Keith Olbermann is your daddy
 

He has begun eloquently and publicly calling the Bush administration on their bullshit, and it is beautiful. In some ways, this is just the latest in a gradual, exponentially-accelerating trend of more reputable, mainstream, and loud criticisms: in my mind the past months have marked the first, excruciating step towards something which one day may resemble a genuine discussion of the events that surround us. It is refreshing to see that past events have begun to resurface and be reexamined in a context that casts them as slightly more than a shallow ploy by one side or another.


A few highlights:

on Donald Rumsfeld(8/30/06)

on the current state of ground zero (9/11/06)

on Bill Clinton's interview with Chris Wallace (9/25/06)

on the Bush administration's al Qaeda lies & accountability (9/27/06)

In the piece in your third link, he calls Chris Wallace a monkey. Is that the sort of refreshing genuine discussion you mean?

He's the O'Reilly of the left. If you are in the same ideological location, you find it to be genuine. If not, you find it to be shrill.

I can't stand reading some of the newspaper opinion pieces that I more or less agree with, because the authors are so mean-spirited they do more harm than good for their arguments. This is among the reasons that I prefer reading things that my gut reaction tells me I won't agree with. I pay more attention to that stuff. How else would I ever learn anything new? My distaste for "left versus right politics" is quickly becoming disinterest. I will never vote for Democrats or Republicans, ever again. Third party only, for me, any third party. I opt out of the boogeyman circus.

Or he's a moderate and only O'Reilly-type consevatives think he's shrill. I wouldn't know - I've never watched his show.

He is shrill.

Unfortunately, shrill seems to work, and if there was no Olbermann, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Hannity, et al would still exist. Also, few of the so-called "liberal media" are willing to consistently raise some of the issues he does. Maybe they're afraid that some stories are so explosive if handled honestly that you can't be honest without seeming shrill.

Hmmm...how is he shrill again? He's actually got FACTS, rather than innuendo or outright lies (e.g., a Saddam-Al-Qaeda connection).
So, besides calling him a name, where's the substantive criticsm of his message?

That's like Ann Coulter complaining that people who criticize her didn't read her book.

I'm not saying it's so, just putting it out there as a possibility.

Perhaps, but the ones who have read her books are the ones with the best criticism.

I haven't read her books, but I know that "liberals hate America" . . .

...and abortionists are Satan's spawn.

I should clarify - The ones who have read her books have the best criticism of her books. All you need to criticise her is to see her on TV or in print or on the web, etc.

Not to be ThreadHiJackMan, but some people, maybe a lot of people, seem to agree with Coulter. Maybe they agree with her silently in their hearts*



*I don't.

What does this therad have to do with Hugh Jackman?

Double punishment. If Olbermann doesn't spew any harsh comments he's a soft tree-hugging liberal. If he does then he's mean and on par with O'Reilly.