Got a link?

I suppose that would help, huh? Thanks for catching that.

Link:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/03/the_wrath_of_olbermann.html

Thanks! Ohlberman hit the nail on the head. I was very disappointed in the remarks by Ferraro. Even more disappointed when she stood by them.

Funny. Olbermann flew too close to the sun. He's a joke with low ratings on the Offical Cable News Network of Barack Obama for President, MSNBC.

Get your press conference ready Senator Obama, tomorrow there's hell to pay on talk radio. I think tonight the Obama camp has an issue and BIG Pastor Wright problem.

OPEN LETTER TO KEITH OLBERMAN

Dear Keith,

I am one of your ardent viewers. For five years now my wife and I never missed any of your show. You have shown courage and fairness and proved to be a beacon of light when the other members of the media were cowed. I love it when you insinuate, the other members of the media who parrot the right wing propaganda, are the modern Rasputins.

Lately however, the fairness has ebbed. You have put Sen Obama in a pedestal as a candidate who is pure and holy and a candidate without stain. As for treatment of Sen Clinton, you have pictured her as the source of problem and controversy. You have pictured her as a person to be treated with disdain. You are quick to point out any controversy around the Clintons yet any controversy regarding Sen Obama was downplayed or not even investigated. Two days ago you slammed Sen Clinton for taking time to renounce the comments of one of his followers. A day after, a similar controversy surronded Sen Obama. Worse, the comments made by his spiritual adviser happened years ago. Yet you invited Sen Obama in your show to let him explain. You now have shown to be one of the Rasputins or Goebel of Sen Obama.

Eight years ago, a man who proclaimed himself as a Uniter charmed the American people as a man of change. The media bought him and even gave him a second chance four years after. Where are we now as a country?

Right now I DOUBT the sweet talk of change of Sen Obama simply because the media has been giving him the free pass and YOU ARE ONE OF THEM. I hope I am wrong with my doubts and you, the people of the media are right this time. Sen Obama’s campaign has skillfully used race as an issue to his advantage – very much the same way the lawyers of O J Simpson used race to their advantage. Lately, he has been disingeous with his explanations regarding his relationship with his pastor and Mr. Rezco.

When the campaign started, I said to myself that I will vote for any of the Democrats. As the campaign unfolds and I saw how the media has constantly dirtied the Clintons and put Obama on a pedestal, I started wondering. Why this unfairness? Is there an agenda? Do you intend to really put Sen Obama in the White House by hook or by crook? Are you now one of the disciples of Micheavilli?

Unfortunately you proved yourself no different from the man you love to chastise – Bill Oreilly. The only difference is that you are in the opposite side of the political spectrum and have opposite agenda.

Respectfully yours,

Raul

First, Hillary isn't running the "southern strategy" which is a Republican strategy.

As for Ferraro, she's just doing what she said she would: she didn't apologize for no reason and if Obama wins the nomination he'll ask for her support and will find out that he antagonized her and that the answer will be no.

Stravu9
Olbermann is a good & FAIR JOURNALIST . I started out supporting Sen Clinton - but after many missteps & PREVARICATIONS from the Clitonistas - I now have voted for & support Obama.
Come what may I will support the winner of the Democratic nomination process- was it Ben Franklin that said we must all stand togather are hang separately..

OMG. Like Obama will not be able to win without the endorsement of Gerry Ferraro. The "Ferraro Democrats" will all stay home. It will be a disaster.

I don't know. I like Olbermann, and Clinton has been making me sick with her kitchen sink smear campaign. But I doubt his commentary did much more than harden what people already think. Clinton's support is, from what I've seen, either emotional (they love the Clintons and/or they're still mad about impeachment and/or it's "time" for a woman) or a negative reaction to what some people see as Obama's warm-fuzzies 'inspirational' appeal (and I'd ordinarily be in that latter camp).

Since when is it a good thing that the press is "influencing" elections in this country? First of all, that is neither their purpose nor their job in this nation's political system. Secondly, since the press runs in herds, the greater danger here is the influence that these "journalists" have on other "journalists" who have now been spooked to run in the same direction. Thirdly, a reporter shouldn't be chastising and lecturing any candidate for the presidency of the United States - it reveals and fosters a bias that is judgemental and self-congratulatory and subject to the whims and fashions of the moment without regard to the historical and contextual settings of incidents and statements.

What is truly amazing is the continual short-sightedness and tunnel vision on display by liberals who should know better. You praise Olbermann now for his interference and influence on this election because you agree with him and he reinforces your own beliefs, but what happens when you disagree with Olbermann or when an Olbermann decides that he doesn't "like" a certain policy or direction or a certain policy decision is against his own self-interest and he decides to "speak out" against it?

So then you have an "influential" reporter making decisions for you by telling you what you should think and believe about political direction and policy and politicians, something that used to be known as propaganda. Since this reporter influences other reporters you have no information, no analysis, no unbiased factual reporting upon which to base your own thoughts and beliefs.

Do you not understand that this is inherently dangerous and bad in a democracy? You have one person with a platform of which no one else has access telling you what to think and influencing elections in this nation. This reporter is no longer informing your opinion, he is forming your opinion - and most frightening of all, you not only accept it, you encourage and praise him for it because he speaks to your bias today without any thought for tommorow or next month or next year or years from now when influential journalism is thinking for you.

I cannot make a normative statement as to whether or not the press "should" wield influence over the events in this country or affect the course or outcome of an electoral cycle. The de facto answer is that they do.

Yellow journalism has been alive and well since before the birth of our Republic. The term was not created until the Progressive Era and World War I, but the pamphlets in colonial Philadelphia that were spread amongst the colonies led to our rebellion. Journalism has always existed to incite, excite, and compel. Since the birth of the fourth estate, their role has been not only informative but incendiary and persuasive.

I was kind of annoyed by Olberman talking about some of the least racist stuff, such as the 3AM phone ad, which wasn't even remotely racist, while ignoring some of the much more serious issues like her surrogates comparing him to Sidney Poitier, saying we can't have a black at the top of a ticket, saying people in PA weren't ready to vote for a black guy, her pollster saying Hispanics wouldn't vote for a black guy, etc.

There has been some stuff that was over-reacted too, though. And the 3 AM ad and the 'fairy tail' comment were the most over-reacted too and most easily disputable examples he could have picked. In fact, people really do seem hysterical when they complain about those comments.

To quote Mike Myers: "It is what it is."