While The Political Universe is Focusing on Hillary’s Implosion Last Night, I Caught a few Minutes of Herr Olbermann’s Mash of a Show
Obviously Olbermann knew his msnbc was going to get stepped on by the msnbc Demo debate that was to follow him. But, he did a segment on Giuliani with Arianna as his guest that was …. well, vacuous and vapid would be kind descriptions of their exchange.
First, there was head-scratcher:
OLBERMANN: A year before the election and Rudy Giuliani is already publicly contending the Democrats are willing to invite Osama bin Laden to the White House to negotiate. Sure they are, buster.
….
OLBERMANN: And having lambasted his Democratic counterparts on Iraq, Giuliani proceeded to attack them for proposing diplomacy with Iran.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GIULIANI: It‘s not like this happy, romantic world in which, you know, we‘ll negotiate with this one and we‘ll negotiate with that one and there will be no pre-conditions and we‘ll invite Ahmadinejad to the White House and we‘ll invite [ASSAD][see Update] to the White House. I mean, Hillary and Obama are kind of debating you know whether to invite them to the inauguration or the inaugural ball.
OLBERMANN: Arianna Huffington, founder of huffingtonpost.com, author of “On Becoming Fearless,” Arianna, thanks for your time tonight.
OLBERMANN: Let me first talk to you about technique there. He misrepresents the positions of Clinton and Edwards about Iran and he takes one leap away from engagement, suddenly—it‘s negotiation. And all of a sudden it‘s no longer negotiation, now he‘s leap over to inviting terrorists to the White House. The kind word for this rhetorical advice is hyperbole. The least kind one is Giuliani is lying. How does this continue to happen?
HUFFINGTON: Well, he‘s lying and also every day he reveals more and more of himself. And you can see that he really has the soul of a thug and the disposition of a tyrant. It really proves the famous saying by Jimmy Brazlen (ph) when he said that Giuliani is a small man with the search for a balcony. You can see that every day with what he says, there is no technique that implies some type of rationality. This is pure savageness (ph), pure testosterone again and again. And what is amazing to me, Keith, that there hasn‘t been any uproar. If that was a Democrat saying that they—there would have been demand every for an apology that there would have been an emergency session of Congress and resolution condemning such remarks. Remember, after all John McCain said that Moveon should leave the country, should be thrown out of the country because they called General Petraeus – “General betray us.” And here is Giuliani daring to insult his Democratic opponents by saying that they would invite Osama bin Laden to the White House? That is really something which should not be accepted.
Huh? Are Olbermann and Huffington the only two people in the world who don’t understand the use of hyperbole and ridicule in politics? Didn’t they see the set up where Giuliani made fun of the fact that Clinton/Edwards are being unrealistic in their world view of our enemies? NO ONE in either party would seriously suggest that any GOP candidate would really claim Hillary or Edwards intended to invite OBL to the WH.
HuffPuff does the same thing with McCain’s statement about MoveOn and the Petreaus ad. He’s in a small VFW hall in NH just a day or two after the Ad ran in the NYT, and in a clear pique of anger, he says “Move.On out to be thrown out of this country, my friends.” How an “.Org” and its couple million members can be “thrown out of the country” isn’t something that HuffPuff dwells on when seemingly expressing her genuine concern for the their continued residency.
But it got worse:
OLBERMANN: The Petraeus thing looks like a high T compared to what Giuliani said. But you can see through the haze on this and understand why Giuliani would think aligning himself with Bush about Iran or the so-called “War on Terror would help him in the campaign. But I‘m missing something here when we are at a stage in polling where more Americans say they believe in ghost than believe President Bush is doing a good job about Iraq. What is the upside of trying to marry himself to Bush about Iraq specifically?
HUFFINGTON: You know, Keith, I think that Giuliani has believed his own myth that somehow being tough means being tough with the Iraqis – means being tough everywhere. If as though he‘s writing that S on his chest and has the dust from the twin towers on his head and that‘s the myth is he portraying. And with the small minority of Americans, the Republican base, it‘s working. He‘s kind of channeling Rush Limbaugh, he‘s making the lunatic fringe mainstream. And I am, again, I‘m going to blame the media for not challenging that kind of approach.
OLBERMANN: I‘m doing what I can but apparently I‘m alone out here.
Listen, the “Washington Post” reported something that is of value in this sense that Mr. Giuliani is still working part time at a security consulting firm even though he had promised to leave it in April and that it continued to pay for his security until June. Is he in trouble with Federal Election laws?
HUFFINGTON: Well, he is in trouble with Federal Election laws but probably by the time they work their way through this sort of procedures of the Federal Election laws, who knows when it is going to catch up with him. The question is he should be in trouble with the voters. He should be in trouble, again, with the media because he lied. He said he was going to leave the company. He didn‘t leave the company. And, in fact, he is now trying to say that he forgot or to defend himself in some way when there is really no defense. He thinks he is above the law, above relations, really a law unto himself.
OLBERMANN: Just a quick thought on this. Has it reached a level yet where we should be considering examining whether or not this is compulsive lying that there is something endemic to him? Or this specific purpose driven lies?
HUFFINGTON: But that was driven I don‘t know, it‘s like if you look at what he said about his company. What he said in his latest ad about socialized medicine. And what he‘s saying about Iraq having the potential to have nuclear weapons, all these things, I mean, there is a pattern here which is really disturbing.
OLBERMANN: Arianna Huffington, the founder and editor of Huffington post.com. As always, great thanks you for coming in.
HUFFINGTON: Thank you.
1. Here’s what Giuliani said about leaving the firm:
“Because the firm represents many security interests, some of which might have business before the federal government, Giuliani faced questions about his continuing employment there. He announced in April that he planned to leave the firm to concentrate entirely on the campaign.
“I’m largely out of it, and I’m pretty much going to be out of it at some point pretty soon,” he told reporters on April 4 while campaigning in South Carolina…..
During an interview in June with CNBC’s Larry Kudlow, Giuliani said that he was spending no more than 10 percent of his time doing work for the firm while he was campaigning and that he planned to take a leave of absence.”
“I would have thought during the general election, but it seems to me nowadays, with all these things moving up, probably sometime during the primaries,” Giuliani said about the timing of his leaving. “But right now I’d say I’m 95 percent campaigning, maybe 5 to 10 percent trying to settle up last-minute things.”
Hard to find a “lie” in there.
But, other than this one “issue”, is there anything said by HuffPuff that amounts to a substantive point about Giuliani other than her armchair psychiatry?
When you put these kinds of lame efforts by Dems up against the specter of a very brittle and unlikeable Hillary that we saw last night, the idea of watching him go at her hammer and tong over the course of an hour in a Presidential debate makes me smile.
Update: Just off the presses is a new poll from Pew Research Center showing Hillary beating Rudy handly, 51-43, winning in the south and other unusual places.
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=366
Note, however, that this is a poll of registered voters.
Here is an explanation of why that is important. Consider the issues in this link juxtaposed against the groups among whom Hillary leads.
WLS,
I missed the whole damn debate (I’m not sure how, but I did).
What’s the “implosion” (on Clinton’s part) that you reference?
Leviticus (43095b) — 10/31/2007 @ 1:07 pmYou lost me at Olbermann.
ugh.
Dana (b4a26c) — 10/31/2007 @ 1:17 pmKinda OT but if this is true, could she not lose her citizenship for fraud?
From Wikipedia
The couple divorced in 1997, and in 1998 Michael Huffington disclosed his bisexuality. A 1999 magazine article claimed that Arianna Huffington “entered the marriage… with full knowledge of Michael Huffington’s sexual interests in men”.
Hazy (d671ab) — 10/31/2007 @ 1:21 pmIts all over the blogosphere — she got cornered right near the end when asked by Russert to explain her comment to a NH newspaper editorial board that Spitzer’s plan to give driver’s licenses to illegals “makes a lot of sense” according to Hillary.
RUSSERT: Senator Clinton, Governor of New York Eliot Spitzer has proposed giving driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants. You told the Nashua, New Hampshire, Editorial Board it makes a lot of sense. Why does it make a lot of sense to give an illegal immigrant a driver’s license?
CLINTON: Well, what Governor Spitzer is trying to do is fill the vacuum left by the failure of this administration to bring about comprehensive immigration reform. We know in New York we have several million at any one time who are in New York illegally. They are undocumented workers. They are driving on our roads… what Governor Spitzer is trying to do is to fill the vacuum. I believe we need to get back to comprehensive immigration reform….
Russert then asked “Does anyone think its a bad idea to give driver’s licenses to illegal aliens?” Only Chris Dodd said it was a bad idea. He then said some things critical of Hillary’s answer, and she felt compelled to jump back in, saying this:
CLINTON: Well, I just want to add, I did not say that it should be done, but I certainly recognize why Governor Spitzer is trying to do…
(UNKNOWN): Wait a minute…
CLINTON: And we have failed. We have failed.
DODD: No, no, no. You said—you said yes…
CLINTON: No.
DODD: … you thought it made sense to do it.
CLINTON: No, I didn’t, Chris. But the point is…
If somebody runs into you today who is an undocumented worker… Governor Spitzer has agreed to do is to have three different licenses, one that provides identification for actually going onto airplanes and other kinds of security issues, another which is another ordinary driver’s license, and then a special card that identifies the people who would be on the road, so…
RUSSERT: Senator Clinton, I just want to make sure of what I heard. Do you, the New York senator, Hillary Clinton, support the New York governor’s plan to give illegal immigrants a driver’s license?
You told the New Hampshire paper that it made a lot of sense. Do you support his plan?
CLINTON: You know, Tim, this is where everybody plays “gotcha.” It makes a lot of sense. What is the governor supposed to do? He is dealing with a serious problems. We have failed. And George Bush has failed. Do I think this is the best thing for any governor to do? No. But do I understand the sense of real desperation, trying to get a handle on this? Remember, in New York, we want to know who’s in New York. We want people to come out of the shadows.
But then Edwards and Obama piled on:
EDWARDS: …. I want to add something that Chris Dodd just said a minute ago, because I don’t want it to go unnoticed. Unless I missed something, Senator Clinton said two different things in the course of about two minutes just a few minutes ago.
And I think this is a real issue for the country. I mean, America is looking for a president who will say the same thing, who will be consistent, who will be straight with them. Because what we’ve had for seven years is double-talk from Bush and from Cheney, and I think America deserves us to be straight.
WILLIAMS: Senator Obama, why are you nodding your head?
OBAMA: Well, I was confused on Senator Clinton’s answer. I can’t tell whether she was for it or against it. And I do think that is important. One of the things that we have to do in this country is to be honest about the challenges that we face….
RUSSERT: Are you for it or against it?
OBAMA: I think that it is the right idea …
It was the talk of most of the post-debate spinning because it happened right at the end. You need to watch the video, because she got very shrill and looked very unhappy being boxed in and attacked. It’s a position that is going to cause her great heartburn in Iowa where illegals is a big and growing problem.
WLS (bafbcb) — 10/31/2007 @ 1:22 pmThanks for the recap.
Leviticus (ac4602) — 10/31/2007 @ 1:28 pmWell, this gem from Olbermann is possibly replacing my favorite twisted thinking from him.
After Bush, in answer to a question from David Gregory about the treatment of terrorists, stated that “You cannot believe that we treat prisoners the way that al-Qaeda does”, Olbermann performed a 56 minute “special commentary” (okay, it was about 4 but it seemed like 56) denouncing Bush for having the audacity to tell “us what to think”.
Right, Keith. Bush has the power to prevent us from thinking.
Olbermann’s performance with Zsa Zsa does raise a question: What the hell is the difference between his “special commentaries” and the rest of the little pretend news show he puts on?
SteveMG (127026) — 10/31/2007 @ 2:00 pmA stopped clock is right twice a day, thats 2 more than Olbermann. Where is the list to find out when its ones turn to be his audience?
Gbear (5a473d) — 10/31/2007 @ 3:36 pmRudy’s lies
and
The stupidity of your rantings on Iran
So fucking pathetic.
blah (fb88b3) — 10/31/2007 @ 3:41 pmBlah, yes your links are pathetic. Certainly Ganji’s commentary does not demonstrate the “stupidity” of anyone here, your linking of it however …
As for citing to TPM for proving anything, that’s just sooooo 2002.
