[Classic NQ] Olbermann’s Hillary Hate
By LisaB on January 8, 2009 at 9:10 PM in Bamboozling, Current Affairs
NQ thought you might like a reminder of some quality “journalism” from early days of the campaign. This story originally appeared in May 2008 and featured Keith Olbermann.
——————————-
On Friday night, in one of his special comments, Keith Olbermann unleashed his fury at Hillary Rodham Clinton. Senator Clinton reminded questioners asking why she did not get out of the race that the unexpected can happen.
She cited Bill Clinton’s clinch of the nomination only in June 1992 and the assassination of Bobby Kennedy in June 1968.
But apparently the short history lesson was too much for Mr. Olbermann.
Read the rest ->
Mr. Olbermann decided that Senator Clinton’s mention of Bobby Kennedy was really code for an attack on Barack Obama, or if not that repugnant a call, at least the suggestion of a possible link between an assassination 40 years ago and the current democratic frontrunner.
Never mind that 1968 is on the minds of many democrats for its anniversary and for other parallels, such as the re-emergence of the youth vote and a charismatic presidential candidate in Senator Obama.
With his accusing eye, flaring nostrils and righteous anger, Mr. Olbermann accuses Senator Clinton of “invoking a national nightmare.” Of actually using the word “assassination.” “You actually used those words in this America, Senator.” “You cannot say this.” As if Senator Clinton possessed the very power to reignite 1968 in all its complexities and difficulties. As if we are all the same people as in that benighted time. As if Senator Obama was Robert Kennedy reborn and Senator Clinton the mastermind behind Sirhan Sirhan.
Aside from the fact that freedom of speech seems limited to Mr. Olbermann, he is determined to show that Senator Clinton’s use of a reminder of the 1992 and 1968 races is something more than often used talking points during a long campaign by a senator both weary and on the ropes.
And yet, Mr. Olbermann is so selective in where he vents his righteous anger. What do YOU care about Mr. Olbermann?
Are you concerned that a presidential candidate attends a church for 20 years where the preacher echoes a philosophy more akin to Louis Farrakhan than Jesus Christ and humps the pulpit with children in the sanctuary?
Are you concerned that words such as bitch, cunt, nutcracker, and whore are used to describe Senator Clinton both in print and in primetime “political discussions?” Are you concerned there are no crossover words for Senators McCain or Obama?
As long as you are concerned about hidden messages, do you get angry when a candidate’s people play a song by Jay-Z that says in part “I got 99 problems, but a bitch ain’t one?” Do you really think that was unintentional?
Were you concerned that Senator Obama gave Senator Clinton and her supporters “the finger” during a speech? Oh, you think he did not mean it? Did you see the footage, sir, when the crowd went wild? Are you so obtuse as to not guess the senator was aware of the effect of his “innocent scratch?” If unintentional, allowing the audience to interpret the move as a message is puerile enough.
If intentional, it is breathtaking immaturity in a presidential candidate.
Were you concerned that Senator Obama and his campaign have sought to interject race wherever possible, particularly against proven advocates for Black America? Did you not understand the code words, sir, “bamboozle” and “hoodwink?” Are you really that oblivious to hidden meanings or is it only when from Senator Obama that words cannot be parsed?
Were you even paying attention when Senator Obama’s campaign co-chair, Jesse Jackson, Jr said, “The natural reminder here is O.J. [Simpson]—how does an African-American candidate attack a white woman?”
Where is your outrage when attacks against Senator Clinton were not hidden at all but were out in the open? It must not have bothered you when on his radio show Glenn Beck called Senator Clinton “. . . the stereotypical bitch” or when he said “After four years, don’t you think every man in America will go insane?” or “. . .there is a range in women’s voices that experts say is just the chalk, I mean, the fingernails on the blackboard.”
Where is your outrage when in reply Mr. Andros says, “Oh my gosh, she could be talking about how she’s giving every American a million dollars, and I’m hearing, “Could you take out the garbage now?”
Where is you outrage when Marc Rudov said, “You know what? The woman is not called a B-word because she’s assertive and aggressive; she’s called a B-word because she acts like one,” and “Men are depressed, and it’s their own fault, because men are allowing women to take over the world.” How about he says when asked about the downside of having a female president, “You mean besides the PMS and the mood swings, right?”
Where is your outrage when CNN’s Alex Castellanos asserted, “And some women, by the way, are named that [white bitch] and it’s accurate” or when he suggested that if Clinton were Sen. Barack Obama’s vice president, “I think Barack Obama would have to hire a food tester …”
Where is your outrage when Fox’s Mort Kondracke said “Well, this person says Hillary’s a vampire. She’s sucking the blood out of Barack Obama.”
Where is your outrage when NPR’s Ken Rudin stated, “[L]et’s be honest here, Hillary Clinton is Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction. She’s going to keep coming back, and they’re not going to stop her.”
