The Media accuses John McCain of being dishonest in his ads.

This is kind of an oddball story. Mainly, because the media, as always, is full of it and, as always, in the tank for Obama.

This comes via ABC NEWS:

We in the media have given a lot of airtime to the TV ads of Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., this week, starring as they do Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY.

There’s been evidence emerging that McCain’s campaign isn’t really running these ads anywhere, according to the Campaign Media Analysis Group.

“These were basically video press releases,” CMAG’s Evan Tracey tells the Wall Street Journal.

OK, so that’s kind of dishonest of the McCain campaign.

Today’s new McCain ad — “Tiny,” which you can watch HERE — crosses a new line into dishonesty, however, beyond whether or not it’s actually airing anywhere.

The Ad in question:

The script of the Ad:

“Iran. Radical Islamic government. Known sponsors of terrorism. Developing nuclear capabilities to ‘generate power’ but threatening to eliminate Israel.

“Obama says Iran is a ‘tiny’ country, ‘doesn’t pose a serious threat,'” the ad continues. “Terrorism, destroying Israel, those aren’t ‘serious threats’? Obama — dangerously unprepared to be president.”

Well, golly gosh gee… Here’s Obama’s Words, first in Video:

and in Print:

“strong countries and strong Presidents talk to their adversaries. That’s what Kennedy did with Khrushchev. That’s what Reagan did with Gorbachev. That’s what Nixon did with Mao. I mean think about it. Iran, Cuba, Venezuela — these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don’t pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us. And yet we were willing to talk to the Soviet Union at the time when they were saying, ‘We’re going to wipe you off the planet.’

“And ultimately that direct engagement led to a series of measures that helped prevent nuclear war, and over time allowed the kind of opening that brought down the Berlin Wall,” Obama continued. “Now, that has to be the kind of approach that we take. You know, Iran, they spend one-one hundredth of what we spend on the military. If Iran ever tried to pose a serious threat to us, they wouldn’t stand a chance. And we should use that position of strength that we have to be bold enough to go ahead and listen. That doesn’t mean we agree with them on everything. We might not compromise on any issues, but at least we should find out other areas of potential common interest, and we can reduce some of the tensions that has caused us so many problems around the world.”

So, Where is the dishonesty again? I fail to see it. What more can we expect from a communist liberal media?

Others: Macsmind

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

A movie that every American should watch, before voting

(H/T to AP at Hotair.com)

This movie, if it caught on in the Media would ruin Obama’s chances of being elected President.

Trailer 1:

Trailer 2:

Wow…. I don’t think Barry will have to worry about snipers. He’d better worry about this movie.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

So much for that Hillary speech!

So, you think that Hillary speech soothed all the wounds amongst the Hillary supporters? Well, that is what the Democratic Party wants you to think!

Turns out, it might not be exactly true.

That is because that the Washington Post is reporting the following:

Hillary Rodham Clinton’s most loyal delegates came to the Pepsi Center on Tuesday night looking for direction. They listened, rapt, to a 20-minute speech that many proclaimed the best she had ever delivered, hoping her words could somehow unwind a year of tension in the Democratic Party. But when Clinton stepped off the stage and the standing ovation faded into silence, many of her supporters were left with a sobering realization: Even a tremendous speech couldn’t erase their frustrations.

Despite Clinton’s plea for Democrats to unite, her delegates remained divided as to how they should proceed.

There was Jerry Straughan, a professor from California, who listened from his seat in the rafters and shook his head at what he considered the speech’s predictability. “It’s a tactic,” he said. “Who knows what she really thinks? With all the missteps that have taken place, this is the only thing she could do. So, yes, I’m still bitter.”

There was JoAnn Enos, from Minnesota, who digested Clinton’s resounding endorsement of Barack Obama and decided that she, too, will move on and get behind him. “I’ll vote for [Obama] in the roll call,” she said, “because that’s what Hillary wants.”

I hate to say it, but I kind of knew this was coming. As the saying goes, “Hell hath no fury, of that of a woman’s scorn.” In fact, yesterday, I was over at No Quarter. Which is a pro-Hillary Blog, (I know some have discredited Larry Johnson, but it is the best example…) and the comments section tells the story. It is just this simple, Hillary cannot control her delegates and supporters. She can suggest, she can plead, she can encourage, but she cannot force them, we live in a free and democratic society. Our people choose whom they want to represent them.

So, while it might sound nice that Hillary may have influenced her many supporters into to voting for Obama, this may just not be the case. It is nice to think that Hillary might have able to pull off the ultimate persuasion act, but I am afraid that just might not be the case.

The only way it will be known, as to the depth of that influence, will be in November at the many voting booths across America.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Chris Matthews just jumped on Keith Olbermann on the Air!

I do not have video yet, someone should have it, sooner or later.

But Keith Olbermann just did something to piss off Chris Matthews! and Matthews told Keith Olbermann off for it.

Something about a sound…

Did anyone else see it?

Comments PLEASE!

Video coming, as soon as I find it.

Stay tuned.

Update: Commenter Wes points to a Blog posting:

“9:15
Just got back from walking the dog. Amy has paused a segment on MSNBC where Chris Matthews gets snippy with co-host Keith Olbermann. This is classic. Apparently Olbermann was making fun of a long-winded diatribe by Matthews, and Chris just got testy with him right on the air.”

Here’s what happened, as far as I could tell. Matthews was going on and on about women feeling passed over because of Clinton’s loss. He was getting awfully sentimental. Then the producer apparently tried to get him to wrap it up, because he said “I’ll wrap it in a second, this is important” or something like that. So he goes on again and Olbermann starts the segue with some reference to the bloviation of “pundits like us” — which sounded like typical Keith self-deprecation, but I think Matthews took it as directed at him.

Interesting…. Still looking for video of it.

Update #2: Gawker now has video of it.

Update #3: Memeorandum finally picks it up. I one of the firsts who blogged on it! 😛

Update #4: and now we have video: (H/T Newsbusters)

This is why I need a good video capture system! 😀 Donations?

Technorati Tags: , , ,

Interesting News: Edwards campaign giving refunds, but not to small donors.

This is a very interesting news, which comes to us, by fellow Conservative Blogger LBG1 over at Death by 1000 Papercuts or DBKP for short.

It seems that John Edwards is giving much of his money back to the “Big Bundlers” some of whom are convicted felons. But according to DBKP, not much of it is going back to the Grassroots supporters.

LBG1 Writes:

We found it interesting, at a time when Warren Buffet on CNBC This Morning (courtesy Mickey Kaus at Slate) mused whether Edwards’ contributors should file a class-action suit to get their money back, there’s a whole other “class” of individuals who’ve received their refund. And what an interesting “class” we found:

Out of 667 “bundlers” or designated fundraisers, 276 or 40%, had received a refund of their individual contributions. Not only did the individual bundlers get their money back but in some cases so did their family members.

Other refundees included Fred Baron, Edwards’ former national finance campaign chairman in both the ‘04 and ‘08 elections. Baron recently admitted that he had been monetarily “helping” Edwards’ ex-mistress, Rielle Hunter. The list includes some of Edwards’ largest bundlers, Thomas Girardi, John O’Quinn, and William Lerash, as well as other “famous” refundees: Michael Eisner, Don Henley, Eric Montross, and Michigan Congressman (D) David Bonoir of Michigan.

We took a look at the Edwards campaign website to see if there was any info listed on how to get a refund and came up empty-handed.

We’ve included a list of Edward’s bundlers who have received a refund as well the “moneybags” behind Edwards who got their money back too:

According to Insider Exclusive, Thomas Girardi was named the “The Billion Dollar Gentleman” by the L.A. Daily Journal for $1 billion in verdicts and settlements over a two-year period.

According to Opensecrets.org, Girardi’s firm, Girardi and Keese donated $43,000 to Edwards’ campaign. Thomas Girardi, the founder of the firm, received his Edwards’ refund check as well as members of his family.

Interesting indeed, one has to wonder why the MSM has not covered this story? Could it be that they were possibly bought off by Edwards to prevent him for going though anymore embarrassment? I mean the Liberal media did seem to have a very cozy relationship with Edwards, when they were not ignoring him.