SPQR (6c18fd) — 10/31/2007 @ 4:23 pmNever let the facts get in the way of an opinion
blah (fb88b3) — 10/31/2007 @ 5:11 pmThe Democrat Debate in Philly-Another Battle of the Boobs
I caught the last half of the latest Democrat debate last night, and I guess I arrived just in time. Today, most pundits are saying that Hillary Clinton was a dismal flop. It seems that the lady finally got caught talking out of both sides of her mouth for all to see. When asked about her views on New York State giving driver’s licenses to illegal aliens, she first stated she was against it, then defended Governor Elliot Spitzer’s move since George Bush had failed to bring about immigration reform and we need to know who these people are. (Never mind that Bush wanted the immigration bill to pass, but Congress voted it down.)
Hillary’s opponents, principally Chris Dodd, Barack Obama and John Edwards, pounced on her for her sidewinding response. It was the moment they had long been waiting for (the Got’cha moment, which Hillary acknowledged had come). She knew she was in trouble. Of course, anyone who has followed Hillary’s political career knows that pinning her down on a tough question is like catching a greased pig at the county fair. Those who plan to vote for her could probably care less if she was exposed as a phony. I thought it was great how Dodd in particular, nailed her on that one. It seems Dodd is the only one of the candidates who would deny licenses to illegal aliens. Well, Dodd, who is one of Teddy Kennedy’s drinking buddies, certainly should know who should not be behind the wheel of a car.
Other than that, I guess the highlight of the evening was when Dennis Kucinich was outed as one who claims to have seen a UFO. Hello!!!! And this guy is running for president?!!?
After the debate, I watched the MSNBC analysis hosted by Chris Matthews, who proceeded to rip into Hillary and Dennis on the above points. I guess Chris, a Democrat, is supporting someone other than Hillary or Kucinich. (Chris had his chance to editorialize on the war in Iraq when some loon stormed behind him with a banner yelling “Out of Iraq”. As the guy was getting the bum’s rush, Chris, nonplussed, stated that he agreed with the sentiment.)
I also got a kick out of Chris’ interview with Rep Chaka Fattah (D-PA) and some beefy guy who Chris referred to as “The Boss of Philadelphia”. The guy sure looked the role-right out of central casting. He didn’t seem to appreciate the remark, giving me the eery feeling that Vinnie and Sluggo were going to break Matthews’ legs after the interview. Meanwhile, Fattah talked as if he had had a few highballs during the interview.
Matthews also interviewed Bill Richardson (D-NM) and asked him about the Kucinich UFO thing. Of course, Richardson admitted that while he didn’t believe in UFOs, he had to support the UFO Museum in Roswell-sort of a Clintonesque answer.
Kudos to Tim Russert for asking the right questions. Anyway, it doesn’t seem as if Obama and Edwards used the occasion to improve their standing with anyone. Of course, I am biased (being an independent conservative), but to me it was just another “Battle of the Boobs”.
gary fouse
fouse, gary c (d9c115) — 10/31/2007 @ 6:53 pmfousesquawk
blah, Rudy didn’t lie….you can say he quoted numbers from a bad study, and you might have an argument….but, his fact that the numbers are better here for cancer survival than there are true, no matter what study you quote….and a close to 10% better rate of survival is not something to ignore….especially when “socialized medicine” may very well be coming here, and that isn’t good…
Next, please show me where the author of the other article is not a puppet of the Iranian government….his “bona fides” not withstanding, he could have been writing with a gun at head, under duress…
As so many have said that STB must be doing in Iraq recently….
reff (99666d) — 10/31/2007 @ 7:35 pm“Age-standardized prostate cancer mortality rates are 15.4 per 100,000 people in the United Kingdom and 12.0 per 100,000 in the United States, according to the American Cancer Society.”
That people who die from the disease.
And if that’s your response to the article on Iran, then I suppose I should worry about who you are too. Or maybe I’ll just say your paranoid and don’t know the first thing about Iran, Do some research. It’ll come you down a bit. And reading Norman Podhoretz doesn’t count.
blah (fb88b3) — 10/31/2007 @ 9:32 pmHow many Jews in Iran?
look it up.
Blah/AF – The links within the links to your Rudy piece confirm that U.S. five year prostate cancer survival rates are higher than in the U.K. Did you check before you used that link or were you just stupid again? You’ve had this problem many times, your links not saying what you claim they say.
Interesting point of view by Ganji. Is it the only point of view? Probably not and no reason to claim everyone else knows nothing.
Iranian Jews have been written about extensively. Did you have a point you wanted to make?
How’s your broker doing for you these days?
daleyrocks (906622) — 10/31/2007 @ 9:50 pmblah, you seem to confuse opinion for facts. That does not bode well.
SPQR (6c18fd) — 10/31/2007 @ 9:54 pmThe 5 year survival rate refers only to death, not death from prostate cancer. In other words getting run over by a car 2 years into treatment would fall into that category. The number I gave refers to deaths from the diagnosed disease
Also
“The “likelihood of surviving a kidney transplant is 6 percent higher in Australia, 13 percent higher in Canada, and 4 percent higher in the United Kingdom and New Zealand than in the U.S.”
—
“The U.S. infant mortality rate is 6.9 deaths per 1,000 live births, while Japan and Sweden have rates below 3.5 deaths per 1,000 live births.”
Cuba’s is better too of course.
“Interesting point of view by Ganji. Is it the only point of view?”
“The seeds of democracy need fertile soil to take root and grow. In Iraq, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, the soil is fertile for fostering fundamentalism. If fair elections were held in those countries, fundamentalists would win. Iran is the only country in the Middle East in which modern, democratic forces would win any free and fair elections.”
That’s not an opinion, that’s what the numbers show.
There’s a lot of information out there if you want to find it, but I’m not sure you do. You have fewer questions you want to ask then answers you want to hear.
blah (fb88b3) — 11/1/2007 @ 4:39 amGeez, blah, you didn’t even read to the end of that article you linked:
Were you trying to show that cancer treatment is better in the US than in the UK?
Steverino (e00589) — 11/1/2007 @ 7:24 amBlah – You forgot Lebanon.
daleyrocks (906622) — 11/1/2007 @ 7:53 amblah #16,
I accept your numbers about infant mortality rates because I am sure that those countries do not have the same population of STD-infected, drug addicts that we do. On the kidney-transplant survival rates, that could be attributed to the fact that U.S. doctors approve riskier cases for transplant than the Big Brother countries you mentioned do.
nk (7aed24) — 11/1/2007 @ 7:59 am#13 blah…
You change the facts you give when you are shown to be wrong….
No wonder no one here is willing to listen to your points….
Make up your mind…
Next, I just did what you did in the STB discussion….refuse to listen to your evidence because of some unknown, unseen, overbearing piece of information not available to all of us in the discussion…in other words, something that may not exist….
You simply prove that your points are a waste of all of our time….
And, I didn’t necessarily disagree with your premise….but, you can’t make your point, so, you get shown to be wrong…
You were worried about me…and I wanted to agree with you….
Shows your lack of judgment….
reff (bff229) — 11/1/2007 @ 9:22 am#16 blah…
“The U.S. infant mortality rate is 6.9 deaths per 1,000 live births, while Japan and Sweden have rates below 3.5 deaths per 1,000 live births.”
Cuba’s is better too of course.
“Interesting point of view by Ganji. Is it the only point of view?”
Well, try this…your facts are incomplete, since first, more births per population will increase any of these numbers, and second, doctors in those countries will abort many of the children in risk before birth which causes the deaths per “LIVE” births to be lowered…
Again, you argue something that can’t be defended by your point…
Keep trying however, you do make for interesting toilet seat readings…
reff (bff229) — 11/1/2007 @ 9:26 amoh, and blah…
Kidney transplants…well, let’s see how many are done here as opposed to those countries….and don’t forget to include the citizens of THOSE COUNTRIES who come here to get their transplant…
Dang, you are too easy….ducks in a barrel….
reff (bff229) — 11/1/2007 @ 9:27 amAF @16 – “The 5 year survival rate refers only to death, not death from prostate cancer. In other words getting run over by a car 2 years into treatment would fall into that category. The number I gave refers to deaths from the diagnosed disease.”
No shit. The stats you gave in comment 13 showed the U.S. outperforming the U.K. on this measure as well. You are just twisting yourself into a pretzel over this. You don’t know your stuff. You rely on hack sites to prove your points and don’t read your links.
You need to improve your game, big guy.
daleyrocks (e36acc) — 11/1/2007 @ 12:16 pm“No shit. The stats you gave in comment 13 showed the U.S. outperforming the U.K. on this measure as well.”
Yeah, by 3.4 deaths per 100,000. I posted that here.
Rudy:
“My chance of surviving prostate cancer — and thank God I was cured of it — in the United States: 82 percent,” Giuliani says in a new radio spot airing in New Hampshire. “My chances of surviving prostate cancer in England: Only 44 percent, under socialized medicine.”
Like I said: Bullshit. And we’re behind in a lot of other metrics. I gave you some examples.
Get a mind, kid.
blah (fb88b3) — 11/1/2007 @ 3:54 pmInfant mortality is a favorite statistic to cite among those making claims about the US health care system, but it is not a valid comparison for a large variety of reasons. First of all, it is not reported consistently worldwide and comparison cannot be legitimately made for that alone. Secondly, it is greatly affected by ethnic and cultural differences distinct from actual access to medical care.
SPQR (6c18fd) — 11/1/2007 @ 4:22 pmWhite babies in other countries
NEXT!
blah (fb88b3) — 11/1/2007 @ 4:33 pmAF – Commenters thoroughly debunked the infant mortality comparison scam on this blog within the past couple of months. It’s not worth rehashing again just to punish your idiocy. Why don’t you find that thread, read it, and go away for a while. You can always come back and lecture everyone on the genocide committed in the name of Zionism. That’s one of your favorites!
daleyrocks (906622) — 11/1/2007 @ 4:51 pmNo, blah, you’ve not refuted anything. That article does not actually say what you claim for it. Not that that is a surprise.
SPQR (6c18fd) — 11/1/2007 @ 4:54 pmDaleyrocks, as I recall on that earlier thread when it was pointed out that in fact african-americans have a higher infant mortality rate even when controlling for economic status, the cry of “racist!” rang out.
SPQR (6c18fd) — 11/1/2007 @ 4:56 pmYou’re possibly right, blah….
But, you forget why….
Abortion…
And better neo-natal care…we try harder to keep them alive, to give them life…
So, add the abortions for defects in the foreign countries, and subtract the ones we try hardest to save here, and then come back with some real facts..
Anyway, what happened to the rest of your arguments….????
You lost those too….
reff (99666d) — 11/1/2007 @ 6:41 pmAF – Here’s an update from City Journal about those Rudy statistics. They still say you’re wrong and have other stats to back it up as well.
http://www.city-journal.org/html/eon2007-10-31dg.html
The infant mortality stuff is like Michael Moore Progressive Talking Point v2007.05.
You need updates.
daleyrocks (906622) — 11/1/2007 @ 8:34 pmI’ll put off the debate on health care for a while. The majority of people in the US are in favor of a what you would call socialized medicine, and the Manhattan Institute, which publishes City Journal, is funded by the insurance industry. But this will be going on for a while, so as I said, enough for now.
blah (fb88b3) — 11/2/2007 @ 4:28 amOn the other issue here’s the Israeli Foreign Minister
blah…I’d be in favor of socialized medicine too if someone else had to pay for it, and I could still have private insurance and go to a doctor of my choice…
But, under socialized medicine, I’ll pay for it, can’t have private insurance, and have to go to their choice of doctor…
You think that is a good thing, don’t you?
By the way, I’m a school teacher, as is my wife, and our total income is under 100K a year….
reff (bff229) — 11/2/2007 @ 6:10 am“But, under socialized medicine, I’ll pay for it, can’t have private insurance, and have to go to their choice of doctor…”
You pay for it already, you pay more than you should, and most people don’t have a choice of doctors anyway (though there’s no reason you couldn’t have a choice under a national plan.)
blah (fb88b3) — 11/2/2007 @ 6:17 amIf you think medical care or insurance is expensive now, just wait until you see how expensive it becomes when it’s free under universal healthcare.
Amazing, dissinting opinions about Iran inside Israel! Will wonders never cease!
daleyrocks (906622) — 11/2/2007 @ 8:09 amThis is funny
blah (fb88b3) — 11/3/2007 @ 3:20 pmReally? Where is this plan of Hillary’s?
Pablo (99243e) — 11/3/2007 @ 3:22 pm