Keith Olbermann Has a Strong Message for Hillary Clinton

March 13, 2008 at 9:29 am 11 comments

Keith Olbermann lays into Hillary Clinton for Clinton’s tepid response to the racially offensive remarks that Clinton surrogate Geraldine Ferraro against Barack Obama. When called on her words Ferraro dug in deeper and claimed that the Obama campaign was attacking her because she is white.

It took a while, but Ferraro has resigned from the Clinton campaign. What has gotten Olbermann’s ire and frankly that of a lot of other people, is that Clinton initial response was a weak “I disagree” and that this is the latest in a string of racially questionable statements by Clinton’s high level supporters.

Advertisements

Entry filed under: 2008 Election, Barack Obama, Campaigns, Democrats, Liberals, Politics, Race, Video, YouTube. Tags: , , , , , , .

OK State Rep: “Gays are Worse Than Terrorists” Did DNC Lawyers Try to Intimidate Gay Media?

11 Comments Add your own

  • 1. ktr2003  |  March 13, 2008 at 9:41 am

    wow, I haven’t seen Olbermann that angry before . . . hard to believe he was an ESPN newscaster before.

    Reply
  • 2. darciemay  |  March 13, 2008 at 10:25 am

    IF it is okay for our black americans to vote for Obama,wouldn’t it be okay if white americans want to vote for Hillary or McCain? IF Obama was running on the GOP side and was more conservative than what he is then he could have my vote. He worries me because of his age,lack of experience,the church that he goes to and the people he has been linked to.I honestly don’t want to vote for him because of those reasons,not the color of his skin. I’m thinking we should just vote for who we want and put the race issues and the women issues behind us. I thought this was all settled years ago.I do not care about the physical look of anyone that is running.I want to vote for the person that is closest to what I believe in.

    Reply
  • 3. Pedro  |  March 13, 2008 at 10:31 am

    Hillary and Bill Clinton have made a significant issue about how the press is treating Hillary unfairly in their hyper-critical reporting on her and their “softball” reporting on Barak Obama. Hillary maintains she has been fully investigated by the media and Barak hasn’t! As the Tony Rezko trial begins in Chicago, Clinton and her surrogates are linking Obama to Rezko and the media is speculating about whether Obama will be called to testify as a witness in the case. Obama has always admitted he received $85,000 in contributions from Rezko which Obama has now donated to charity rather than keep. Yet the civil fraud trial of Bill Clinton for defrauduing Hillary’s largest donor in 2000 into giving her campaign more than $1.2 million, pending in Los Angeles courts since 2003, is now preparing for a November, 2008 trial. The discovery that is now proceeding after a February 21 hearing, and the pending trial, have NEVER been announced by the mainstream media. Hillary was able to extricate herself as a co-defendant in the case in January, 2008 after years of appeals to be protected by the First Amendment from tort claims arising out of federal campaign solicitations she made. Her abuse of the intent of California’s anti-SLAPP law after the California Supreme Court refused to dismiss her from the case in 2004 is emblematic of her contempt for the Rule of Law. Hillary will be called as a witness in both discovery and the trial according to the trial court Judge who so-advised Hillary’s attorney David Kendall when he dismissed Hillary as a co-defendant in 2007. A subpoena is being prepared this month and will be served personally on Hillary, along with Chelsea, Pa Gov. Ed Rendell, Al Gore and other well known political and media figures. Yet the media has refused to report about this landmark civil fraud case- brought by Hillary’s biggest 2000 donor to her Senate race, regarding allegations that were corroborated by the Department of Justice in the criminal trial of Hillary’s finance director David Rosen in May, 2005. That indictment and trial was credited as resulting from the civil suit’s allegations by Peter Paul, the Hollywood dot com millionaire Bill Clinton convinced to donate more than $1.2 million (according to the DOJ prosecutors and the FBI) to Hillary’s Senate campaign as part of a post White House business deal with Bill. The media – except for World Net Daily- has also suspiciously refused to report on Hillary’s last FEC report regarding her 2000 Senate campaign, filed in January 30, 2006. In a secret settlement of an FEC complaint by the plaintiff in Paul v Clinton, Peter Paul, the FEC fined Hillary’s campaign $35,000 for hiding more than $720,000 in donations from Paul, and it required Hillary’s campaign to file a 4th amended FEC report. In that report Hillary and her campaign again hid Paul’s $1.2 million contribution to her campaign and falsely attributed $250,000 as being donated by Paul’s partner, Spider Man creator Stan Lee, who swore in a video taped deposition he never gave Hillary or her campaign any money. Lee did testify to trading $100,000 checks with Paul to make it appear he gave $100,000 to Hillary’s campaign (admission of a felony) but none of that has been reported by the “overly critical” media! Where is the outrage from Obama that the press is engaging in a double standard relating to his possible role in the Rezko trial and his refunding the $85,000 contributed to his campaign by Rezko- which Obama has always admitted taking. The media makes no mention of Hillary’s role as a witness in Bill’s fraud trial for defrauding Hillary’s largest donor- and Hillary’s refusal to refund the $1.2 million she illegally received from Paul, which she has denied taking from Paul ever since the Washington Post asked her about Paul and his felony convictions from the 1970’s before her first Senate election in 2000? Visit Hillcap.org for videos and info.

