Keith, it's over, man
OK, I can't hold this in any longer, so brace yourself for an all-out political rant ...
Big news: I have officially dumped Keith Olbermann for Anderson Cooper. (I bet you didn't even know we were going together, did ya?) Since I first discovered Countdown With Keith Olbermann on MSNBC last year, I looked up to Keith as a hero for having the courage to say some of the things that no one else up till then (except maybe Stephen Colbert, albeit satirically) dared utter about "King George" and the political exploitation of 9/11 (which is still painfully fresh in my mind as it is in many others' due to strong family ties to New York City and having several friends and relatives who personally lived through that horror, as well as some who didn't). Every night, I looked forward to getting his bold perspectives on the news in spite of a number of silly time wasters like the "Oddball" clips ripped straight off of YouTube and his Number One story alternating almost nightly between Britney Spears and American Idol. But in the last few weeks since he was declared the sixth most powerful TV news personality and his show expanded from twice a night to three times (which I was initially excited about, especially at being able to watch him at 2 a.m., right after the second airing of The Colbert Report, instead of getting my last chance at midnight, the second half of which conflicted with Craig Ferguson), it seems to have gone to his head.
His political commentaries have always slanted to the left, but in the last month or so, he's become as unabashedly unfair and unbalanced as his sworn arch-enemy Bill O'Reilly. It was bad enough when he declared the congresswoman who felt an atheist shouldn't be allowed to speak at a town meeting to be the "Worst Person in the World," refusing to stop reporting on her until she apologized to the atheist (who then promptly turned around and earned himself the self-same honor from Keith)--apparently bolstered by his success in his war on Wal-Mart, refusing to stop naming them "Worst Persons" until they stopped demanding money from a disabled former employee. Apparently, that gave him the confidence to turn his all-powerful "Worst Person" ray on anyone who annoys him.
But what finally made me change the channel on him this week, permanently, is his apparent self-appointment as kingmaker (proving yet again that power can corrupt anybody), in which he clearly displays his bias in the Democratic primary process in favor of Obama to the point where he is leading the chorus of people who want Hillary to drop out of the race, as if she's some kind of Nader-esque spoiler who just decided to run for office yesterday--when actually she's only about twenty pledged delegates behind him at the moment. Olbermann is making it abundantly clear that anybody who speaks against Obama is in the running for that dreaded aforementioned award.
By contrast, Bill Maher (also an Obama supporter, though he was formerly for Edwards) summarized my sentiments rather eloquently on his show a few weeks ago:
(Click here and skip down to, "And, finally, New Rule: If voting can destroy the Democratic Party, then the party isn't very democratic," to read the transcript.)
Don't get me wrong, Hillary was never my first choice either (Edwards was, and I'm still devastated that he was forced out of the race by a lack of funds, due to gallantly refusing to accept money from special-interest groups and lobbyists, and the media bias that has been treating this like a two-person race since well before the first Super-Tuesday; just before he dropped out, Edwards was overheard to complain to one of his campaign assistants that he'd have to light himself on fire to get any media attention--I'd even have preferred Biden or Kucinich over Hillary), but at least she takes a stance and talks about the issues; her health-care plan (which has been a cause of hers since her husband took office) would cover everyone, which is the only way low-cost, universal coverage could succeed; and she's actually completed a full term in the Senate--unlike Obama, who, as someone on TV, I don't remember who, put it, started running for president two or three weeks after he took office as Senator. In fact, the official "Democratic" party (under the leadership of Howard Dean, who's pressuring the superdelegates to make up their minds well before the primaries are over), not to mention Hollywood (under the leadership of Oprah Winfrey) who can afford to shower him with hefty campaign contributions, seems biased in favor of him. I clearly remember first being introduced to him at the Democratic National Convention in 2004, and even back then they were saying he was going to be president someday! Well, that's a fine prediction, but I didn't realize "someday" meant before his first term in the Senate was up! (Yeah, you could say the same of John Edwards, which is why I didn't vote for him in the 2004 primary, in the hope that John Kerry would make him VP, and we see how well that worked out. Besides, he's continued to be committed to public service and hasn't wavered in his populist views--sticking up for the little guy--since then.) Obama not only hasn't yet proved himself in the Senate (and hasn't even voted on a number of issues while he was there), but I disagree with many of his policies, such as nuclear energy, which were brought out in the early debates when John Edwards was still keeping everyone on the straight and narrow. (And the minute "suspended" his campaign, the last two standing were clamoring to take up his more popular positions.)
I don't excuse Hillary's "big fish" story about landing in Bosnia under sniper fire (although we should all know by now: "How do you know when a politician's lying? Their lips are moving"), but Obama's assertion (supported by people like Olbermann) that the Reverend Wright fiasco is nothing more than a "distraction" (which he literally brushed from his collar without a word, the arrogance of which reminded me very vividly of a certain current "president" who fancies himself dictator) frightens me. I find it very troubling that the man Obama has called his spiritual leader for over twenty years, the man who supposedly brought him to Christ (??), presided at his wedding and, until his comments first came to light a month or so ago, served as spiritual advisor on his campaign was not denounced until last week when he showed himself in three national television appearances to be an egomaniacal nutcase. (Sure, I'll buy that Obama wasn't in church the week Reverend Wright so vehemently ordered God to damn this country, but don't tell me he'd never heard the ridiculous rumor started by the same "man of God" several years ago that AIDS was created by the government to kill off black people! If he says he's never heard that one, he's admitting he's been living under a rock for the past twenty years.)
And what's this about Hillary's "negative attack ad" with the 3 a.m. phone call? At some point she needs to come out and say why she thinks she's more qualified to be president than he is; if that's going negative, I don't know what isn't. What, are they supposed to pat each other on the back until June saying, "Vote for my opponent," "Oh, no, vote for my opponent," "Oh, no, I insist, he's much more qualified than I am," "Oh no, she is, kiss kiss" ... Sorry to burst Obama and friends' bubble, but saying why you're better than your opponent helps voters see both sides and decide which one they're on! (And it's not like he doesn't do the same thing right back.) Weighing the pros and cons of each candidate is part of the political process, but Obama's followers seem to believe he's infallible and that to question him is a sin.
On top of that, he dares to say Hillary "stole" his three-word campaign slogan (changing "Yes we can" to "Yes we will") when he in turn stole it word-for-word from Bob the Builder seems a bit hypocritical to me. Compared to the other Democratic candidates, I really cannot see anything that makes him the most qualified. Granted, he's a good public speaker (although, compared to John Edwards, who has always sounded like he's speaking from the heart, ever since he spoke in my town during the 2004 campaign, Obama always sounds like he's delivering a sermon), but all anybody can tell me about why they like him is that he's "inspiring." I'm sick of that word. I don't need inspiration from a president; I have plenty of my own, thank you. In fact, George Bush inspires me like nobody else--to want to blow my brains out! What I want from my candidate is competence. And I think Hillary is demonstrating that just by staying in the race. I can't imagine her whining like George Bush did in the 2004 debates about what hard work it is being president. (And she knows better than any of the other candidates what's involved.)
The other thing that really scares me is the way people (including but hardly limited to Keith Olbermann) seem to regard Obama with a reverence that borders on worship, becoming indignant when anyone dares to question or criticize him. While Hillary is talking about issues and concrete plans that she's obviously developed during her many years in politics, all I hear from Obama is abstract sermons on "the politics of hope" and "change." Whatever that means. And when I see women in his audience wearing "Barack my world" T-shirts or making sexy fan videos of him, I can't help wondering, is this a political campaign or a fan club? And children telling their supposedly older, wiser parents how to vote, and their parents then taking that advice? Edwards' dropping out of the campaign was devastating enough, but this stuff just makes me abandon all hope for this country.
I'm fed up with this whole, utterly un-democratic primary system, in which the candidate with the most money wins and the votes of people in states whose (a) leaders chose to change the date of their primary or (b) primaries don't take place until June don't count. Why have primaries at all if all the votes aren't going to be counted and a bunch of "superdelegates" can just pick whoever they like best? I'm still waiting for somebody to explain why we can't have all the primaries on the same day like we have the general election--if the party leaders are really in such a hurry to know who the nominee is going to be, they should be pushing for a tighter primary schedule. But apparently they think that ignoring the votes in Michigan and Florida (without which states it's said you can't win the presidency) means those people's votes won't count in the general election either. Then again, the way the last two elections have gone, who knows if they will be counted. This elitist "superdelegate" mess is not a democratic system, it's a republican one, and if the Democratic party wants to keep its constituents, it had better start acting the part. In fact, if Obama ends up the nominee and doesn't pick Clinton or Edwards for his Vice President, I may just give up and stay home on election day ... or take that time to escape to the UK for the Harry Potter premiere! On the other hand, maybe I should be taking a second look at Ralph Nader ... Nah, I'd write in John Edwards before I did anything that stupid.
In the meantime, I'll be getting the scoop from Anderson Cooper over at CNN, where they still make some effort at presenting a variety of news (not just the never-ending Clinton-versus-Obama saga) in a balanced way. So far, that is.
PS: Why, in all their rhetoric about reducing our dependence on foreign oil, has none of the candidates suggested improving public transportation in this country? Cuz the one who commits to that is gonna get my vote over the one who thinks the whole global-warming crisis can be solved by switching to fluorescent light bulbs.
