Keith Olbermann Slams Clinton Campaign

Musings, Politics

Peter Finch would be proud. MSNBC Countdown host Keith Olbermann put an impassioned, cinematic/oratorical spin on his “special comment” direct address to Senator Hillary Clinton last night, stemming from Geraldine Ferraro’s comments about Senator Barack Obama only being in the position he was because he was a black man, and it was a pretty powerful thing (“Voluntarily or inadvertently, you are still awash in this filth”). Whatever you think of the man, the Democratic candidates or this controversy, Olbermann can write. And to me, his points are pretty much on point: the serpentine, surreptitious courting of casually prejudiced voters — the sort of folks who might not forward along the email touting Obama as a closet agent of Muslim, but silently nod to themselves in clucking acceptance when hearing about its reportage — has gotten a lot more advanced and, dare I say, intelligent over the years. And the Clintons don’t have their doctorates in hardball by accident. They play to win, and a vote is a vote, no matter if it’s in the positive or negative. Ergo, the Clinton campaign has been remarkably adept at maintaining plausible deniability. You can’t reasonably assign intent to any single one of these statements or controversies Olbermann addresses. But once the “pattern” cat is out of the bag… well, you’ve really irritated if not forever lost those who care most deeply and sincerely about equality, and abhor political ploys of cheap division.

5 thoughts on “Keith Olbermann Slams Clinton Campaign”

  1. I couldn’t agree more. We were just naive 17-18 year olds the first time round when Slick Willie took la Casa Blanca. But all those old folks out there that ignored his opportunistic (and racist?) move to flaunt the execution of Ricky Ray Rector shouldn’t be that surprised.

    I’ll watch Olbermann’s comments at home this evening. Did you see this bit:

    http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/A_Ferraro_flashback.html

  2. I disagree with the assertion that Keith is in there writing his own diatribes. I’m pretty sure he gets most if not all of his talking points faxed over from Media Matters.

    Ferraro’s comment was not as ridiculous as it has been made out to be. GWB would not have been in a position to be elected if he was the son of a Richmond, VA butcher. Clinton would not be in her position if her husband was a farmer from Iowa. Conversely, Obama would not be in his position if he was a first-term Seantor from Wyoming who had pale skin and was named Lonnie Smith. That is a fact. Rarely do people ascend to their position in national politics without the aid of some unearned quality, whether it be their name, their race, or their personal wealth.

  4. Sure, that’s a point to be made… and the same can be applied to both Ferraro and Clinton. If she really thought that, then why is she engaging in the political process that way she and HRC have for so long??

    The point is the continued sideways suggestions that continue to plague society.

    Your point in particular — mentioning Media Matters and then diving into some sort of self-righteous blather about politicians. If you were being genuine, then why don’t you mention that all these talking heads get their ideas from the Heritage Society or Media Matters or who knows where, but it’s all tied up in.

    Wait, wait. Why am I responding to a comment to comments on a blog?? If I weren’t on the other side of the continent then I’d prefer to just take Simon out for a beer.

    I prefer humans.

Comments are closed.