Olbermann named Beck "runner-up" in "Worst Person" for his "hypocritical" comments about Obama, race
On the January 28 edition of MSNBC's Countdown, host Keith Olbermann named CNN Headline News' Glenn Beck the "runner-up" in his "Worst Person in the World" segment for Beck's recent comments -- documented by Media Matters for America -- on Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) and race. On the January 25 edition of his show, Beck responded to National Public Radio commentator John Ridley's statement that "questions about 'Is Obama black enough?' " are "ridiculous" by asking: "[C]an you imagine a white commentator saying that? Can you imagine if I said, 'Is Barack Obama black enough?' ... I don't see that man as black. Of course I do, because I'm not blind. I don't see him as black or white. He just is. He's an American. He's a man."
However, on the February 12, 2007, broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Beck commented that Obama is "very white in many ways," adding, "Gee, can I even say that? Can I even say that without somebody else starting a campaign saying, 'What does he mean, "He's very white?" ' He is. He's very white." Later on the February 12 show, Beck claimed that Obama "is colorless," adding that "as a white guy ... [y]ou don't notice that he is black. So he might as well be white, you know what I mean?" After contrasting Beck's January 25 comments with his February 2007 remarks, Olbermann said, "Sometimes it's not just the dumb, it's the hypocritical."
Olbermann has repeatedly named Beck during his "Worst Person" segment. In January 2006, Olbermann also named a CNN executive "Worst Person" for hiring Beck to host his CNN Headline News show.
From the January 28 edition of MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann:
OLBERMANN: Our runner-up, Glenn Beck. On TV last Friday, after somebody references the "is Obama black enough" nonsense, he says, "Can you imagine a white commentator saying that? Can you imagine if I had said, 'Is Barack Obama black enough?' I mean, I don't see that man as black."
On February 12 of 2007 on the radio, he said, Barack Obama is quote, "very white in many ways. He is colorless. As a white guy you don't notice that he's black. So he might as well be white. Do you know what I mean?"
Yes. Sometimes it's not just the dumb, it's the hypocritical.
It's always nice to know if I miss a few days, I get to see the re-run.
:-)
Beck is a "stream of consciousness" kind of guy. It's terribly UNFAIR to expect him to remember what he said five minutes ago, let alone DAYS ago.
Can HE help it if today's new and improved rightwing attack narrative totally contradicts and renders yesterday's narrative obsolete? Who remembers these things?
Let's talk about something extra-fresh in everyone's mind: Lewinsky!
It's terribly UNFAIR to expect him to remember what he said five minutes ago, let alone DAYS ago.
Y-y-yes.. but... the stupid. It hurts.
Oh boy another St. Keith thread.
Hey Keith some of the Libs here aren't too happy with you anymore. You gotta stop hanging out with Matthews, he's a bad influence on ya ;-)
However that is not an excuse or a pass to be an ahole.
I agree ! That's why I no longer watch Countdown. I still watch the Daily Show though.
And at your work you call your boss and/or colleagues aholes when they are being aholes? you enjoy that level of freedom in your employed actions ?
or are you just talking tough ?
Keith's no saint, but let's see some FACTS. I'm so sick of the whining from the Hill fans that Keith called the Clinton campaign out for fighting dirty.
Are the Obama supporters that much of poltical neophytes to think that partisanship ends once Obama gives a speech?
Thank you for writing that.
"How many times have the Republicans beat the Clintons?"
What do you mean by "beat"? The Republicans rendered Clinton's administration largely impotent in his second term. It was no victory for this nation, but I doubt the Republicans considered it a failure.
maybe it's jsut the misconception that Keith is actually a liberal... No, he's someone with a flatform who's sick fo the Bush administration, and anything that resembles it. Nothing more, nothing else. Him and Chris Matthrew are casual friends.. their jobs shouldn't get in the way of that.
I watch him because he's one of the few sources of information i trust.. The only bias he has is with the Bush administration and Republicians Hypocrisy. But can that be a bias when it's all true?
''If I had made that comparison to Jesse Jackson,'' I have a feeling that I'd be talking to Al Sharpton again,'' Imus told Michael Graham of Boston's WTKK.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/28/imus-if-i-made-bills-je_n_83606.html
Keith's still A-OK in my book. I just wish MSNBC didn't bar him from naming his collegues (Namely Messr's Mathews and Carlson.) But I'm still (by and large) very happy with Mister Olbermann's work.
