewer. I find some sort of sick parallel with the Obama campaign here. Maybe that's just me.

DarthBrooks: Keith Olbermann didn't hand Hillary her ass. That was self-inflicted.

KO is the Ric Romero of punditry.

I quite literally laughed out loud at your post. You really are cute.