The Most Foul, Loathsome, Disgusting, and Evil Creature Ever to Exist Anywhere in the Universe, At Any Time
I refer, of course, to Keith Olbermann.
P.S. OK, I admit that I may be exaggerating — just a smidgen — in order to mock Mini-Murrow’s penchant for labeling perfectly nice people like Mary Katherine Ham the “Worst Person in the World.”
But surely I do not exaggerate when I label Olbermann the “Worst Lover in the World.” After all, a woman who slept with him termed him a “dud in bed.”
Old news? Sure. Just like this “Worst Person in the World” routine has gotten plenty old — but he’s still doing it.
Seeing as how Mini-Murrow keeps mocking people I like, I think it is worth reminding people about this.
So maybe the title is an accurate reference to him after all — at least, to the women who have had the bad fortune to sleep with the guy.
It’s difficult being a good lover when you’re so in love with yourself.
Mini-Murrow reminds me of that brilliantined stick insect in Fawlty Towers, only without talent or wit.
daveinboca (d0db99) — 1/29/2008 @ 1:06 amIt is pretty sad that Putin can kill people for exercising free speech, Osama can kill thousands, Arab media can blook libel the Jews, Ron Paul can be a nazi, and Olberman instead picks some Repblican who dares to speak freely as the “worst person in the world”.
demagogues win. that’s our system.
Jem (9e390b) — 1/29/2008 @ 2:32 am“”I practically begged him to explain what I did wrong. I told him I deserved some kind of explanation for such a dismissal, but I never heard from him again.” She said she’s since heard from six other women who say they had brief sexual relationships with Olbermann.”
So who ya gonna vote for, a pussy or a black man eh?
🙂 🙂 🙂
Seems to me she deserves no EXPLANATION over the obvious. (If I throw you a bone will you go away)?
First off if you are a man that has ever had one night stands, the norm is to attempt to be somewhat outstanding. As doing so usually brings the best out in her as well. But if the woman as well is not much beyond the usual wash rag lay?
Once in awhile, perceptions are not realized. I personally know of such. In text you are the hottest of the hot, and the photos you share make you hotter, and when you turn up with your five kiddletts in tow, or not even being recognizable, believe me you are NOT hot! Could kill the desire from any man.
I’m no fan of Olbermann, but it appears he sensed something and fer sure it turned him off totally. Such could of course be he really is so involved with himself that he really can’t exhibit love or caring for another human being. In any manner. If such is truth then he needs to find a good man, probably.
The O man can talk, but it’s apparent that he gets way too many womens that either their attitude or demands, can kill a mood. Whining liberals are sorta like that, looking for the add ons before the consummation of what is supposed to be lust and such. Maybe he actually knows that women are a dime a dozen, as in ten cents for twelve of them, willing to undress and phuk you as well.
Side note, the blog is only open to invitees as well. I continue to smell stale p….y.
But then again if he offended Mary Kathrine Hamm in any way I’d go to the ends of the earth to destroy him as well… She is a real hottie! 🙂
If such extends to MM, dat boy is in sum serious and immediate trouble fer sure he is!
Anybody, M or F deserves a pass for a ONS. Even KO.
TC (1cf350) — 1/29/2008 @ 2:41 amThe only worse thing than hearing about Olbermann’s sex life, is you spewing about yours, TC.
tired (e556b3) — 1/29/2008 @ 4:01 amOlbermann is a silly extremist. Has he ever made Osama Bin Laden his ” Worst Person”? Olbermann has lower ratings than reruns of Sponge Bob Square Pants. And thats just among adult viewers.
Dennis D (aacd7f) — 1/29/2008 @ 6:35 amKeith Olbermann reminds me of a flea with a boner lying on its back on a twig floating down the Mississippi River yelling “raise the drawbridge”
tmac (5408eb) — 1/29/2008 @ 6:53 amTC, I think Olbie’s named MM “wosrtest” (Oh let me COUNT the way that segment makes me cry) at least once, I wanna say 3 times at least…
Scott Jacobs (3c07ad) — 1/29/2008 @ 7:01 amKO performs worse than a 16-year-old virgin in bed, and gets busted on by some woman who gets nekkid within an hour of meeting him. Yeeeesh.
