Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Registration is currently closed. That means if you're not already registered, you can't comment. We will let you know if and when registration re-opens. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Olbermann is a news anchor, dont’cha know. He leaves his opinions outside of the news room, he tells us.
And according to Phil Griffin, MSNBC honcho, “Keith’s the future of news reporting.”
God help us all.
SteveMG on April 22, 2008 at 10:55 PM
Mr. Obama is not blameless when it comes to the negative and vapid nature of this campaign. He is increasingly rising to Mrs. Clinton’s bait, undercutting his own claims that he is offering a higher more inclusive form of politics. When she criticized his comments about “bitter” voters, Mr. Obama mocked her as an Annie Oakley wannabe. All that does is remind Americans who are on the fence about his relative youth and inexperience.
Ooo what FIERCE criticism! They’re so fair and balanced!
Dash on April 22, 2008 at 10:55 PM
yes I too wonder more what the other title was, then what’s on the NYT editorial page… I could have guessed it was like the King of Hypocrites show… but I wouldn’t know that, because my mother taught me that: we don’t have any rags in our house, we only have papers or was that wash cloths? mmm I get confused. all I know is I don’t read that rag nor care what it says. of course that’s because you guys tell me that it’s a rag… damn why did I even comment on this?
And according to Phil Griffin, MSNBC honcho, “Keith’s the future of news reporting.”
God help us all. SteveMG on April 22, 2008 at 10:55 PM
Someone needs to pick up the torch from the wonderful news reporter Dan Rather.
wise_man on April 22, 2008 at 11:02 PM
‘NY lifting talking points from Olbermann now.’
… yeah, that’s kind of a ‘chicken or egg’ kind of question, isn’t it.
wise_man on April 22, 2008 at 11:04 PM
I didn’t know the Times had hired Olberman.
irongrampa on April 22, 2008 at 11:11 PM
I wonder if Hillary is starting to feel what a vast left wing conspiracy feels like? Espescially after she helped start up MoveOn.org, and the whole Obama candidacy started out as a farce just to make her look experienced and like a centrist compared to the most liberal senator evah. She must be pissed. Maybe she’ll learn never to underestimate just how looney the left really is.
JustTruth101 on April 22, 2008 at 11:12 PM
I wonder if Hillary is starting to feel what a vast left wing conspiracy feels like? Espescially after she helped start up MoveOn.org.. JustTruth101 on April 22, 2008 at 11:12 PM
Yup.
“We have been less successful in caucuses because it brings out the activist base of the Democratic Party. MoveOn didn’t even want us to go into Afghanistan. I mean, that’s what we’re dealing with. And you know they turn out in great numbers. And they are very driven by their view of our positions, and it’s primarily national security and foreign policy that drives them. I don’t agree with them. They know I don’t agree with them. So they flood into these caucuses and dominate them and really intimidate people who actually show up to support me.“
Lawl!
wise_man on April 22, 2008 at 11:20 PM
The NYT is deranded and far left. This is news? Sounds like the status quo to me.
I guess it doesn’t hurt to point it out now and then, so the vast mass of humanity who ignore the NYT don’t completely forget.
Merovign on April 22, 2008 at 11:40 PM
. . . and end the war in Iraq.
The NYT, the “paper of record,” full of Ivy League graduates, is still hearing “End the war in Vietnam, bring our boys home!” roaring in its collective ears. Then as now, bringing our boys home will not end the war. The people over there, the ones not “our boys,” even if they are just brown people who have no independent moral agency (slaves, as they are, to their “root causes”), in fact do have agendas that do not involve us!!! As such, even when we leave, they will pursue those agendas, perhaps even more vigorously and successfully than they did before we left. How smart do you have to be to get to that conclusion? I figure if you know that you can’t change your underwear without taking off your pants, that conclusion ought to be within easy reach.
smellthecoffee on April 22, 2008 at 11:43 PM
If anybody’s hanging around the comments in order to avoid reading the NYT editorial itself, oh man, dive into it, the NYT is coming unhinged. Most of all they are freaked out by Hilzilla’s roaring shrieks and Obamadon’s thunderous groans. They think that Obama should go untested, as if he were a diamond forever to be, for some mysterious reason, swaddled in cotton. What will the NYT say when reality insists on testing whether a President Obama is really hard or not? And they also toss a “housing crisis” in! — when what they mean is a housing market crisis that involves anything but a shortage of housing. Prices are coming down for current home buyers and the NYT (run by old money) is freaked out.
ForNow on April 22, 2008 at 11:49 PM
The NYT internalizes its eunuch status. If they were powerful, they’d have swung this in one or the other direction, so they could harp on McCain longer.
Entelechy on April 22, 2008 at 11:49 PM
Pa was inconclusive?????
Man you can smell the flop sweat.
Lonetown on April 23, 2008 at 5:34 AM
The NYT editorial page is indistinguishable from Olbermann.
And Olbermann is indistinguishable from the rantings at the Daily Kos.
Now, if I recall correctly, if A=B, and B=C, then A=C.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Registration is currently closed. That means if you're not already registered, you can't comment. We will let you know if and when registration re-opens. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
I liked the previous headline better.
lorien1973 on April 22, 2008 at 10:45 PM
which was something like:
nyt editorial page indistinguishable from olbermann’s show
lorien1973 on April 22, 2008 at 10:45 PM
Ah, fine. I’ll change it back.
Allahpundit on April 22, 2008 at 10:47 PM
Darn.
Now I want to know what the other one was.
wise_man on April 22, 2008 at 10:54 PM
Olbermann is a news anchor, dont’cha know. He leaves his opinions outside of the news room, he tells us.
And according to Phil Griffin, MSNBC honcho, “Keith’s the future of news reporting.”
God help us all.
SteveMG on April 22, 2008 at 10:55 PM
Ooo what FIERCE criticism! They’re so fair and balanced!
Dash on April 22, 2008 at 10:55 PM
yes I too wonder more what the other title was, then what’s on the NYT editorial page… I could have guessed it was like the King of Hypocrites show… but I wouldn’t know that, because my mother taught me that: we don’t have any rags in our house, we only have papers or was that wash cloths? mmm I get confused. all I know is I don’t read that rag nor care what it says. of course that’s because you guys tell me that it’s a rag… damn why did I even comment on this?
Kaptain Amerika on April 22, 2008 at 10:59 PM
I forget what the other one was.
Something like:
NY lifting talking points from Olbermann now.
Tone was the same, just worded differently.
lorien1973 on April 22, 2008 at 11:02 PM
Someone needs to pick up the torch from the wonderful news reporter Dan Rather.
wise_man on April 22, 2008 at 11:02 PM
‘NY lifting talking points from Olbermann now.’
… yeah, that’s kind of a ‘chicken or egg’ kind of question, isn’t it.
wise_man on April 22, 2008 at 11:04 PM
I didn’t know the Times had hired Olberman.
irongrampa on April 22, 2008 at 11:11 PM
I wonder if Hillary is starting to feel what a vast left wing conspiracy feels like? Espescially after she helped start up MoveOn.org, and the whole Obama candidacy started out as a farce just to make her look experienced and like a centrist compared to the most liberal senator evah. She must be pissed. Maybe she’ll learn never to underestimate just how looney the left really is.
JustTruth101 on April 22, 2008 at 11:12 PM
Yup.
Lawl!
wise_man on April 22, 2008 at 11:20 PM
The NYT is deranded and far left. This is news? Sounds like the status quo to me.
I guess it doesn’t hurt to point it out now and then, so the vast mass of humanity who ignore the NYT don’t completely forget.
Merovign on April 22, 2008 at 11:40 PM
The NYT, the “paper of record,” full of Ivy League graduates, is still hearing “End the war in Vietnam, bring our boys home!” roaring in its collective ears. Then as now, bringing our boys home will not end the war. The people over there, the ones not “our boys,” even if they are just brown people who have no independent moral agency (slaves, as they are, to their “root causes”), in fact do have agendas that do not involve us!!! As such, even when we leave, they will pursue those agendas, perhaps even more vigorously and successfully than they did before we left. How smart do you have to be to get to that conclusion? I figure if you know that you can’t change your underwear without taking off your pants, that conclusion ought to be within easy reach.
smellthecoffee on April 22, 2008 at 11:43 PM
If anybody’s hanging around the comments in order to avoid reading the NYT editorial itself, oh man, dive into it, the NYT is coming unhinged. Most of all they are freaked out by Hilzilla’s roaring shrieks and Obamadon’s thunderous groans. They think that Obama should go untested, as if he were a diamond forever to be, for some mysterious reason, swaddled in cotton. What will the NYT say when reality insists on testing whether a President Obama is really hard or not? And they also toss a “housing crisis” in! — when what they mean is a housing market crisis that involves anything but a shortage of housing. Prices are coming down for current home buyers and the NYT (run by old money) is freaked out.
ForNow on April 22, 2008 at 11:49 PM
The NYT internalizes its eunuch status. If they were powerful, they’d have swung this in one or the other direction, so they could harp on McCain longer.
Entelechy on April 22, 2008 at 11:49 PM
Pa was inconclusive?????
Man you can smell the flop sweat.
Lonetown on April 23, 2008 at 5:34 AM
The NYT editorial page is indistinguishable from Olbermann.
And Olbermann is indistinguishable from the rantings at the Daily Kos.
Now, if I recall correctly, if A=B, and B=C, then A=C.
Which means…..
Always Right on April 23, 2008 at 7:42 AM