It just makes me wonder, if Edward’s donors, the one’s who gave of their time, money and resources will be wanting their money back. I will admit this, I kind of did like Edwards, his laid back southern manner appealed to the Southern man in me. Although, I did find his politics quite hypocritical, considering how he lived on a multi-million dollar ranch and all.

An exit question: Is Hillary refunding any of her donations?

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Lying asshole "Shock Troops" Author back in the news

Unbelievable.

Via Pajamas Media:

Quote:

It seemed we’d heard the last of Scott Thomas Beauchamp and Elspeth Reeve in late January, after I posted copies of the sworn statements gathered during the “Shock Troops” investigation on Confederate Yankee. The documents included Beauchamp’s own sworn statements — his first, where he did not see any of the minor atrocities written about in “Shock Troops,” and a backdated one where he finally admits he was the author. The documents also included the sworn statements from 22 other soldiers saying that the minor atrocities written about in “Shock Troops” were events that they did not witness.

Even the editor of the New Republic, Franklin Foer, announced a month previously in December that he could not stand behind Beauchamp’s stories. But just when we though it was all behind us, Beauchamp is back, (with his former fact checker wife still supporting him), courtesy of Spencer Ackerman in Radar magazine.

In “Notes on a Scandal,” Ackerman interviews Scott Beauchamp and Elspeth Reeve — and no one else — and shockingly comes to the conclusion that the magazine that fired Ackerman for his anti-war views was wrong to pull its support for a series of articles (”Shock Troops” was just one of three Beauchamp stories) that reinforced those views.

How did Ackerman conduct this investigation? He hung out with Beauchamp and Reeve at a bar and later communicated with them via email. What he did not do is present any evidence to support the contention that Beauchamp’s claims are true, or that Franklin Foer was wrong to pull support for stories that still lack on-the-record evidence of any kind.

I have to admit it, he does have balls. But he is a damn liar. He’s now trying to cash in on the fame. Lying ass liberal prick.

I remember when this story come out and then it came out that it was all lies. That was one the moments when I really began to rethink my political position. I mean, if liberals are willing outright lie to make a political point, something is just wrong. Which is why I consider myself now a Moderate Conservative, not a “Republican”, not by a long shot. But I’ll be damned if I’ll ever vote Democrat again.

Others:
BLACKFIVE and AMERICAN DIGEST

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

WorldNetDaily link removed from this Blog…

Why?

It seems that WorldNetDaily’s Joe Farah has decided to back Jerry Corsi’s slander book.

In fact, Farah even admits that there are factual errors in the book:

Quote:

Are there mistakes in it?

Show me a first edition that doesn’t have some – other than the Bible.

But is it truthful? Does it add considerably to the public’s knowledge of the front-running candidate for the presidency? Do we know much more about Obama than we would had we relied exclusively for our information from the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post and the Associated Press?

I offer a resounding “yes” to all three of those questions.

This statement alone proves to me, one hundred and fifty percent, that Joseph Farah is not interested in objective journalism at WorldNetDaily or in any of his other Conservative publications, but rather is more interested in right wing smear campaigns.

For this reason, I cannot and will not link to this site. I will admit, that there are some interesting Christian related articles over there, when they are actually true, that I do enjoy reading, otherwise, there is nothing there, which I would really even want to be in the business of promoting.

When I switched political sides, concluded that I was, in fact, a Libertarian Conservative, and decided that I wanted to be a Libertarian Conservative Blogger, which I do consider myself to be. I made myself a promise that I would never ever engage in the low-ball, sleazy attacks for which Republican Conservative Bloggers are infamous.

In fact, as of recent here, I came across a video that did in fact, I feel, prove that Obama was not a real bona fide Christian. However, I decided against running them here. In fact, I spoke with the owner of the Moderate Voice about posting them there or having Joe at least link to posting. However, after some considerable thought, I decided against even posting them here. Why is this? It is because I want visitors here to consider this website to be a mainstream Conservative Website, not a “right-wing smear” Blog or website. I admit it. I have called Obama a Communist Liberal in the past. However, mainly, that was in jest or in anger, when I would see the Democrats doing something rather idiotic. Not that I cannot say that, there has been a fair share of idiotic nonsense performed by the Republicans in the last 8 years. If I sat here and told them all, this posting would be twenty-five pages long in itself.

I have said many times on this Blog and I will say it once again, this blog is a moderate, independent, Libertarian-leaning, Conservative Blog. However, this blog is honest enough to be critical of those who claim to be representatives for the Conservative movement. Objective Journalism I am all for. However, unfounded partisan smears, I will not be a part of any longer. Factual criticism of Obama’s Policies I will continue to do, but unfounded smears are not something I wish to be a part of any longer. I have done this in the past, but I will no longer be contributing to the echo chamber of the Republican smear machine.

Because as far as I am concerned, the Republican Party does not represent the type of Conservatism that I believe in, it no longer represents the type of politics that I believe in, it also no longer cares or ever represents the financial class, which I find myself a part. I am not a fan of outright socialism, but I cannot align myself with a political party that says, “If you make less the $250.000 a year, we do not give a flying flip about you.” Anyone that says that is untrue is a Republican protectionist who wishes to deceive those who are not well acquainted with that part and its history of protecting the wealthy. You most likely wonder, do I have anything against the wealthy? I absolutely do not! The United States of America is the land of opportunity. However, a political party who only wishes to represent a small part of America, that 10 percent of America that makes more money that my father ever made or I ever made and rest to forget, is very unacceptable in my opinion.

This is why I call this Blog an Independent Conservative Blog. That it is, and that it shall remain.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , ,

Rush Limbaugh, You Blew it Pal

A little while back, before this Blog moved to its new server. There was a rather nice article in the New York Times about Rush Limbaugh. At the time, I wrote a few lines about Rush and his success in the radio field.

However, when I saw the news of what Rush Limbaugh said about Elizabeth Edwards, I was absolutely sickened by what I heard and saw.

Anyone who knows me and regularly reads this blog of mine, knows that I spare no one from criticism on this Blog. I do it to Liberals and I also do to Conservatives as well, especially those in power in Washington D.C.

However, what was said by Rush Limbaugh, went well beyond good taste and just regular Conservative cheese-head humor. This my friends was just out right vulgar.

Here it is, and I don’t want to hear no crap about me getting this from a Liberal source okay? Because it’s worthy of mentioning:

Click here to go watch the Video

Here is the transcript: (via Media Matters for America)

From the August 12 broadcast of Premiere Radio Networks’ The Rush Limbaugh Show:

LIMBAUGH: Back to the phones. Winston-Salem, North Carolina, this is James. Nice to have you here, sir. Hello. Is he gone? James, you there? Aw, darn. He wanted to talk about Edwards and who knew and what were the motivations. And I’ve got a theory about the motivations. Well, I don’t know that I could — I don’t know that I can put this one on the air.

JAMES GOLDEN (contributor known on-air as “Bo Snerdley”): Why not?

LIMBAUGH: Well, it’s — I mean, at some point, at some point, you gotta exhibit maturity and restraint. You know, and I do that constantly. But — well, I don’t — look, let me see if I can run you through this and get you to think what I’m thinking without my actually saying it. That might be a pretty big talent if I could do that — make you think what I’m going to say without my having to say it, therefore if anybody gets in trouble for saying it, you say it.

We know — we’ve been told that Elizabeth Edwards is smarter than John Edwards. That’s part of the puff pieces on them that we’ve seen. Ergo, if Elizabeth Edwards is smarter than John Edwards, is it likely that she thinks she knows better than he does what his speeches ought to contain and what kind of things he ought to be doing strategy-wise in the campaign? If she is smarter than he is, could it have been her decision to keep going with the campaign? In other words, could it be that she doesn’t shut up? Now, that’s as far as I’m going to go.

Well, you’re — Snerdley says he’s missing something. If you’re missing it, you’re going to have to provide it. What are you missing? Mm-hmm, mm-hmm.

I can’t close the loop on it. I can’t close the loop on it. I’m on — you know, I’m in a little quicksand already today talking about how the chicks are giving us boring pictures of the female athletes from the Olympics. Because I know — you — the diversity crowd’s going to be upset. They’re going to — “Ooh, do you mean the Olympics are just so you guys can ogle wom–” Yes, because we do not care to watch ’em compete. But back to Elizabeth and the Breck Girl.

I’m sorry, my friends, I just — I can’t. It just seems to me that Edwards might be attracted to a woman whose mouth did something other than talk.

[…]

LIMBAUGH: OK, we’re back. Ladies and gentleman, my theory that I just explained to you about why — you know, what could have John Edwards’ motivations been to have the affair with Rielle Hunter, given his wife is smarter than he is and probably nagging him a lot about doing this, and he found somebody that did something with her mouth other than talk. I think I can back this up from her.

We have a sound bite. This is February 2007. She was on the tabloid show Extra. And this is what she said. Listen very carefully.

HUNTER : The whole experience was life-altering for me. One of the great things about John Edwards is that he’s so open and willing to try new things and do things in new ways.

LIMBAUGH: “Open to new things.” Folks, it is what it is. You get mad at me for bringing the truth to you, but it is what it is.

As expected, Keith Olbermann, who himself has been guilty of a few incidents himself, although, none of them compare to this, had a few things to say about this:

Transcript: (via MSNBC)

OLBERMANN: The American sage H.L. Mencken once defined Puritanism as the haunting fear that someone, somewhere may be happy. But since Mencken‘s death in 1956, there has emerged a new and more complex form of American puritan, a man haunted by the fear that someone, somewhere may be happy doing something he is also doing, that he thinks is his right, but no one else‘s. Such a creature is Rush Limbaugh, who should have learned that when the new Puritanism attacks a sinner like, say, Bill Clinton, it invariably overdoes it to such a degree that America recoils and soon perceives the sinner as the victim and the new puritan as the jackass.

Our third story on the COUNTDOWN, with comments idiotic even for him, Limbaugh has turned John Edwards into a victim. Details in a moment. First, it is not like Senator Edwards is not trying to stay competitive. The senator had implied to ABC News that his affair was over by the time he announced his presidential candidacy on December 28, 2006. Elizabeth Edwards‘ brother and closest friend now telling “People Magazine” that John Edwards revealed the news of his extra-marital conduct slowly and not until the, quote, frenzy of the campaign‘s official launch.

Acquaintances of Rielle Hunter are also shedding doubt on John Edwards‘ version of events. One says the affair began six months before she started working for the Edwards‘ campaign. Of course, that woman answers to the first name of pigeon. For that matter, Rielle Hunter is a made up name. That woman was born Lisa Druck.

As to Elizabeth Edwards and her reaction to the affair, her brother saying she decided to stay with her husband because of her cancer diagnosis and the fact that her young children will not always have a mother.

Fortunately, the lunatic right will always have a mother, on the radio. Despite the wall-to-wall sleaze of the Edwards‘ saga, Rush Limbaugh is managing to make it look like a puddle, while he represents the backed up sewage plant down the street.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RUSH LIMBAUGH, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: We‘ve been told that Elizabeth Edwards is smarter than John Edwards. That‘s part of the puff pieces on them that we‘ve seen. Ergo, if Elizabeth Edwards is smarter than John Edwards, is it likely that she thinks she knows better than he does what his speeches ought to contain? And
what kind of things he ought to be doing strategy wise in a campaign? If she is smarter than he is, could it have been her decision to keep going with the campaign?

In other words, could it be that she doesn‘t shut up? Now, that‘s as far as I‘m going to go.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

OLBERMANN: Actually, it wasn‘t. Never is. A minute later—

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LIMBAUGH: It just seems to me that Edwards might be attracted to a woman—whose mouth did something other than talk.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

OLBERMANN: You mean like what you do with your mouth other than talk, consistently, endlessly wedge your own foot in it? What better pre-pubescent dream of genital waving dominance over all the women in the world than to blame the intelligence of a woman for her husband‘s infidelity. What a pure sentiment to share with the less well recompensed losers who comprise your audience than to dismiss their failures as husbands, as men, Rush, on the woman?