(cross-posted to my MySpace blog)
Big news: I have officially dumped Keith Olbermann for Anderson Cooper. (I bet you didn't even know we were going together, did ya?) Since I first discovered Countdown With Keith Olbermann on MSNBC last year, I looked up to Keith as a hero for having the courage to say some of the things that no one else up till then (except maybe Stephen Colbert, albeit satirically) dared utter about "King George" and the political exploitation of 9/11 (which is still painfully fresh in my mind as it is in many others' due to strong family ties to New York City and having several friends and relatives who personally lived through that horror, as well as some who didn't). Every night, I looked forward to getting his bold perspectives on the news in spite of a number of silly time wasters like the "Oddball" clips ripped straight off of YouTube and his Number One story alternating almost nightly between Britney Spears and American Idol. But in the last few weeks since he was declared the sixth most powerful TV news personality and his show expanded from twice a night to three times (which I was initially excited about, especially at being able to watch him at 2 a.m., right after the second airing of The Colbert Report, instead of getting my last chance at midnight, the second half of which conflicted with Craig Ferguson), it seems to have gone to his head.
His political commentaries have always slanted to the left, but in the last month or so, he's become as unabashedly unfair and unbalanced as his sworn arch-enemy Bill O'Reilly. It was bad enough when he declared the congresswoman who felt an atheist shouldn't be allowed to speak at a town meeting to be the "Worst Person in the World," refusing to stop reporting on her until she apologized to the atheist (who then promptly turned around and earned himself the self-same honor from Keith)--apparently bolstered by his success in his war on Wal-Mart, refusing to stop naming them "Worst Persons" until they stopped demanding money from a disabled former employee. Apparently, that gave him the confidence to turn his all-powerful "Worst Person" ray on anyone who annoys him.
But what finally made me change the channel on him this week, permanently, is his apparent self-appointment as kingmaker (proving yet again that power can corrupt anybody), in which he clearly displays his bias in the Democratic primary process in favor of Obama to the point where he is leading the chorus of people who want Hillary to drop out of the race, as if she's some kind of Nader-esque spoiler who just decided to run for office yesterday--when actually she's only about twenty pledged delegates behind him at the moment. Olbermann is making it abundantly clear that anybody who speaks against Obama is in the running for that dreaded aforementioned award.
By contrast, Bill Maher (also an Obama supporter, though he was formerly for Edwards) summarized my sentiments rather eloquently on his show a few weeks ago:
Click to view(Click here and skip down to, "And, finally, New Rule: If voting can destroy the Democratic Party, then the party isn't very democratic," to read the transcript.)
Don't get me wrong, Hillary was never my first choice either (Edwards was, and I'm still devastated that he was forced out of the race by a lack of funds, due to gallantly refusing to accept money from special-interest groups and lobbyists, and the media bias that has been treating this like a two-person race since well before the first Super-Tuesday; just before he dropped out, Edwards was overheard to complain to one of his campaign assistants that he'd have to light himself on fire to get any media attention--I'd even have preferred Biden or Kucinich over Hillary), but at least she takes a stance and talks about the issues; her health-care plan (which has been a cause of hers since her husband took office) would cover everyone, which is the only way low-cost, universal coverage could succeed; and she's actually completed a full term in the Senate--unlike Obama, who, as someone on TV, I don't remember who, put it, started running for president two or three weeks after he took office as Senator. In fact, the official "Democratic" party (under the leadership of Howard Dean, who's pressuring the superdelegates to make up their minds well before the primaries are over), not to mention Hollywood (under the leadership of Oprah Winfrey) who can afford to shower him with hefty campaign contributions, seems biased in favor of him. I clearly remember first being introduced to him at the Democratic National Convention in 2004, and even back then they were saying he was going to be president someday! Well, that's a fine prediction, but I didn't realize "someday" meant before his first term in the Senate was up! (Yeah, you could say the same of John Edwards, which is why I didn't vote for him in the 2004 primary, in the hope that John Kerry would make him VP, and we see how well that worked out. Besides, he's continued to be committed to public service and hasn't wavered in his populist views--sticking up for the little guy--since then.) Obama not only hasn't yet proved himself in the Senate (and hasn't even voted on a number of issues while he was there), but I disagree with many of his policies, such as nuclear energy, which were brought out in the early debates when John Edwards was still keeping everyone on the straight and narrow. (And the minute "suspended" his campaign, the last two standing were clamoring to take up his more popular positions.)
