KO, you're not getting soft on us, are you? Say it ain't so!

Shame on that olberman! He should have used Obama talking points! Obama supporters are becoming more and more cry babies about these things. Do they actually think the Republican's WON'T land on Obama with both feet if he becomes the Democratic nominee for president? Please...Brealistic!

It's moot anyway, if Iran attacks Israel, we won't have to do anything...Israel will level Teheran.

I'm surprised he did not hand her a check and say "here is for seven more schools" like he did with Bubba last year. This clown is a feckless panty waist and nobody here will admit it.

I could not believe my ears -- I didn't hear any follow-up questions about Iran. Keith, you just let her drone on about Iran building up its nuclear weapons. You gotta do better.

I was also disappointed in the interview because Hillary was allowed to drone on and on, thereby only answering a few questions instead of many. I did, however, like the remarks afterward with Alter and Robinson that I thought brought up some good points. If he had nailed her, it would have backfired on him I am afraid. While I wish he could have been tougher, the end game comments somewhat salvaged the show.

Dare I say, at least KO had the nut sack to ask clinton some tough questions, and then revisit some of her seemingly odd responses - like her cackling reply to her visit to Richard Mellon Scaife's conservative pos.

I feel sorry for her - she must know she's on the way out. Her recent failings and misdirections just show her desperation.
I don't mind seeing a kinder, gentler KO here. She's losing her own battle without his help.
Maybe later today...

N @ 14:

KO did not wuss out. You know, we can't have it both ways: criticizing ABC moderators (and ABC) for not asking substantive questions and not letting candidates speak substantively about issues, and then criticizing KO when he attempts to fairly give time to a candidate. I'm sure he would do the same for Obama. I'd rather see an interviewer give time to a candidate to make their points than follow the script of so many in Mainstream Media -- cut off speakers, trivialize issues, ask stupid questions, etc. Sometimes you just give the time, hear what they have to say, and if it is bad, it is bad. I think what KO showed was much more restraint than ABC, and he erred perhaps in trying to be too fair. He doesn't have to be an attack dog all the time.

Exactly. ('N' abides.)

Who's she trying to act so tough for? Left leaning republicans? I would hope Democrats, in general, aren't impressed by her nukem all mentality.

I think Olbermann did as well as could be expected under the circumstances.
As for Clinton...not so much.
I believe in redemption, too. I also believe in deathbed conversions. But only when someone has actually done something to redeem themselves or converted to something else. Scaife has done no such thing.
It's a cute way to deflect the question, but it's BS.

She is so justifiably confident of her facility with the important issues, she can do a televised interview with a KNOWN new-found Clinton-hater and Obama-lover like Olbermann the night before a critical primary and smack him down on every Obama Campaign Spin he throws at her.

She's a lioness. And the best candidate for president among the three.

Where was Obama hiding last night? Has he been on Fixed News Channel yet?

Keith Olbermann is a sell out and this interview proves it. He is playing the same pandering to emotions game that OReilly plays only for the other side. The Hillary Campaign is trying to get votes with her "obliterate Iran" comment from the right of the party, and trying to get votes from the left with this appearance on Countdown. It is all too transparent, like her artificial laugh. She will win today and then all of the talking heads will repeat the same nonsense they always do. This contest should have ended long ago and now John McCain will grin his way all the way to the presidency and he has Hillary Clinton to thank for it.

It's Me @ 23:

Where was Obama hiding last night?

He was safely nestled in a pile of ballots with check marks next to his name. He has THAT many more votes than Hillary, at this point.

By the way, how would Clinton voters justify ignoring the popular and electoral counts?

You can bet Keith will give himself a "Worst Persons.." rating soon.

Actually, people who say it was a threat against Iran missed the point. The idea Clinton is advocating is that the US gets out of Iraq, continues in Afghanistan, and starts a security organization under US auspices in the region, backed by the nuclear umbrella. She didn't say that they were actively developing the bomb, or nuclear weapons, but that it remains an alternative in the area. And instead of the neocons, who insisted on preemption because "they can't be deterred because they're in a Holy War," Clinton proposed the idea of deterrence being advanced in the Middle East. It worked with the mighty Soviet Union, after all. Why wouldn't it work with the Iranians?
I first approached this as the Obama people say: it's a bluster and a threat, to appear aggressive on the day before the primary. Watching the full clip convinces me it's the right approach: getting out of Iraq will increase the prestige and power of Iran, but we will make it clear that if the mullahs are contemplating a race for the bomb, they will be met with a threat of their assured destruction. No, really, this is much clearer and more conventional than the mad "flight forward" of Bush. This is like Ike remaking Europe by withdrawing the occupation troops while keeping the nuclear umbrella over the West. Sure, it's scary, but so is the prospect of a Pakistani, Indian, Iranian, Israeli, etc., atomic era.
Note that the president Hillary models herself on in the wrongly-despised new "Osama" ads is Harry Truman. Harry set up NATO. Harry did not drop the bomb on the Soviets. He stood against the expansion of Soviet power. The Cold War was on. What Hillary is proposing is a Cold War on Terrorism. What does Obama have to offer? Sit down with them until they're nice?

KO did become, all of a sudden, restained and deferential. I assume this was done to avoid any retalition in terms of candidate access in the future.

I thought he was going to dismantle every one of her half brained deflection answers, and it would have been easy to do so using logic and facts. I was severely disappointed.

What in hell was she laughing about anyway? I thought she had taken some LSD or something. that was weird. She is like an animatronic dummy. Very unnatural and stiff.

Both disappointed me in this interview last night. KO should have spent more time on the interview even if it eliminated other parts of his show. Also, Ms Clinton should really get a hold on her rhetoric. She is starting to woory me with all the harangue on retaliation against our "enemies."

N @ 14:

KO did not wuss out. You know, we can't have it both ways: criticizing ABC moderators (and ABC) for not asking substantive questions and not letting candidates speak substantively about issues, and then criticizing KO when he attempts to fairly give time to a candidate. I'm sure he would do the same for Obama. I'd rather see an interviewer give time to a candidate to make their points than follow the script of so many in Mainstream Media -- cut off speakers, trivialize issues, ask stupid questions, etc. Sometimes you just give the time, hear what they have to say, and if it is bad, it is bad. I think what KO showed was much more restraint than ABC, and he erred perhaps in trying to be too fair. He doesn't have to be an attack dog all the time.

The issue isn't whether he asked substantive questions. He did and we acknowledged that. He asked no follow up questions and KO himself acknowledged as such. Personally, I would have rather had him follow up when Clinton said that Iran was trying to restart their nuclear weapons program to ask her where she got that information, since it is directly in contradiction to the NIE report. I think that making up a nuclear threat that does not exist (which we've seen done before with Bush43) to make an aggressive posture against another country is something that should be considered by voters when looking at her qualifications, far more so than whether she uses Osama in an ad.

But KO admitted he let her slide. That, to me, is unforgivable.

ohio progressive @ 16:

thank goodness the people of PA will put a lid on this liar, and tonight, her adolescent tantrum (ie fight to the finish) will be over.....the super delegates will shut it down after she loses PA

The problem is that her whole nuke Iran bit came to late for PA. She just threw the whole anti-war part of the party under the bus, along with progressives and Moveon

Does anyone really still think she's a Democrat?
She's auditioning for McCain's veep.
What a pair -
McCain's "bomb bomb bomb Iran" and Hillary's let's "obliterate them"....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4u1nmGmtD18&eurl=http://www.americablog.com/

She's no Democrat. She's a neocon.

Brealistic @ 3:

Shame on that olberman! He should have used Obama talking points! Obama supporters are becoming more and more cry babies about these things. Do they actually think the Republican's WON'T land on Obama with both feet if he becomes the Democratic nominee for president? Please...Brealistic!

8 years of constant warfare, American jobs moved overseas, and wasted opportunities to fix our pathetic healthcare system. I'm not talking about the Bush Administration; I'm talking about the Clinton Presidency. It amazes me how people think Bush is such a bad President for losing his wars and Clinton was such a rosy President for winning his wars. That is the only difference between Bush and Clinton that I see. Clinton was smart enough to pray upon the weak nations for his approval ratings and Bush was stupid enough to bite off more than he can chew. Other than that, their is not a damn bit of difference between these Centrist Democrats and these Neo-Con Republicans. Not one bit of difference! They even get their money from THE SAME CORPORATIONS! Same pot of gold. Go ahead and vote for Hillary. She ain't even got into the White House and she is talking about starting a war with Iran. You think she is going to fix our healthcare system. She didn't last time and she isn't going to do it this time. We won't get anything out of her except a bunch of smoke blown up our @sses. She didn't fix any of our problems last time; she won't do it this time.

she WANTS to kill iranians!!

as per howard zinn

if you bomb civilian population centers, the death of civilians is not accidental...it's inevitable

But KO has little room to castigate other networks if he’s guilty of not following up either.

KO left the reservation long ago.

As to Clinton's statements re:Iran...

it was not a statement of preemption but deterrence.

Given that no one has asked Clinton directly about the NIE or IAEA...we have no way of knowing what her position is on their assessments.

A blogger such as yourself could certainly contact the campaign and ask?

Nicole Belle @ 37:

N @ 14:

KO did not wuss out. You know, we can't have it both ways: criticizing ABC moderators (and ABC) for not asking substantive questions and not letting candidates speak substantively about issues, and then criticizing KO when he attempts to fairly give time to a candidate. I'm sure he would do the same for Obama. I'd rather see an interviewer give time to a candidate to make their points than follow the script of so many in Mainstream Media -- cut off speakers, trivialize issues, ask stupid questions, etc. Sometimes you just give the time, hear what they have to say, and if it is bad, it is bad. I think what KO showed was much more restraint than ABC, and he erred perhaps in trying to be too fair. He doesn't have to be an attack dog all the time.

The issue isn't whether he asked substantive questions. He did and we acknowledged that. He asked no follow up questions and KO himself acknowledged as such. Personally, I would have rather had him follow up when Clinton said that Iran was trying to restart their nuclear weapons program to ask her where she got that information, since it is directly in contradiction to the NIE report. I think that making up a nuclear threat that does not exist (which we've seen done before with Bush43) to make an aggressive posture against another country is something that should be considered by voters when looking at her qualifications, far more so than whether she uses Osama in an ad.

But KO admitted he let her slide. That, to me, is unforgivable.

N's point is well taken, but Nicole you certainly have a point too. Olbermann should not be the person that he allegedly despises. If you are, you are contributing to the problem. There was no reason for him to be cowed by her remarks despite the limited time to respond.

Jim H @ 31:

Actually, people who say it was a threat against Iran missed the point. The idea Clinton is advocating is that the US gets out of Iraq, continues in Afghanistan, and starts a security organization under US auspices in the region, backed by the nuclear umbrella. She didn't say that they were actively developing the bomb, or nuclear weapons, but that it remains an alternative in the area. And instead of the neocons, who insisted on preemption because "they can't be deterred because they're in a Holy War," Clinton proposed the idea of deterrence being advanced in the Middle East. It worked with the mighty Soviet Union, after all. Why wouldn't it work with the Iranians?
I first approached this as the Obama people say: it's a bluster and a threat, to appear aggressive on the day before the primary. Watching the full clip convinces me it's the right approach: getting out of Iraq will increase the prestige and power of Iran, but we will make it clear that if the mullahs are contemplating a race for the bomb, they will be met with a threat of their assured destruction. No, really, this is much clearer and more conventional than the mad "flight forward" of Bush. This is like Ike remaking Europe by withdrawing the occupation troops while keeping the nuclear umbrella over the West. Sure, it's scary, but so is the prospect of a Pakistani, Indian, Iranian, Israeli, etc., atomic era.
Note that the president Hillary models herself on in the wrongly-despised new "Osama" ads is Harry Truman. Harry set up NATO. Harry did not drop the bomb on the Soviets. He stood against the expansion of Soviet power. The Cold War was on. What Hillary is proposing is a Cold War on Terrorism. What does Obama have to offer? Sit down with them until they're nice?

So the solution is to start another Cold War and let the Defense Contractors bleed our treasury dry for the next 50 years. Great plan!

"Massive retaliation"...Code for "turn Iran into a glass parking lot"... Despicable. Shame on her. Shame on Kieth for letting her say it unchallenged by the truth.

Ahhh...I love the smell of politics in the morning.

It smells like a group college football players jalapeno dump.

Jim H @ 31:

Actually, people who say it was a threat against Iran missed the point. The idea Clinton is advocating is that the US gets out of Iraq, continues in Afghanistan, and starts a security organization under US auspices in the region, backed by the nuclear umbrella. She didn't say that they were actively developing the bomb, or nuclear weapons, but that it remains an alternative in the area. And instead of the neocons, who insisted on preemption because "they can't be deterred because they're in a Holy War," Clinton proposed the idea of deterrence being advanced in the Middle East. It worked with the mighty Soviet Union, after all. Why wouldn't it work with the Iranians?
I first approached this as the Obama people say: it's a bluster and a threat, to appear aggressive on the day before the primary. Watching the full clip convinces me it's the right approach: getting out of Iraq will increase the prestige and power of Iran, but we will make it clear that if the mullahs are contemplating a race for the bomb, they will be met with a threat of their assured destruction. No, really, this is much clearer and more conventional than the mad "flight forward" of Bush. This is like Ike remaking Europe by withdrawing the occupation troops while keeping the nuclear umbrella over the West. Sure, it's scary, but so is the prospect of a Pakistani, Indian, Iranian, Israeli, etc., atomic era.
Note that the president Hillary models herself on in the wrongly-despised new "Osama" ads is Harry Truman. Harry set up NATO. Harry did not drop the bomb on the Soviets. He stood against the expansion of Soviet power. The Cold War was on. What Hillary is proposing is a Cold War on Terrorism. What does Obama have to offer? Sit down with them until they're nice?

Every president met with the Soviets during the Cold War including Truman. That is what Obama would do. Hillary wants to pursue the Bush policy of "I'll only meet with you once you concede you're wrong".

nonbeliever @ 42:

Hillary's only chance is to win the popular vote after all the primaries are done.

This is pretty much impossible, unless she wipes Obama off of the map in all remaining contetsts (which she won't). At this stage in the game she is exclusively banking on superdelegates trumping Obama's insurmountable pledged delegate lead.

Which would hopefully lead to 1968 times a million.

Is KO only outspoken during his Special Comments...when he's not face to face? Bad Keith, bad. You're no good to us if you aren't willing to let em have it to their faces.

Travis @ 59:

nonbeliever @ 42:

Hillary's only chance is to win the popular vote after all the primaries are done.

This is pretty much impossible, unless she wipes Obama off of the map in all remaining contetsts (which she won't). At this stage in the game she is exclusively banking on superdelegates trumping Obama's insurmountable pledged delegate lead.

Which would hopefully lead to 1968 times a million.

Corporate Amerika would really love to narrow this Presidential Race down to Hillary v. McCain. That way they would be sure to have their man/women sitting in the White House.

andrew @ 5:

It's moot anyway, if Iran attacks Israel, we won't have to do anything...Israel will level Teheran.

Sure. With US made and funded weaponry. USrael...

Should have been wrath, sorry.

Keith asked some tough questions. He just didn't try to put her in a box on them. That is not his style. He did OK.

I just heard an interesting exchange on MSNBC. Joe Scarborough and Rachel Maddow were on together with Brian Williams. Brian Williams introduced Rachel and made the comment that she had never run for office. I took this as a dig at Joe. Did anyone else see this? If so, how did you take it?

liftr36 @ 64:

Was Hillary sitting in an ice rink? KO really let her skate--especially with her criticism of Barrack's comments regarding McCain's ability to do a better job than Bush. Frankly, I think McCain can/would be better than Bush, but it is an opinion as if to say Target is better than Walmart. We need, more than anything, a democratically controlled White House and Congress. The pain of witnessing the arrogant disregard of public opinion and congressional directives has become agonizingly frustrating. Any further support of failed war policies, failure to correctly address economic issues, or ignoring vital environmental issues is simply unacceptable--as GWB has made a sport of. The next president will inherit a disaster infinitely more profound than that left by hurricane Katrina--and Bush seems perfectly content to put his remaining months on cruise control waiting to pass this along. I used to like Hillary--not so much anymore. Preferring Obama now, I will still unhesitatingly vote for whomever becomes the democratic presidential candidate.

You could always vote for Ralph Nader. After listening to her destroy Iran rant, I have come to the conclusion that Clinton is just as nutty as McCain.

ezpz @ 62:

nonbeliever @ 54:

ezpz @ 41:

Does anyone really still think she's a Democrat?
She's auditioning for McCain's veep.
What a pair -
McCain's "bomb bomb bomb Iran" and Hillary's let's "obliterate them"....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4u1nmGmtD18&eurl=http://www.americablog.com/

She's no Democrat. She's a neocon.

She wants to be McGramp's VP? Do you actually believe that?

She's no less hawkish than he is, maybe even more so.
She thinks going 'toe to toe' means out warmongering the warmonger.

She's out to prove she's got the biggest set of balls. That's why she wears pants suits.

bmw H. 528 @ 49:

Nicole Belle @ 37:

N @ 14:

KO did not wuss out. You know, we can't have it both ways: criticizing ABC moderators (and ABC) for not asking substantive questions and not letting candidates speak substantively about issues, and then criticizing KO when he attempts to fairly give time to a candidate. I'm sure he would do the same for Obama. I'd rather see an interviewer give time to a candidate to make their points than follow the script of so many in Mainstream Media -- cut off speakers, trivialize issues, ask stupid questions, etc. Sometimes you just give the time, hear what they have to say, and if it is bad, it is bad. I think what KO showed was much more restraint than ABC, and he erred perhaps in trying to be too fair. He doesn't have to be an attack dog all the time.

The issue isn't whether he asked substantive questions. He did and we acknowledged that. He asked no follow up questions and KO himself acknowledged as such. Personally, I would have rather had him follow up when Clinton said that Iran was trying to restart their nuclear weapons program to ask her where she got that information, since it is directly in contradiction to the NIE report. I think that making up a nuclear threat that does not exist (which we've seen done before with Bush43) to make an aggressive posture against another country is something that should be considered by voters when looking at her qualifications, far more so than whether she uses Osama in an ad.

But KO admitted he let her slide. That, to me, is unforgivable.

N's point is well taken, but Nicole you certainly have a point too. Olbermann should not be the person that he allegedly despises. If you are, you are contributing to the problem. There was no reason for him to be cowed by her remarks despite the limited time to respond.

Well, I would agree that KO could have done better. And I am an Obama supporter so my wishes are for some tough challenging of the other candidates in ways that Obama has been challenged. But... I think we do KO a disservice when we expect him to just meet our expectations of how he should have done this or that. I say, let him be his own person. So he failed at answering follow up questions, he himself noted this as a mistake. Maybe he bent over backwards in some deluded way to try to be fair, or to create enough distinction between himself and other Network commentators. He doesn't have to play the game the way we want him to play it, and it strikes me often that we much too often just want to see that happen. Moreover, he should be allowed to make mistakes. I don't think we should take KO, because of his commentaries, etc., as somehow standing on a pedestal of progressivism. That can lead to major disappointment when somehow he steps off the boundaries we've created for him. I agree with Nicole's concerns, but if we continue to find something like KO's effort there "unforgivable" we are in for some tough times, cutting off those who just don't do as we want and expect. We're better off holding the possibility of redemption and hope for KO.

Thanks,

N

who cares about the questions

what is up with that faux cackle of clinton's?

makes me wanna stick flaming pokers in my ears

ezpz @ 74:

Aren't there American Iranians who vote? She probably thinks they're insignificant, along with the billion Muslims in the world who hear this saber rattling.
Way to 'win friends and influence people'.
Haven't we had enough of this fear/war mongering for the last 8 years?

We can't afford 8 more years lest we bring on the crapture.

Why would she care about Iranian voters? She already doesn't care about proressive voters or ant-war voters.

Did I just read someone here suggest voting for Nader? Good grief. We never learn do we?

I find it very telling and disrespectful that she almost always refers to Sen Obama as "my opponent" and rarely "Senator Obama".
Yup, she's a fighter, a down and dirty one at that, but she's fighting WITH a fellow Democrat and not FOR the people.

diamondmc @ 79:

ezpz @ 74:

Aren't there American Iranians who vote? She probably thinks they're insignificant, along with the billion Muslims in the world who hear this saber rattling.
Way to 'win friends and influence people'.
Haven't we had enough of this fear/war mongering for the last 8 years?

We can't afford 8 more years lest we bring on the crapture.

Why would she care about Iranian voters? She already doesn't care about proressive voters or ant-war voters.

Exactly my point. She has no use for anyone who doesn't support her.

thepoetryman @ 70:

ww @ 60:

Does anyone here seriously believe Iran wouldn't build a nuke if it could? Lord I hope not. Of course they would. They will. Unless deterred. Get it?

Do you not seriously believe the US wouldn't nuke Iran even if the intelligence says otherwise? Lord I hope not. Of course "they" would. "They" will. Unless deterred. Get it?

I'm more concerned with fixing our healthcare system than Al Queda or Iran. The healthcare system affects me; the other 2 do not affect me.

That laugh! Make it stop! Make it stop!!!

Travis @ 82:

nonbeliever @ 81:

Did I just read someone here suggest voting for Nader? Good grief. We never learn do we?

Who else should progressives support if Clinton somehow gets the nod? She has directly and summarily dismissed both the progressive and the youth vote. She outright states that she doesn't represent those voices- who will?

Write in Obama or yourself. Nader is just another whack job with a big head.

BTW, I'm "curious" too Miss Hillary.....why didn't you answer Keith's questions about Richard Mellon Scaife?

ezpz @ 83:

I find it very telling and disrespectful that she almost always refers to Sen Obama as "my opponent" and rarely "Senator Obama".
Yup, she's a fighter, a down and dirty one at that, but she's fighting WITH a fellow Democrat and not FOR the people.