I mean even these days three divorces is a lot. A 38 million dollar salary and the guy can‘t keep the same woman. It‘s got to be the woman‘s fault, right? You wouldn‘t want an intelligent women reminding you that when you went after Bill Clinton, his approval ratings went up, and your two successive champions against him, your Republican two speakers of the House, had to resign in shame because of, oops, their own marital infidelity.

And you wouldn‘t want an intelligent woman around to say, as somebody should have said to Sean Hannity or somebody should have said to you, you know what, you keep bringing up Edwards and infidelity, and sooner or later, someone will bring up John McCain cheating on his wife while she was recovering from a terrible car accident. Somebody, even Alan Combs.

You wouldn‘t want an intelligent woman around you to say loosen up on the pedal on this Edwards‘ crap. The story was broken by the “National Enquirer.” They were the same people who broke that story about you and the pills.

You wouldn‘t want an intelligent woman around you, maybe to help you keep that dream job that you blew at ESPN. So instead of sitting around in a radio studio making fun a cancer victim, someone somewhere might still care about your opinion of the National Football League, and permit you to be on television.

Oh, no, nothing worse than having an intelligent woman around, Rush.

Rush Limbaugh is a hole.

To this let me simply say this. As you all know, I left the Democratic side of the political fence because I felt that the Democratic Party had drifted far from its original principles. I am kind of new to the Conservative side of the fence, as far as politics goes. But let me say this publicly on this Blog. I totally disassociate myself with these comments and this man. He does not speak for me, or Conservatism as a whole. What Rush Limbaugh said was inexcusable, and if I were calling the shots with the syndication network that carries Limbaugh, I would be tearing up his contract and letting him know, he was no longer going to be carried.

As a bit of a parting shot, let me ask this. Yesterday, there was a tragic murder of a Democratic Leader in Arkansas. My question is, why could it not have been Rush Limbaugh? Why couldn’t have it been Sean Hannity? Why could not it have been Michael Savage? Why could not it have been any of the rest of the idiots who go around giving Conservatism a damned black eye? …and not someone who was in the business of actually HELPING people? Instead of someone, like this idiot, who loves to mock and slander those who disagree with his Political ideologies?

Something is seriously wrong with the modern day Republican Party. If it does not change, the Republican Party is going to be run to the damned rat holes for a rather long time.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , ,

From the Dept. of "Well, Duh!"

One of the funniest Political Blog postings I’ve ever seen. Identity Politics at it’s finest.

TheRoot.com asks, “Can Blacks be trusted to cover Obama?”

When a weary and jet-lagged Barack Obama took the stage on the last day of the UNITY Journalists of Color convention in Chicago last month, most of the attendees had already left. But there was still a healthy crowd of over 2,500 there to hear the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee.

That is when, according to the mainstream media, black folks apparently acted like natural-born fools.

As you all know, I am quite well known for my controversial remarks. It is what I do. So, I will not disappoint.

Saying that blacks can be totally trusted to cover Obama would be like saying that White Nationalists could be trusted to cover David Duke.

Trackposted to The Pink Flamingo, Leaning Straight Up, , Right Truth, and Conservative Cat, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Linkfest Haven, the Blogger's Oasis

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

My Thoughts on the Keith Olbermann and Dana Milbank Split

Yes, I have seen Keith Olbermann’s entry over at the Kos. Overall, I think it speaks to Olbermann’s integrity in the business. Dana Milbank obviously distorted a quote for personal gain and that put him at odds with Keith.

The argument that MSNBC and Keith are in the tank for Obama is naïve and simplistic at best. That is the narrow view of the whole situation. Keith was just looking out for the integrity of his show; Keith knew that if he did not call Milbank on this, people on the left and the right would ridicule him. Therefore, Keith did the smartest thing possible, damage control. Keith held Dana’s feet to the proverbial fire. Milbank seeing that the world was against him, made a new deal with another network.

From reading the reactions, everyone seems to think that Keith did the right thing, and the Bloggers are saying that Olbermann is in the can for Obama; again, that is the narrow view of the whole situation. One Hillary shill thinks it was just downright horrible; however, this is the same moronic idiot, which claimed there was a Michelle Obama “Whitey” tape, which we have still not seen.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , ,