The Olbermess

For weeks, my friend J in Baltimore asked me to write something positive about Keith Olbermann and his show on MSNBC.  This was several months ago, and because I like J's suggestions, I tried, for quite a while to think of how to write it. When I had cable, I would, on occasion, turn to Olbermann. Though many in the blogosphere and in the real world laud Olbermann as  the liberal backstop to an increasingly conservative screed on TV, I was less unabashed; I found him snarky, a little off-putting, one of those "glad he's on our side, though I'm not sure that's helpful," type opinion. I give Olbermann credit for understanding the blowhard nature of his competitor, Bill O'Reilly, and knowing enough to tweak O'Reilly in ways that he can't help but respond to; it's amusing, I'd agree, as is his "worst person in the world" stuff that make conservatives howl.  But if you ask me does any of it lift our national conversation... well, no.  It's fun, perhaps, to see people who've been given free reign get the what-for from a thoughtful opponent... but it doesn't really prove that we're any better than they are.

Ultimately, though, J felt, as I did, that Olbermann was more problem than positive, and then he asked me to say that too. In that context, and in the spirit of my post this morning, I offer this link to Olbermann's screed from last night; which, naturally has become the clarion call for the Obama supporters.  As Olbermann mentions me (in a broad brush swipe at all Clinton supporters), I feel compelled to say that if I agreed with any of Olbermann's high dudgeon, I too would share his passion for the topic: it would be inconceivable for me to support Clinton if I thought what he said was both true and truly outrageous. I find it neither.  Indeed, mostly his outrage seems calculated, and more for the cameras than for the merits. As I said this morning, I think we're challenged by a conversation we don't have words for, and it strikes me that Olbermann is groping - often unsuccessfully - for the words that would better explain his point, and instead lurches around, pulling any and every thing he can lay his hands on (what this has to do with that Nightline sports clip is beyond me) to make a point that's really not worth the nine minutes and sustained yelling he throws at it. As I also said, a few days ago, I think Olbermann may have simply, like many of us, slipped over the edge in letting the passions of the day take hold over a more measured, thoughtful take on the divisions and differences between the campaigns.

Riverdaughter, over at her blog The Confluence (which I highly recommend) has the more pointed response to Olbermann's screed.  I can't muster the energy to get into it as she does.  Given that Clinton has also herself made a more complete statement distancing herself from the implications of Ferraro's comments, I wonder if Olbermann is satisfied yet... or if, as I expect, he thinks he caused it.  I mean it is, after all, all about him.

Comments

[Grendel]

You nailed it - KO feigns his "outrage" for the camera/ratings, lest we doubt he's not a "liberal" O'Reilly on MSNBC. Kudos to him for stooping so low that we'd all tip collective hat to him.

As to his "cause", shall we quote "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

[jinbaltimore]

Thanks, weboy.

I feel so ashame-ed to have been duped into enjoying KO's program for the two weeks that I did.

He's such a ham; and thank you as well for not actually embedding that clip here.

[Bluegrass Poet]

My thanks, too. I don't have cable tv and I sure haven't seen the rant in question, but I've seen video clips of previous Olberman bits on the web and found that he made me uneasy. Guess I just don't like meanness.

I do like it when Al Franken sends up O'Reilly, though.