You are so right! I'm thinking it would be better if she drags her middle finger across her cheek as she emphatically says: Barack...

Hmmmm, what's that you say? Yeah, i agree, that would be nasty and unbecoming in a serious presidential candidate, not to mention -- hurtful to Senator Obama.

nonbeliever @ 81:

Did I just read someone here suggest voting for Nader? Good grief. We never learn do we?

Drink the corporate cool aid. Just keep telling yourself that the democrats are somehow better than the republicans. The elections are meaningless when both parties recieve the same campaign contributions from the same corporations.

Nonbeliever,
"Until you change the electoral system including removing the electoral college and guaranteeing every citizen of age the right to vote, we’re locked in a 2 party system. Voting third party accomplishes nothing."

Absolutely!

thepoetryman @ 96:

chuck @ 87:

thepoetryman @ 70:

ww @ 60:

Do you not seriously believe the US wouldn't nuke Iran even if the intelligence says otherwise? Lord I hope not. Of course "they" would. "They" will. Unless deterred. Get it?

I'm more concerned with fixing our healthcare system than Al Queda or Iran. The healthcare system affects me; the other 2 do not affect me.

Chuck,
You don't think that nuking Iran would have an adverse outcome on our healthcare system? That our attacking Iran does not affect you?

Which would affect us more adversely- Iran having a nuke or us going to war with Iran?

It is the fear of war is what keeps the sheep in line. It keeps the sheep from demanding such things as descent jobs, a living wage, healthcare, and on and on...

If I'm getting the sense of the comments here today, most posters are complaining that Keith didn't show enough bias and failed to assault Hillary with sufficient intensity. These would appear to be the same posters that complain about media bias when it is applied to Senator Obama. Silly really.

Why does the media pander to Obama so much? Olbermann has been bashing and barraging Hillary (just as he did John Kerry, lest you all forget?) Democrat . . . and former first lady . . . and NY Senator . . . and candidate with the best health care policy, I, a cancer survivor, have ever seen pr experienced.

I'm glad Keith took a pause from obliterating Hillary, to hear from her and let her speak. At the end of the day, she is a fighter and we hope she continues cuz the Obama people have marginalized my demographic.

This Iran thing is a Obama supporter wedge issue . . . that's all.

chuck @ 97:

nonbeliever @ 81:

Did I just read someone here suggest voting for Nader? Good grief. We never learn do we?

Drink the corporate cool aid. Just keep telling yourself that the democrats are somehow better than the republicans. The elections are meaningless when both parties recieve the same campaign contributions from the same corporations.

Please name the corporations that Obama has gotten money from. I really wonder what america you live in, where you can find a third party that has a chance to do anything. I wish we lived in a perfect world, but we don't, so we had best make the right choice, and try to take the small step that it will take to get us to the world you live in.

Jojo @ 104:

I'm voting against her because of that *LAUGH* alone.

That's an enlightened way to make decisions. Are you a rebellious teen or just going through the "terrible two's"?

chuck @ 87:

thepoetryman @ 70:

ww @ 60:

Does anyone here seriously believe Iran wouldn't build a nuke if it could? Lord I hope not. Of course they would. They will. Unless deterred. Get it?

Do you not seriously believe the US wouldn't nuke Iran even if the intelligence says otherwise? Lord I hope not. Of course "they" would. "They" will. Unless deterred. Get it?

I'm more concerned with fixing our healthcare system than Al Queda or Iran. The healthcare system affects me; the other 2 do not affect me.

If Hillary or McCain get into office, we won't have to worry about health care.
We'll be all gone. The world will not survive a nuclear holocaust which is what even one nuke would cause.

Democrats have been accused of being wimps. Kerry should have stayed in the race and fought... and so many other examples when the Dems have backed away from a fight.

Now we have a lady that will fight and all the media types are all crazy about her not dropping out!

Get a grip... you can not have it both ways.

You go Hillary. Fight on.

Then when the nomination is settled we can all get together and beat McCain.

She is strong and brilliant.

Obama has gone negative, running scared and off his message of "a new kind of politics".

She will win and win the general easily.

She will have a Dem rubber stamp Congress to clean up w's mess and get our country back in the right direction with a Clinton economy and foreign policy.

What a fighter.

ezpz @ 111:

chuck @ 87:

thepoetryman @ 70:

ww @ 60:

Do you not seriously believe the US wouldn't nuke Iran even if the intelligence says otherwise? Lord I hope not. Of course "they" would. "They" will. Unless deterred. Get it?

I'm more concerned with fixing our healthcare system than Al Queda or Iran. The healthcare system affects me; the other 2 do not affect me.

If Hillary or McCain get into office, we won't have to worry about health care.
We'll be all gone. The world will not survive a nuclear holocaust which is what even one nuke would cause.

Sounds like your making an argument for preemptive strikes against Iran like the reichwing. Since the question Hillary was responding to is if Iran fired a nuclear missle first.

114 diamondmc

Nader was also accepting money from the publicans and their pacs to run as their spoiler.

That's not the way he'd say it, but the way they would.

getalife @ 115:

She is strong and brilliant.

ok, whatever

Obama has gone negative, running scared and off his message of "a new

kind of politics".

examples, please...his response to Bill's latest race baiting salvo was nothing more than "oh really?"

She will win and win the general easily.

How can she win the primaries without overturning the will of the electorate?

She will have a Dem rubber stamp Congress to clean up w's mess and get our country back in the right direction with a Clinton economy and foreign policy.

...unless her overturning of the will of the voters leads to a massive rift in the party

What a fighter.

Also a fighter: Bill O'Reilly

Please name the corporations that Obama has gotten money from.

Fact Check

1.) It's illegal to get money directly from corporations.

2.) The money is 'bundled'. Which is what Obama's SF fundraiser was about.

The entry fee was $2300/person, which is the individual max, so you 'bundle' it all together.

getalife @ 115:

She is strong and brilliant.

Obama has gone negative, running scared and off his message of "a new kind of politics".

She will win and win the general easily.

She will have a Dem rubber stamp Congress to clean up w's mess and get our country back in the right direction with a Clinton economy and foreign policy.

What a fighter.

And now... back to the real world.

ysbaddaden @ 117:

ezpz @ 111:

chuck @ 87:

thepoetryman @ 70:

I'm more concerned with fixing our healthcare system than Al Queda or Iran. The healthcare system affects me; the other 2 do not affect me.

If Hillary or McCain get into office, we won't have to worry about health care.
We'll be all gone. The world will not survive a nuclear holocaust which is what even one nuke would cause.

Sounds like your making an argument for preemptive strikes against Iran like the reichwing. Since the question Hillary was responding to is if Iran fired a nuclear missle first.

Huh? I'm hardly making the case for preemptive wars.
Au contraire.
Sen Clinton does not have a good track record when it comes to sanctioning preemptive wars followed by rhetoric that she was voting for diplomacy and she was always against the war.

N @ 75:

bmw H. 528 @ 49:

Nicole Belle @ 37:

N @ 14:

The issue isn't whether he asked substantive questions. He did and we acknowledged that. He asked no follow up questions and KO himself acknowledged as such. Personally, I would have rather had him follow up when Clinton said that Iran was trying to restart their nuclear weapons program to ask her where she got that information, since it is directly in contradiction to the NIE report. I think that making up a nuclear threat that does not exist (which we've seen done before with Bush43) to make an aggressive posture against another country is something that should be considered by voters when looking at her qualifications, far more so than whether she uses Osama in an ad.

But KO admitted he let her slide. That, to me, is unforgivable.

N's point is well taken, but Nicole you certainly have a point too. Olbermann should not be the person that he allegedly despises. If you are, you are contributing to the problem. There was no reason for him to be cowed by her remarks despite the limited time to respond.

Well, I would agree that KO could have done better. And I am an Obama supporter so my wishes are for some tough challenging of the other candidates in ways that Obama has been challenged. But... I think we do KO a disservice when we expect him to just meet our expectations of how he should have done this or that. I say, let him be his own person. So he failed at answering follow up questions, he himself noted this as a mistake. Maybe he bent over backwards in some deluded way to try to be fair, or to create enough distinction between himself and other Network commentators. He doesn't have to play the game the way we want him to play it, and it strikes me often that we much too often just want to see that happen. Moreover, he should be allowed to make mistakes. I don't think we should take KO, because of his commentaries, etc., as somehow standing on a pedestal of progressivism. That can lead to major disappointment when somehow he steps off the boundaries we've created for him. I agree with Nicole's concerns, but if we continue to find something like KO's effort there "unforgivable" we are in for some tough times, cutting off those who just don't do as we want and expect. We're better off holding the possibility of redemption and hope for KO.

Thanks,

N

Well said. As you say he did admit he made a mistake, fair enough, hopefully he uses this as a learning experience to improve. Part of our problem with the MSM is their complicity in maintaining the status quo and refusal to hold candidates to a higher standard by asking the tough questions. If we don't aspite to this higher standard, we will be saddled with apathy and mediocrity.