Which of these two do I laugh at first? Hmmmm….
A microcosm of what is wrong with America…..
watcher (b114b9) — 1/29/2008 @ 7:10 amYeah, but is this gal hot that’s raggin’ on Olbie?
Scott Jacobs (3c07ad) — 1/29/2008 @ 7:12 amI would wear a title like that, coming from a douchenozzle like that, like a badge of honor.
JD (75f5c3) — 1/29/2008 @ 7:21 amConsidering his reported sexual proess, this might be the most accurate discription of Olbie yet… 🙂
Scott Jacobs (3c07ad) — 1/29/2008 @ 7:22 amI was sure this was going to be about Scott Baio.
V the K (07425b) — 1/29/2008 @ 7:29 amHim and Ted Rall are kindred spirits. I’m an angry and disturbed person, so I can admit to wanting to torture both of them for my personal pleasure.
gabriel (6d7447) — 1/29/2008 @ 7:40 amThe line starts behind me, Gabriel…
Scott Jacobs (3c07ad) — 1/29/2008 @ 7:43 am“But if the woman as well is not much beyond the usual wash rag lay?”
– TC
Yikes. What person with an ounce of honor or self-awareness talks like that? Show a little respect for the opposite sex; if you don’t care for a woman enough to speak of her with respect, you probably shouldn’t be sleeping with her.
And, in any case, don’t talk to us about it. We don’t care.
Leviticus (81ab5b) — 1/29/2008 @ 8:44 amSo what Mary Catherine Ham said was correct? Bill Clinton never had to deal with the 24 hour news cycle? He got free passes? I’m not much older than Ham, but I remember a multi-year, multimedia extravaganza where every detail of his life was pried into (they investigated his cat, for God’s sake). We learned about the size of his genitals, his masturbatory habits, etc, etc. You may hate Olbermann, but what MKH said was staggeringly dumb.
But hey, shooting the messenger means that you don’t have to argue the facts. Just smear and dismiss. Olbermann’s bedroom technique is completely irrelevant to the argument, but between Patterico and the comments, I haven’t seen one actual rebuttal.
IanY77 (9ee52b) — 1/29/2008 @ 8:45 amNo, he didn’t have a 24 hour news cycle. At worst it was 18 hours a day.
And weekends we gimmes usually as well.
Blogging didn’t exist at the level it does now.
And yeah, he got a shit load of free passes. Bush would never have gotten away with te FBI file scandal, and Clinton’s “Definition of ‘is'” is classic.
But I suppose little things like facts just get in your way, don’t they. Darn that reality.
Scott Jacobs (3c07ad) — 1/29/2008 @ 8:50 amThat was the best you got, Scott?
From Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_FBI_files_controversy
The matter was investigated by the Whitewater Independent Counsel, who found in 2000 that there was no criminal activity by anyone in the matter, and that there was no credible evidence that senior White House figures or the First Lady had requested the files or had acted improperly or testified improperly regarding Livingstone’s hiring.
…
Looking into accusations that senior White House officials or First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton may have inappropriately perused the files, in October 1996 Republican committee chair Orrin Hatch requested that the FBI do a fingerprint analysis of them. On November 3, 1996, the FBI informed the committee that no fingerprints of either the First Lady or any other named senior official were on the files.
So partisan hack Starr investigated, wanting to get Clinton, and found nothing. I hope that bogeyman doesn’t cost you much sleep at night.
The “Definition of ‘is’” has been mocked relentlessly from the first day that it was uttered.
By that definition, every president got a free pass. We’ve only had one since the rise of blogging. Darn that reality, indeed.
IanY77 (9ee52b) — 1/29/2008 @ 9:02 amdude, lighten up already…
JoeCitizen (d2928e) — 1/29/2008 @ 9:12 amIan, besides the hilarious idea that Wikipedia is an authority, the other hilarious part of your silly comments is that you call Starr a “partisan hack” but then rely on his conclusions.
