My reply to Ian's Obama's Media Groupies

Notwithstanding my smarmy comments, my real problem in this case is specifically with the content of Olbermann's hyperbolic rant, not his general disposition toward Hillary or Obama. Olbermann is just one of the more egregious examples of media people who have declared a verdict and now want to proceed to the sentencing, but I won't get into that.

Simply put --I don't like his attitude. I have a real problem with Olbermann declaring from on high that certain things "cannot" be said. So now that his diktat has been promulgated, we should all move on? The media (our betters) are the arbiter of what speech is within the bounds of acceptability for politicians now?

If you have been reading any of my nonsense lately, you may be aware that we have a bit of a free speech issue in Canada at the moment (google human rights commission, macleans, and levant for more details). The idea that "certain things are not to be said" really gets under the skin. As far as I am concerned, Hillary can claim Obama is a crypto-muslim black radical who will lead the U.S. into WWIII and therefore she has to stay in the race, but it isn't up to Olbermann to anathemize her speech. Sure, he can denounce her for what she says (or even for what she "seems to be saying"), and let the good citizens of the U.S. do their duty by exercising their option to consign her to oblivion, but he should not get to tell her and the American people what is and is not acceptable rhetoric. That path leads nowhere good.

As far as the Clinton "gaffe" being the invention of Obama's "media groupies" and/or the Obama campaign itself... I'm no Hillary partisan, and therefore am not prone to lying or dissembling to stick up for her. For the record, I don't give a rats ass about her or what she meant. I'm mad on principle: My problem is with Olbermann adopting the imperative and saying she cannot say something (as opposed to saying "she should not have said it").

Now, if you were to argue that this was simply a rhetorical device of his own, or that he was playing a role --that of grand media inquisitor, perhaps?-- I would still be annoyed, because I've become a free-speech nut, I'm afraid, and I don't like media, government, church, whatever, telling me or anyone else (even Hillary) what we can or cannot say!

And if you were to say that, unlike the state, Olbermann cannot exercise coercive power and that therefore my point is irrelevant I would simply revert to sophomoric namecalling: Olbermann is a douchebag, and I don't like his pompous windbaggery and the idea that what he says might influence the way people think about speech: "Oh, we simply can't say that! What would Keith Olbermann say?"

As far as all the contextual stuff goes (i.e. first time in history there is a black candidate for president, Michelle Obama's fears), once again, not the point. There are plenty of well meaning people up here in Canada trying to shut down debate and free discussion of issues for all the right reasons: combatting "hate" and "anti-semitism" and "islamophobia", but that does not make what they are doing any more justified.

BTW, did somebody say free speech absolutist? In Canada, like in the U.S., we actually have rules that govern free-speech, and the fact is that incitement to violence is illegal. You worry that some nutcase might feel "empowered" by her remarks. I maintain that regardless of whether or not it was in good taste (and since when has good taste been a criterion for political discourse?), what Hillary said was not incitement, and therefore fair comment... "hurt feelings" or not. This is a point we could argue.

You and I both know that Clinton is done. Why the hell do people need to stiffle her now? At this point, one would think they should just stand back and let her bury herself with increasingly outrageous and "catastrophically inappropriate" comments as she grasps at straws. Like your fellow holding the sign there, who is doing such a brilliant job of persuading people not to vote for his candidate.

Frankly, reckless and innapropriate rhetoric is what makes American politics so damn interesting to me! Maybe I just have more faith in the wisdom of the American people (or the effectiveness of the Secret Service) than you do.

I think your Johnson/King point is bang-on...but I would not let Clinton off the hook by saying she is just doing what so many whites do with black rivals. The Clintons have a unique brand of parochialism and condescension all their own!

Oh incidentally, Michelle Obama is going to drag her huband down as this campaign wears on. Somebody get that woman some talking points! She is bad news.

By the way, you really must listen to a Rex Murphy monologue in the original Newfie dialect:

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=rex+murphy&search_type=

Peace out, buddy!

Chest Pain

So much ink spilled lately on Ms. Couillard's chestal region, and yet only Rondi Adamson made me snicker:

After all, Couillard can't help the size of her breasts. From the looks of them, they are real. The idea that she should keep them covered because they may, er, distract, is foolish and parochial. But she did choose her boyfriend and husband, one presumes. And she chose to date a politician. One thing lost in the salacious headlines is Bernier designated Couillard as "a spouse" for travel purposes. This means Canadians paid for her (and her breasts) to fly to goodness-knows where with Bernier on his budget. We should be grateful the price of airline tickets aren't decided by an individual's weight.

har har har!

****

Olbermann: the lickspittle, the pontificator:



Outrage much, Keith?
Uh, what? Hillary "cannot say this"? As history has shown, the Clintons can and will say anything, when they need to. Besides, this is the frigging nomination race, and in spite of the most fervent wishes of Obama's media groupies, Senator Clinton is not yet ready to concede that prize and prostrate herself before the annointed one. And so, she is being immolated for a simple statement of an inconvenient historic fact.

Rex Murphy, as usual, said it best in this weekend's Globe and Mail:

There are nights when watching Keith Olbermann of MSNBC - who is to Obama as Igor was to Dr. Frankenstein, a slavish servant and a groupie - pound away at Hillary Clinton, when I've been tempted to call The Hague. Specifically the war crimes tribunal headquartered there.