Kevin Holsinger @ 124:

In the event anyone is interested, here's Mr. Olbermann's explanation of the Iran thing...

Watching the tape of the interview, and seeing the "follow-up" (consisting of the initials NIE) still on the question index I'd so sweated over all afternoon, I thought, "better use of the clock, kid, better use of the clock."

But in the moment, I recall beginning to ask it - and then she turned her period into another comma. By this point I'm thinking: anybody who watches this show knows about the NIE, and understands her, uh, policy. And if I go with the follow-up, she might use up the last eight minutes of the interview, leaving me to wish her "best of luck on Larry King."

I'm still learning how to do this stuff.

Thanks for posting this. Sounds like he struggled a little with this. Probably still is.

Any presidential candidate who speaks of nuclear war in casual, chest thumping terms is insane. My disdain for Clinton has turned to utter contempt.

i read the anti-nader spewage and i just wonder what the fuck happened to progressives and liberals...

then i see the hillary-followers, and their acceptance of her neoliberal/corporate policies, and i see the complete failure of the left wing of the democratic party.

no wonder the democratic party has been dominated by the DLC, the clintons, the GCS consulting, and the corporate interests.

sad, really. sad that partisanship has trumped patriotism.

And individuals gave $2300, and what corporation was that? Names please.

If you bothered to follow the link...

they name names.

Not all of them, but several examples.

But I think you're playing games and don't want to hear any 'facts' as they pertain to this issue. As I said, it is illegal for corporations to give direct contributions.

Shorter: Clinton is no more a 'corporate lackey' than Obama is.

Sorry to burst any bubbles.

Samson- @ 135:

i read the anti-nader spewage and i just wonder what the fuck happened to progressives and liberals...

then i see the hillary-followers, and their acceptance of her neoliberal/corporate policies, and i see the complete failure of the left wing of the democratic party.

no wonder the democratic party has been dominated by the DLC, the clintons, the GCS consulting, and the corporate interests.

sad, really. sad that partisanship has trumped patriotism.

Us progressives that worked with Nader in the Green Party got screwed after it was over. Nader walked away from us like we where nothing. He is no differant then Hillary when it comes to throwing the left under the bus. Now he is running again and he seems to think that all is forgotten? Fuck him...and Hillary.

127 ezpz

However, you missed the point that the question being discussed today was in reference to Iran striking first, and the only way Hillary could beat them to the punch is preemptively, which not only is the boosh preemptive doctrine, but that she'd be somehow responsible for the threatening nuke.

Disasters, both natural and man-made necessitates some kind of health care.

The history of the Authorization to Use Military Force was to slow boosh down in his bellicosity. There were two caveats that should've slowed him down, but he only ignored them.

You also misused the term rhetoric which is the art of effective communication, not a synonym for spin, propaganda, slant etc.

Another problem with interviews with politicians is, I learned in my political science/paralegal classes, that there's no such thing as a simple answer, all necessitate more time, complexity and nuance.

And even when an interviewer isn't interested in sound-bites, they only have so much time to spare.

diamondmc @ 144:

tyree at 73 @ 140:

getalife @ 115:

She is strong and brilliant.

Obama has gone negative, running scared and off his message of "a new kind of politics".

She will win and win the general easily.

She will have a Dem rubber stamp Congress to clean up w's mess and get our country back in the right direction with a Clinton economy and foreign policy.

What a fighter.

go clinton !

Hopefully she goes far away. Enough of the old boy politics.

go obama

ysbaddaden @ 141:

127 ezpz

However, you missed the point that the question being discussed today was in reference to Iran striking first, and the only way Hillary could beat them to the punch is preemptively, which not only is the boosh preemptive doctrine, but that she'd be somehow responsible for the threatening nuke.

Disasters, both natural and man-made necessitates some kind of health care.

The history of the Authorization to Use Military Force was to slow boosh down in his bellicosity. There were two caveats that should've slowed him down, but he only ignored them.

You also misused the term rhetoric which is the art of effective communication, not a synonym for spin, propaganda, slant etc.

We obviously disagree and I won't get into the minutia (did I use that right?) of it all.
Thanks for the vocabulary lesson, though. :o)

Obama is making the same mistake as Bill Clinton in his first two years, trying to be liked by everyone.

Obama's talk about a new kind of politics sounds too much like bipartisanship which got us into the Iraq, Patriot Act problems in the first place.

It's also old politics, if you're opponent runs on experience, call them an insider and yourself an outsider.

And you fell for it.