You should be in standup comedy.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/29/2008 @ 9:15 amSPQR:
If you have proof that the FBI scandal turned out differently than what was cited above, feel free to post it. Seriously, show me one link to an unimpeachable source that shows that the Clintons were guilty in that whole episode. But thanks for proving my point in comment 16. Shoot the messenger, avoid the argument. Very predictable.
As for Starr, he was a hack, and he couldn’t get Clinton on the files case, despite the fact that he so very badly wanted to so. If he couldn’t get anything, it does lead one to believe that there was no “there” there. Again, if you have proof, feel free to link. I’m not holding my breath.
IanY77 (9ee52b) — 1/29/2008 @ 9:25 amDon’t know that I put much stock in a woman who kisses and tells after a one night stand–or a guy either for that matter. But a fellow with so little cool that he can’t open a bottle of merlot without spilling it all over the bed has problems of his own–and what the heck is it with the merlot? Hasn’t he seen Sideways?
But Olberman is a dud in so many different ways without delving into his bedroom tactics or lack thereof. He’s got his shtick as the crazed maniacal commentator for the left, and he’s good at that–if you like crazy acts.
Otherwise, he’s simply a jerk.
Mike Myers (31af82) — 1/29/2008 @ 9:27 amBesides the FBI files, there were the politically motivated IRS audits.
Rob Crawford (04f50f) — 1/29/2008 @ 9:29 amProof?
Rob Crawford (04f50f) — 1/29/2008 @ 9:30 amYou realize that they claimed those files were for clearences, right? So those people could work there?
People who were very, VERY republican and former Bush/Reagan employees? You really think they were giving those folks jobs there?
And lets not forget Travelgate, the attacks on the other women Bill slept with to try and discredit them, and on and on and on…
Scott Jacobs (3c07ad) — 1/29/2008 @ 9:32 amYou guys can reminisce about the various Clinton scandals and your respective perspectives till the cows come home. But the issue is the pass the Clintons got from the media. Friggin’ Newsweek spiked the Monica story, for crying out loud. If you need any more proof than that, you are partisan to the point of stupidity.
spongeworthy (9b4e06) — 1/29/2008 @ 9:42 amBill was acquitted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travelgate#Independent_Counsel_findings
(again, if you have an impeccable source that contradicts what is contained in the Wikipedia article, feel free to post it.)
Well, it would have helped if they weren’t so discreditable, changing their stories and such.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathleen_Willey#Claims
“I totally believed [Paula] was the good Christian girl who had suffered sexual harassment and eschewal, that is what she made herself out to be…. [N]ow it turns out she’s a fraud, at least to the extent of pretending to be an honorable and moral person.” – Ann Coulter (no, I’m not a fan of hers, but your type is)
IanY77 (9ee52b) — 1/29/2008 @ 9:45 amA shame he actualy boned them then, isn’t it?
And still using wikipedia? You realize that in 5 minutes Bill will have raped half of the the boys under the age of 12, right?
At least, that’s what Wiki will say. So it must be true.
Scott Jacobs (3c07ad) — 1/29/2008 @ 9:48 amScott, I’ll say it nice and slow for you:
If you have a better source, post it. Otherwise STFU and GBTW. And if you can prove that any of the claims made above are untrue with an unimpeachable source, feel free. I’ve put that challenge forward several times, and have yet to see any takers.
And thank you Scott, you have now repeatedly proven my first point (#16). You can’t argue the facts, so you shoot the messenger. Thankfully, I don’t need Wikipedia for that when I have you and SPQR.
IanY77 (9ee52b) — 1/29/2008 @ 9:57 amI’m not the one using a a crappy source, bubba. FInd something that isn’t modifyable on the whim of the discordant mob, and we’ll talk.
Clinton lied under oath, had FBI files magically appear in the White House for people he had no need to read the FBI files of, cleared out an office of the White House so cronies could be put in their place, had one of his buddies steal and destroy classified documents, had a wife use insider trading and other SEC violations to make a killing on the cattle futures market, used the IRS to attack oponents, and so on and so forth.
And republican faced with those same scandals (we’ll skip Vince, though he’s another in a LONG line of Clinton associates who met an untimely end), it would have been an absolute media blitz. It would have looked like the Cheney hunting accident, only about stuff that mattered.
Newspapers burried stories, and in some cases didn’t even COVER them for weeks at a stretch. And you think Clinton didn’t get a pass? Bush SNEEZES and it’s on the front page. An ER nurse says “there’s no way it wasn’t a controled demolition that brought down the towers, you can tell” and he’s the star of a documentry.
But whatever. I can’t reason you out of a position your weren’t reasoned into to begin with.
Scott Jacobs (3c07ad) — 1/29/2008 @ 10:05 amBill may have been acquitted, but Hillary sure wasn’t. From your own source, Hillary engaged in a pattern of deception and even gave false testimony to the GAO.
All that aside, why do you suppose the Clinton White House had 900+ FBI files in their possession?
Why would the IRS be sicced on the Travel Office employees?
Why would subpoenaed records mysteriously show up in the living quarters of the White House?
What about Juanita Brodderick?
I could go on, but I’m hoping you’ll see the point eventually.
Steverino (e00589) — 1/29/2008 @ 10:19 amIan, please name another President of the United States who lied under oath in an investigation of a potential crime under a law HE MADE under HIS WATCH, signed by him, for the purposes of protecting women like the one he was lying about.
Whether or not I like, or didn’t like, President Clinton, that one act, all by itself, should disqualify him from ever again having an opinion about anything important in this great nation. The system we have here, where the innocent is protected above all, is based upon one simple thing: tell the truth. If he had, Hillary would be a 60% shoe-in right now, and Bill’s rep would be that he “stood up and did the right thing.”
Now, find me an unimpeachable source to deny what I just wrote.
reff (bff229) — 1/29/2008 @ 11:00 amI tried “providing unimpeachable sources” to the left for 10 years. It never made a damned bit of difference then, I don’t expect it would if I did it now.
Merovign (4744a2) — 1/29/2008 @ 11:04 amGeez Pat,
paul from fl (12026e) — 1/29/2008 @ 11:11 amI know we don’t like KO, but,…I dunno…it skeeves me out to to talk about this side of him. I thought we were above this. Maybe I’m getting old.
It seems just like the liberal name calling we’ve derided in the past.
I’m still giggling at Ian using Wikipedia.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/29/2008 @ 12:13 pmIan wrote: As for Starr, he was a hack…
Hey, Ian: Here’s what Wikipedia says about Ken Starr’s reputation circa 1990:
Starr only became a “partisan hack” when the Dems’ ox was being gored (if you’ll pardon the expression).
To paraphrase Marshal Sam Gerard: “Would you like to change your bullspit story?”
L.N. Smithee (d1de1b) — 1/29/2008 @ 12:35 pmTC, to his everlasting shame, wrote: Maybe he [Olbermann] actually knows that women are a dime a dozen…
Many years ago, when I was working graveyard and got addicted to the daytime trash talk shows (Springer, Jenny Jones, Richard Bey, Ricki Lake, etc.) they would at least once a week have as guests women — of wildly varying levels of attractiveness — who were proud of their ability to get expensive gifts from strange men by showing them “the goods” at the least, and putting out at the most.
After defending their promiscuity before friends and a hooting studio audience, some of their exes would come on stage and trash their reputations, calling them “skeezers,” “trash,” “hos” and “whores,” depending on the neighborhood they were from.
The question that the host should have asked such men (but never did) is this: “Why do you only have sex with women you don’t respect?”
So, now, TC, I ask you. Don’t chicken out.
L.N. Smithee (d1de1b) — 1/29/2008 @ 12:46 pmShorter Ian: my Bill beat the charges so you all have to STFU.
I bet he takes the same stand about Bush’s AWOL charges. Right.
If Clinton turned into Starr’s white whale it isn’t hard to see why. Friends get into a business relationship. The business turns out to be crooked. Somehow only some of the business partners amongst this group of friends knew it was crooked. The 2000s version would be if we invesitigated the outing of a covert agent who was working covertly at the CIA Headquarters.