Keep tellin' it like it is Keith!!!
Ok, ok, not defending Beck but have to be consistent here..
...It does seem hypocritical of Beck at first, but I know that I, and many I am willing to talk to about this, who are "Caucasian" on standardized tests, see ourselves as "colorless" rather than "white". So, it would make sense to someone who looks at themselves as "colorless" to interchange that with "white".
I'm really not trying to make excuses. I would love to have a conversation on whether "whites" themselves really think about themselves as part of the "white" group, assign certain characteristics to themselves, etc.
It's textbook hypocrisy on Beck's part. Out of one side of his mouth he claims to not see Obama in terms of color, that "He just is. He's an American. He's a man" while out the other side of his mouth he's obsessed with the very pigment of Obama's skin.
"I don't see him as black or white. He just is. He's an American. He's a man."
"very white in many ways"
"he might as well be white"
"So, it would make sense to someone who looks at themselves as "colorless" to interchange that with "white"."
No, it really doesn't make sense at all. Beck's intent comes across loud and clear: when he wants to praise Obama, he removes the "taint" of Obama's black heritage. Obama's not black, says Beck the Prophet, he's just like us regular people. You know, the nice well-off people in suburbs who just happen to not be black.
By the way, whites are not colorless, they simply see themselves as a racial standard - a standard that is encouraged through voluntarily segregated housing, employment, and a national media of all types that throw in minority nationalities and skin colors into otherwise white entertainment, as if the minority is a seasoning to compliment the flavor of the "main course" - the white actors and presenters.
I know you're making excuses for Beck, per se, but if the racial disparity in this country is going to mend and meld, it's necessary for white folks like you and I to recognize what it means for a minority to live in a culture that caters to caucasians in its advertising, in its media and (historically, at least) in its employment, housing, and even civil rights.
HSTYBUF,
Ok..... I'll bite..... why does Keith need to look in a mirror, in your mind, as it pertains to this thread?
Please, by all means, use some facts to back up this gem!
Sue, I agree, but is there anyone on the cable news shows who is any better?
So tell me, how do you explain this: "And, yes, if I’m going to step out from the cool, comforting environs of the shadows, I’d rather spring forward to pimp the book or the newscast.
But, having now read a (mercifully few) claims here that I’m a) attacking Clinton, b) burying Edwards, and c) clobbering Obama, I feel the need to mention that I truly don’t have a preference. I am tilting in no direction, sending out no subliminal message, and thwarting no truth.
To report the NBC New Hampshire projection after the polls close there, is not to try to marginalize John Edwards. To run the entire Bill Clinton "fairy tale" sound bite complete with its Iraq vote context, is not to try to thwart Barack Obama. And to report that Dennis Kucinich has put a down payment on a New Hampshire recount is not to claim Hillary Clinton stole a primary.
I appreciate the fervor of each candidate’s supporters and I think I have some empathy based on my standing in the Frustrated-By-The-Obviousness-Of-Politics League. But can anybody reading messages into tea leaves in my newscast, when there isn’t even a teacup, please resume regular breathing patterns? To see in each of my reports an enemy or a spokesman sounds microscopically like – and I swallow hard and prepare for the prospect of some Kossacks to approach what passes for my castle with torches and pitchforks as I write this – Bill O’Reilly."
-Keith Olbermann
link here
He had like over 200 straight shows about Monica when Bill was in the White House
When the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke in 1998, the show morphed into White House in Crisis. Olbermann became frustrated as his show was consumed by the Lewinsky story. In 1998, he stated that his work at MSNBC would "make me ashamed, make me depressed, make me cry."[5]
Sue, you don't get attacked for daring to criticize Olbermann. You get attacked for insisting on doing it all the time, over and over again, often when there is no connection between the topic being discussed and Keith. It gets a little annoying at times.
The sad thing is that even though he's really just another talking head elevated to pundit status for inexplicable reasons, he's still the closest thing to an actual liberal mainstream commentator there is.
to question if he is authentic or not. I think we all now know he is not.
You are obviously wrong about that last sentence. I don't even know what you mean by it. Please define "authentic".
Does he not believe what he reports?
Does he tell falsehoods?
Is he wearing a hairpiece?
I do not require news commentators be "authentic" or whatever you call it. I listen to hear news and opinions. It's the message not the messenger. I don't expect to hear all the truth from one source.
I have never been happy with Keith, and his disgusting antics Saturday regarding Senator clinton sealed his faith with me. Him and Scarborough and Matthews are all phony showmen.
What did he say?
Can I get some FACTS please?
Anyone got links (psst Sueld that means you too) as to why Keith is suddenly the Antichrist. Before Obama surged there was none of this below the belt nonsense, long time Dems have called the Clintons out on it, and Keith does same and somehow that's out of line.
And I quote "'I don’t think it was by accident that Al Qaeda decided to test the new [British] prime minister,' she said. 'They watch our elections as closely as we do, maybe more closely than some of our fellows citizens do…. Let’s not forget you’re hiring a president not just to do what a candidate says during the election, you want a president to be there when the chips are down.'"
This was a disgusting, unforgivable statement on her part. Imagine if Bush had made the same claim about electing John Kerry, oh wait, he did! And we all rightly raised hell about it. Suddenly though it's ok that Hillary uses these fear mongering tactics? Gimme a break.
OBAMA 08
Anyone got links (psst Sueld that means you too) as to why Keith is suddenly the Antichrist
Eden, dont you know, he was critical of Bill & Hill for playing dirty politics.
Why would there be a demand (to the extent there really is a demand) for somebody who is just a guy to explain the world to people? Most of us are just ordinary people, and so the notion is, I suppose, that we’ll identify with him and therefore trust his advice. However, when we need medical or legal problems explained we don’t seek out a guy like us. We look for someone better/smarter than us, at least concerning knowledge of medicine or law. Would it then not follow that people would demand super-intellects to explain the world in general? Understanding the world is far more involved than understanding one particular aspect of it. I would say there are five possible reasons:
First, there’s the problem of reputation. When someone speaks publicly, and I don’t mean anonymously like on a message board, his veracity is more questionable because it’s assumed he will say politically correct things and so his opinion is automatically severely discounted. At least the doctor and lawyer meet with me in private.
…Beck doesn’t seem to care about his reputation so I can trust him to be straight with me.
Second is the ’where you stand depends on where you sit’ dynamic. To a woman the health care system can look very different to a man. To a minority the criminal justice system can look very different to how a White sees it. To a wealthy man, economic realities are indeed what the textbooks tell us, while to a poor person it’s the micro effects, not the grand macro effects that really matter…….I’m a (insert group) like Beck is, or I’m not a (insert group) like Beck, so maybe he can he see things from my perspective.
Third, there is the agenda problem. How do I know he’s not one of them (insert group), Or he is one of them (insert group) so how can I trust what he’s telling me isn’t to further the good of his group at the expense of me and my group? I never actually meet these “experts” in person anyway, so I don’t know them as people.……Again, I’m a (insert group) like Beck, or I’m not a (insert group) like Beck, so maybe he can he see things from my perspective. And, I do sorta know him as he talks to me every day.
Fourth, since he’s offering his opinion free to me he doesn’t have the kind of obligation to me a lawyer or doctor, etc. I hired would have….…. Beck’s in the same boat as all the others here, except he does imply he’s looking out for my welfare and I’ve come to believe him.
Fifth, the egghead problem. It is to a large degree true that people who are the most in tune socially with people are not usually the best big-picture people and vice versa. But much of understanding the world is based on understanding relationships. How can the egghead type tell me about things he’s not attuned to understand? Unless I can get to know the person and see he has both aptitudes, I’ll just tune out his big picture pronouncements. Beck’s a somewhat amusing guy and he seems confident enough to embarrass himself publicly on a regular basis so he’s probably got down the social aspect of things as far as I’m concerned, and I do sorta know him cause I see or hear him everday.
Here's the problem, being black is not a singular cultural identity, just as being white is not. That is part of why race is still a huge problem in this country despite the wishes of those who would like to claim that it's all over now.
It would be like making a comparison to Giuliani and ask if he's "Italian enough." And of course, what that might mean is, "is he a mafia type, who speaks poor English and resorts to violence to solve his problems?" That would be a bigotted and prejudiced way of buying into a negative stereotype, which is what the question "Is he black enough?" does with Obama. What people often mean by blackness is a snapshot of the worst stereotypes about the urban black culture: inarticulate, uneducated, criminal and thuggish. Obama has had a very unique upbringing, why should he be compared to, say, 50-Cent? Because they are both black? Guess what, African-Americans have just as many unique cultural identities as white Americans, based on their own experiences and their own surroundings.