Where is your outrage when on MSNBC David Shuster presented Tucker Carlson with “a Hillary laughing pen” where the mouth moves and the pen makes a laughing noise. In response, Carlson stated: “I can’t tell you, David, how much I appreciate this. . . ”
Did you even flinch when on MSNBC Pat Buchanan asserted that when Clinton “raises her voice, and when a lot of women do, you know, it’s — as I say — it reaches a point … where every husband in America … has heard at one time or another.” or when he said,”It’s very difficult for women to reach those kinds of levels effectively, as it is to make them sort of a rally speech. They’re not good at that.”
Where is your outrage when Tony Hendra, at the bastion of quality political thinking known as Huffington Post, imagines, “Wednesday morning, a crazed grin splitting her Chucky-like cheeks, Clinton told her staff: “All my life I’ve felt I was a man trapped in a woman’s body!” No-one disagreed.” or when John Eskow says, “Her cause is herself. Her feminism is a feminism of convenience. Her concern for kids — which surely once must’ve been real and profound — has turned into a breezy willingness to “obliterate” them.” How about when David Rees titles his carefully researched article “Journey To The Center Of Hillary Clinton’s Mind: ‘Why Would I Drop Out Before Barack Obama Is Assassinated?’”
Where is your outrage when the NYT’s Maureen Dowd compares Senator Clinton to Lord Voldemort and then imagines that “Democrats are trying to sneak up on Hillary, throw a burlap sack over her head, carry her off the field and stick her in a Saddam spider hole until after the Denver convention.”
Where is your outrage when Mike Barnicle on MSNBC said Clinton “look[ed] like everyone’s first wife standing outside a probate court,” when Bill Kristol on Fox News said that among the only people supporting Hillary Clinton were white women, and “[w]hite women are a problem, that’s, you know — we all live with that.” Or when CNN’s Jack Cafferty likened Clinton to “a scolding mother, talking down to a child,” when MSNBC’s Tucker Carlson announced that “when [Clinton] comes on television, I involuntarily cross my legs.”
All that is missing from these worthy political commentaries is the odor of sweat, acne and towel snapping, followed by the disclaimer, “aww, we’re just kidding, can’t you take a joke?”
Where was your outrage, sir, when your colleague at MSNBC, Chris Matthews, repeatedly dismissed, insulted and belittled Senator Clinton? What did you think when he said “I hate her. I hate her. All that she stands for.”
Presumably, working for the same outfit, you were aware of Matthews’ considerable and extended bouts of verbal diarrhea related to Senator Clinton. Surely we have no need to go into all those comments all over again, since it must have been so clear that those remarks were and are without a doubt totally inappropriate and just plain wrong?
Or maybe not. After all, on MSNBC, referring to what Democrats needed to force Senator Clinton from the race, you said, “Somebody who can take her into a room and only he comes out.” Did you really say THAT? Did you really think a not-so-subtle allusion to beating up a woman was an acceptable thing to say?
Really? About a PRESIDENTIAL candidate? About a former FIRST LADY? About a woman who still gets millions of votes despite comments like these? Or possibly because of them? About a woman who still wins primaries by large margins even as other democrats call for her to give up, bail out, go home, slink away and shut the fuck up. Really? That’s worthy of a punch or two or twenty? Who else have you singled out for a back-room beating, Mr. Olbermann?
Whereas you conflate Senator Clinton’s reminder about 1968 and assassination into “that which cannot be said,” YOU called for her to be taken “into a room [where] only HE comes out.”
This is OK with you? In a time of the taliban, burquas, female genital mutilation, female infanticide, sexual slavery and rape as a weapon run rampant, nevermind the gentler forms of discrimination still with us in this most advanced of nations, you, sir, seem to think the highest profile woman in America rates a beating in a back room by some unnamed man. Unnamed because you probably don’t think it even needs to be any particular man, just the anonymity of seeing an uppity woman get hers.
Oh, yes. Robert Kennedy Jr., who endorsed Hillary Clinton months ago, issued a statement responding to Senator Clinton’s words about 1968:
It is clear from the context that Hillary was invoking a familiar political circumstance in order to support her decision to stay in the race through June. I have heard her make this reference before, also citing her husband’s 1992 race, both of which were hard fought through June. I understand how highly charged the atmosphere is, but I think it is a mistake for people to take offense.
You, Mr. Olbermann, used to speak truth to power. But now you’ve become something far less noble and useful during a time of bruised feelings and hard-fought politics. You’ve become a cheerleader for the already rampant selective misuse of words to achieve a pre-ordained end. An end ordained by you.
You chose to “up the ante” on rage and hate and misogyny. You chose to deliberately misconstrue Senator Clinton’s words and then weave that false construction into whole cloth that you could then drape across your shoulders with righteousness and anger. Then you told us what could not be said. But first YOU said it.
, the basis for the Best Motion Picture Nominee (Golden Globes) starring Brad Pitt.
, the novel by John Le Carre, a new motion picture starring Gary Oldman and Colin Firth.
by 
* (Included in the 
* 
.by David Fredosso who wrote 2008's 
- You'll have access to 18 million movies, TV shows, songs, magazines, and books, as well as ultra-fast Web browsing with Amazon Silk -- faster than iPad. Full e-mail and document access and a keyboard. Fire can transmit what is on your screen onto a connected TV or monitor without an accessory. It runs Flash (iPad doesn't). 