    Reply
  • 4. Ramirez  |  March 13, 2008 at 12:27 pm

    People are being hipocrites. Ferraro said what has been said over and over in blogland. I can’t count the number of times that I have read how great it would be to have the 1st black president or how people can identify with Obama because he’s black and he understands discrimination or other issues addressed by minorities. And that’s not counting the thousands of blogs that are based on race. So please, Ferraro’s comments have been blown out of proportion, especially since what she said was true, but naturally it isn’t politically correct to say so. You know what we are to the world? A bunch of hipocrites!
    Can we at least say Obama is a man??? or would that be gender biased? This is stupid.

    Reply
  • 5. kberly7568  |  March 13, 2008 at 1:35 pm

    wow….olberman really had a freak out. While I agree that Ferraro’s statements were uncalled for, they were definitely blown out of porportian. Everyone is freaking out over this while this is not the first time Ferraro has made racial/gender comments. She made comments about Jesse Jackson in the 80’s as well. Check out this video of Pat Bucanan flipping out at Keli Goff over the Ferraro comment. insane!

    http://campaigncircus.com/video_player.php?v=8416

    Reply
  • 6. Will  |  March 13, 2008 at 1:53 pm

    Olberman is truth. No party alignment. Just speaks the plain truth.

    Reply
  • 7. Dax23  |  March 13, 2008 at 8:53 pm

    Olberman is another political hack. A liberal wuss with a propensity for retentiveness. He bores me to death with his unintelligent use of language. He is barack Obama’s counterpart……too much hat….hell no cattle!

    Reply
  • 8. darciemay  |  March 13, 2008 at 11:56 pm

    I have 3 political channels that I watch all the time,because I am open enough to listen to what all 3 candidates have to say BUT Olbermann hacked me off big time about a month ago and I haven’t watched him since.I totally agree with Dax23,he is a total wuss.I am a small woman but I bet I could whip his _ss.Between his little temper tantrums and inflated ego,lies a very whipped puppy.

    Reply
  • 9. Brittany  |  March 14, 2008 at 2:25 pm

    The problem is not what Ferraro said. The issue is that way the Hillary and her advisers responded. Hillary has repeatedly insisted that Obama denouce and reject any person connected to his campaign the has said innapropriate comments. Obama has made it a point not to show Hillary’s gender as being an issue. Hillary and her staff have made Obama being a black man and the lie that he is Muslim a key point in her campaign.

    Hillary has acted hypocritical. She holds herself and her campaign staff to a different standard then she does Obamas. While Obama must denouce and reject people connected to his campaign that say things Hillary doesn’t agree with, Hillary doesn’t have to take responsibility for the comments of her staff. And these comments have been coming repeatingly from the Clinton campaign which makes people believe that she’s either encouraging these comments on purpose or she is encouraging these comments by not punishing or seperating herself from her staff that says them.

    While I believe the comments aren’t that big of a deal and anyone who is African American (I am) most likely isn’t hurt by them. The fact is that instead of seperating herself from the conotations Hillary seems to encourage them. Not to make it a racial issue but democrats need the black vote to win the national election and if Clinton wins the nomination she has seperated herself from African Americans and it becomes clear that the fact Obama is black isn’t the only reason hes recieving 90% of the black vote. And by the way when his campaign began Obama was getting very little of the black vote. In fact until recent months Clinton had it cornered

    Reply
  • 10. darciemay  |  March 14, 2008 at 9:28 pm

    Brittany, I don’t know if your comment is me or to everyone that has left coments. I do understand what you are saying.I do not like Clinton either which is why I am voting on the REP side. There is alot of back ground trash about Hillary too.ALL 3 of the candidates have had skeleton’s in their closet,which most people do and do not want to admit.IF you feel strongly about voting for Obama,then you should.As long as we ALL have the freedom to vote for WHO we want.Politics are alot like religion.NOT everyone is going to agree on all things.NOW,I could be totally wrong but if Clinton should win the whole thing,I think she would ask Barrack to be VP. On the other hand,I’m not so sure that he would accept her as VP but of course,I don’t know that for positive. I figure that GOD will make the ultimate decision,so whoever wins,I will live with the results.

    Reply
  • 11. Jim Pickett  |  March 15, 2008 at 6:34 pm

    Ferraro is a pig for what she said.
    Racist Pig.
    Period.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


AddThis Feed Button
Political Blogs - Blog Catalog Blog Directory

Blog Stats

  • 832,971 hits

Archives


%d bloggers like this: