Comments on: Defending Keith Olbermann

By: Bithead

Bithead — Sun, 01 Oct 2006 00:18:16 +0000

It tells me that while he has been publicly chastising everyone for being afraid of terrorism, and reacting badly to the terrorists, when the time comes for him to confront the bag full of powder that shows up in the mail, he turns into whimpering baby, just like those he criticized. In short, he hasn't the courage of his convictions. If there is a message in that entire story, it is that. The guy is precisely what I read into being in the first place; a blowhard that would melt at the first test.

And by the way, "disreputable source", while discussing Olbermann is laughable at best. Olbermann himself, I consider to be disreputable in the extreme.

By: Tano

Tano — Fri, 29 Sep 2006 19:49:12 +0000

Bithead,

What on earth are you trying to say? What does Olbermann's reaction say to you? How would it differ from any other normal person's reaction to possibly being infected with a deadly pathogen? And why do you assume that you know how Olbermann reacted anyway, given that your only insight on this is from a thoroughly disreputable source?

By: Bithead

Bithead — Fri, 29 Sep 2006 01:42:31 +0000

Paula Froelic aside, though, and in all seriousness... Olberman's reaction speaks volumes, and is direcly in line with my inital read of the guy. Say what you will about the validity of the tactic. I'm likely to agree with you. But Olberman's frantic reaction to this, can hardly be ignored.

By: Triumph

Triumph — Fri, 29 Sep 2006 01:00:55 +0000

Obermann's criticisms of Bush boost the morale of and give support to terrorists.

Luckily Congress is on the cusp of giving Bush the authority to arrest and torture guys like this.

By: BrianOfAtlanta

BrianOfAtlanta — Thu, 28 Sep 2006 22:10:28 +0000

Wasn't the New York Post itself a victim of one of the anthrax attacks in 2001?

By: Eneils Bailey

Eneils Bailey — Thu, 28 Sep 2006 21:52:05 +0000

This is really disgusting.
Would someone really waste their time, good laundry soap, and a thirty seven cent stamp on this guy?

By: Anderson

Anderson — Thu, 28 Sep 2006 21:09:44 +0000

I stopped reading Page 6 after they wrote a blurb suggesting Sandy Koufax was gay.

What about Piazza, New York catcher?

By: yetanotherjohn

yetanotherjohn — Thu, 28 Sep 2006 20:08:50 +0000

bains,

Perhaps it is the difference between being able to abstract the animosity, "root causes" and other emotional responses from the individual responsibility associated with the actions. In short, being able to look at the echelon program and the NSA 'wire taps' of international calls, note the similarities and differences, then come to a consistent position despite how I feel about the president authorizing them.

By: bains

bains — Thu, 28 Sep 2006 18:48:53 +0000

Revealing contrast that without exception, the right comes out and says "although I cant stand the guy, what page six did was wrong period" whereas Sen Harkin and others used the following construct "what was said about Bush was wrong but somehow he deserved it."

By: Mark

Mark — Thu, 28 Sep 2006 17:02:21 +0000

I stopped reading Page 6 after they wrote a blurb suggesting Sandy Koufax was gay. It made Koufax so mad that he severed ties with the Dodgers - which Murdoch owned at the time.

By: Steven Plunk

Steven Plunk — Thu, 28 Sep 2006 16:36:45 +0000

In the battle of ideas this is nonsense. I don't like what he says or like him as a person but you can't do this sort of thing.

Not only is terrorizing him indecent but ridiculing him for what is a reasonable reaction is indecent.

Froelich owes an apology at the least.

By: yetanotherjohn

yetanotherjohn — Thu, 28 Sep 2006 15:42:43 +0000

I agree. I find Olbermann as persuasive as persuasive as tuna salad left in the fridge for a couple of months, but this is a cheap shot. While his political reasoning could be improved with the clear sightedness of a two year old with a temper tantrum, calling 911 after getting a suspicious white powder with a note saying it was payback is not a sign of panic but much clearer thought than Olbermann normally displays. The fact that Olbermann might support a national health insurance for your or me that may have denied the check-up (the preliminary tests were negative) doesn't mean he was wrong or needed a lollipop to comfort him.

I think the classiest thing Olbermann has done in a long time is to "No comment" this story. There are plenty of things to mock and ridicule Olbermann about (starting with his opinions), but this is not right.

By: Ugh

Ugh — Thu, 28 Sep 2006 15:24:56 +0000

What’s a ridicult?

It's what you have to join before you can participate in a Friar's Club Roast.

By: Bandit

Bandit — Thu, 28 Sep 2006 14:45:09 +0000

What's a ridicult?

By: legion

legion — Thu, 28 Sep 2006 14:36:34 +0000

There are more important things than partisan politics.

SHHHHH! You fool! You'll ruin everything!

Seriously though, how anyone at a NY newspaper could possibly make a derisive joke out of an incident like this is astounding. I don't foresee much more of a career for Froelich.