Sweetie (2fd7f7) — 1/29/2008 @ 12:58 pmSweetie…answer my question, if you dare…
Ian didn’t…you won’t either….
reff (bff229) — 1/29/2008 @ 1:46 pm“I bet he takes the same stand about Bush’s AWOL charges. Right.”
– Sweetie
That’s called “sarcasm”, reff. Sweetie’s on your side: no need to raise the proverbial gauntlet.
““Why do you only have sex with women you don’t respect?””
– L.N. Smithee
High five, Smithee. See comment #15: We can at least agree on something.
Leviticus (43095b) — 1/29/2008 @ 2:32 pmGawd, I couldn’t care less – not a bit – about Olbermann’s private matters. It’s his public perfomance not his bedroom performance that matters.
He is simply not a news reporter. His show is simply not a news show.
His program is simply a vehicle that he uses to present information that he likes – and he wants his audience to hear – while ignoring information that he dislikes – and he doesn’t want his audience to hear.
He cares not a whit for balance or fairness. He likes to mock and smear and ridicule whoever does something he dislikes while never permitting them to defend themselves.
And he has the supreme arrogance to argue that he doesn’t invite guests with opposing views on the show because he doesn’t like verbal fistfights. Yes he does; but only when he gets to hit others without letting them fight back or defend themselves.
SteveMG (fedc2b) — 1/29/2008 @ 3:26 pmIf we all gave KO the level of attention his skill-sets demand (I think that is NONE, but I might be too generous), he would disappear into the wilderness that he belongs in, just as he has always disappeared from whatever media outlet he occupied.
Another Drew (8018ee) — 1/29/2008 @ 6:49 pmI will admit that one of my comments could be viewed as a bit misogynistic, fine as I am guilty to a small degree, I’m equally guilty of pointing out that some other “protected” classes have some challenges as well.
But some you projectionists can’t seem to focus your projectors.
I can only figure that you decided to attempt to trash me because either you are in the protected class, or you can’t get well laid by your bride, g/f, SO or maybe b/f. (see how well focused my projector is)?
I can only suppose that if you think that I have no respect for the entire gender of women because some of them are not good in the sack, so be it. But some of them are not good in the sack. Too many could hit the big time with Springer on any day as well. Men do not get a pass on such either.
My intent was to lay “reasonable doubt” upon one womans public slaying of a single man cuz he either is a horrible lay or had a bad night. Writing is almost worse than speaking, as each word has meaning and I’m far from a word press. All too ofter most of use a brush too large for the job, I may have done so.
I apologize to any women that took offense or may have been harmed irreparably as well.
Oh and please 🙂
TC (1cf350) — 1/30/2008 @ 1:18 amOk, Levi, since you’ve been on me lately…
You answer the question….
You can’t either, can you?
reff (bff229) — 1/30/2008 @ 7:12 amSteveMG wrote: [Olbermann] cares not a whit for balance or fairness. He likes to mock and smear and ridicule whoever does something he dislikes while never permitting them to defend themselves.
And he has the supreme arrogance to argue that he doesn’t invite guests with opposing views on the show because he doesn’t like verbal fistfights. Yes he does; but only when he gets to hit others without letting them fight back or defend themselves.
B-I-N-G-O. With few exceptions (notably John Edwards) O’Reilly will invite his polar opposites on his show after calling them “pinheads.” I don’t dig Bill’s interviewing style, but he doesn’t spit and run like Blowhardmann.
L.N. Smithee (0931d2) — 1/30/2008 @ 9:41 amI’m even to the point that I turn off NBC football when the hair is on….
reff (bff229) — 1/30/2008 @ 9:43 amSounds like a lawyer
krazy kagu (557722) — 1/30/2008 @ 10:00 amBut some of them are not good in the sack
TC – Why do you keep assuming the problem is with the other party and not you?
daleyrocks (906622) — 1/30/2008 @ 10:11 amI’m gonna married Olberman….he ‘s the man…and you peeps sucks…losers
Daniela (5de85d) — 5/16/2008 @ 7:11 pm