I don't excuse Hillary's "big fish" story about landing in Bosnia under sniper fire (although we should all know by now: "How do you know when a politician's lying? Their lips are moving"), but Obama's assertion (supported by people like Olbermann) that the Reverend Wright fiasco is nothing more than a "distraction" (which he literally brushed from his collar without a word, the arrogance of which reminded me very vividly of a certain current "president" who fancies himself dictator) frightens me. I find it very troubling that the man Obama has called his spiritual leader for over twenty years, the man who supposedly brought him to Christ (??), presided at his wedding and, until his comments first came to light a month or so ago, served as spiritual advisor on his campaign was not denounced until last week when he showed himself in three national television appearances to be an egomaniacal nutcase. (Sure, I'll buy that Obama wasn't in church the week Reverend Wright so vehemently ordered God to damn this country, but don't tell me he'd never heard the ridiculous rumor started by the same "man of God" several years ago that AIDS was created by the government to kill off black people! If he says he's never heard that one, he's admitting he's been living under a rock for the past twenty years.)
And what's this about Hillary's "negative attack ad" with the 3 a.m. phone call? At some point she needs to come out and say why she thinks she's more qualified to be president than he is; if that's going negative, I don't know what isn't. What, are they supposed to pat each other on the back until June saying, "Vote for my opponent," "Oh, no, vote for my opponent," "Oh, no, I insist, he's much more qualified than I am," "Oh no, she is, kiss kiss" ... Sorry to burst Obama and friends' bubble, but saying why you're better than your opponent helps voters see both sides and decide which one they're on! (And it's not like he doesn't do the same thing right back.) Weighing the pros and cons of each candidate is part of the political process, but Obama's followers seem to believe he's infallible and that to question him is a sin.
On top of that, he dares to say Hillary "stole" his three-word campaign slogan (changing "Yes we can" to "Yes we will") when he in turn stole it word-for-word from Bob the Builder seems a bit hypocritical to me. Compared to the other Democratic candidates, I really cannot see anything that makes him the most qualified. Granted, he's a good public speaker (although, compared to John Edwards, who has always sounded like he's speaking from the heart, ever since he spoke in my town during the 2004 campaign, Obama always sounds like he's delivering a sermon), but all anybody can tell me about why they like him is that he's "inspiring." I'm sick of that word. I don't need inspiration from a president; I have plenty of my own, thank you. In fact, George Bush inspires me like nobody else--to want to blow my brains out! What I want from my candidate is competence. And I think Hillary is demonstrating that just by staying in the race. I can't imagine her whining like George Bush did in the 2004 debates about what hard work it is being president. (And she knows better than any of the other candidates what's involved.)
The other thing that really scares me is the way people (including but hardly limited to Keith Olbermann) seem to regard Obama with a reverence that borders on worship, becoming indignant when anyone dares to question or criticize him. While Hillary is talking about issues and concrete plans that she's obviously developed during her many years in politics, all I hear from Obama is abstract sermons on "the politics of hope" and "change." Whatever that means. And when I see women in his audience wearing "Barack my world" T-shirts or making sexy fan videos of him, I can't help wondering, is this a political campaign or a fan club? And children telling their supposedly older, wiser parents how to vote, and their parents then taking that advice? Edwards' dropping out of the campaign was devastating enough, but this stuff just makes me abandon all hope for this country.
I'm fed up with this whole, utterly un-democratic primary system, in which the candidate with the most money wins and the votes of people in states whose (a) leaders chose to change the date of their primary or (b) primaries don't take place until June don't count. Why have primaries at all if all the votes aren't going to be counted and a bunch of "superdelegates" can just pick whoever they like best? I'm still waiting for somebody to explain why we can't have all the primaries on the same day like we have the general election--if the party leaders are really in such a hurry to know who the nominee is going to be, they should be pushing for a tighter primary schedule. But apparently they think that ignoring the votes in Michigan and Florida (without which states it's said you can't win the presidency) means those people's votes won't count in the general election either. Then again, the way the last two elections have gone, who knows if they will be counted. This elitist "superdelegate" mess is not a democratic system, it's a republican one, and if the Democratic party wants to keep its constituents, it had better start acting the part. In fact, if Obama ends up the nominee and doesn't pick Clinton or Edwards for his Vice President, I may just give up and stay home on election day ... or take that time to escape to the UK for the Harry Potter premiere! On the other hand, maybe I should be taking a second look at Ralph Nader ... Nah, I'd write in John Edwards before I did anything that stupid.
In the meantime, I'll be getting the scoop from Anderson Cooper over at CNN, where they still make some effort at presenting a variety of news (not just the never-ending Clinton-versus-Obama saga) in a balanced way. So far, that is.
PS: Why, in all their rhetoric about reducing our dependence on foreign oil, has none of the candidates suggested improving public transportation in this country? Cuz the one who commits to that is gonna get my vote over the one who thinks the whole global-warming crisis can be solved by switching to fluorescent light bulbs.
(cross-posted to my MySpace blog)