LAWRENCE O’DONNELL: Consider what Keith [Olbermann] invented and taught us to do: Op-ed TV. The incomparable Maureen Dowd is a friend of mine. I know if I told her I want her to do five op-ed columns in a week, she would tell me that is impossible and ask me if I know how hard it is to do even one. I do know. I’ve done a few, very few.

That’s why I marveled, as any writer must, at what Keith was doing – five op-eds a week, each of them much, much longer than the standard 800 words. This is the only place in television where people are surprised if you leave after eight years. In the entertainment division of this company, if a show like, say, “The West Wing” wins every possible award and runs for seven years, everyone just applauds an extraordinary show for an extraordinary run. I saw — I saw exactly how exhausted the great Aaron Sorkin was after delivering 22 episodes a year of “The West Wing.”

Well, Keith delivered 20 a month. 20 A month. Hundreds of episodes a year. Hundreds of op-eds a year. Year in and year out. For eight years. I have no idea how he did it. None of us do. No one in television history has ever done anything like it. No one knew it could be done before he did it.

Yeah, sorta like Al Gore invented the Internet.

Really. This is almost as bad as Russell Simmons’ laughable assertion late last year that, “Olbermann has given sanity to the madness.”

Newsbusters’ Noel Sheppard puts things in perspective, and corrects a few things O’Donnell asserted about his former colleague:

As for O’Donnell’s awe concerning Olbermann having an eight-year run, does he know that “Meet the Press” is now in its 64th year? Or that there are 25 television shows that have run for forty years or more?

O’Donnell also seems to forget that the man largely responsible for creating this television genre, Larry King, ended his run on CNN last month after 25 years.

Yet O’Donnell went gaga over Olbermann’s almost eight?

Also preposterous was crediting the “Countdown” host with inventing the concept of op-ed television as history will certainly bestow this honor on David Brinkley whose nightly commentaries on the renowned “Huntley-Brinkley Report” were the thing of legend.

As for soloists in this genre, Fox News’s Bill O’Reilly was doing op-ed TV more than five years before “Countdown” started and is now in his fifteenth season.

Shhhh. We mustn’t let facts get in the way of a good ol’ fashioned left wing establishment media slobberfest …

Screencap of Olbermann and O'Donnell courtesy of TVSquad.com.

Flashback:

• 5/4/09 – Obama official: MSDNC’s love for the administration is reciprocated

There’s a movement afoot to draft Keith Olbermann to run for U.S. Senate in Connecticut in 2012.

Small problem: he doesn’t actually live in the state, though he used to. But that hasn’t stopped a Daily Kos contributor who goes by the name Stranded Wind from flouting the idea. He or she has set up a Facebook page and a Twitter account promoting Olbermann’s candidacy.

“So … now that Keith has been thrown out by the Comcast merger [not true - ST]… he’ll take a few weeks off, clean the garage, maybe go fishing … but a man his age is nowhere near ready for retirement,” Stranded Wind writes. “He is, however, just old enough, smart enough, polished enough, and has all of the other attributes that would make him a darned good Senator for the state of Connecticut.”

“Stranded Wind” most definitely has my support in this endeavor – especially if Linda McMahon decides to give it another try in 2012. Can you imagine that match up? The pundits would have a field day.

As to “what’s next” for the far left icon? Media guru and Daily Beast columnist Howie Kurtz weighs in:

It won’t be CNN or Fox. (Been there, done that.) Howie Kurtz of the Daily Beast told [George Stephanopoulos] on “GMA” to bet on the internet.

“When he had that suspension, 300,000 people signed an online petition asking him to stay on the air,” Kurtz said, referring to when NBC took Keith Olbermann off the air for donating to political campaigns. “That’s a pretty good base and I wouldn’t be surprised if he started an internet channel.”

“I think it is very safe to predict we have not heard the last of Keith Olbermann,” Kurtz told me.

No doubt about that. We’re in the New Tone™ Era aka the “Age of Civility” – and I suspect ol’ Keith probably figures he’s the perfect guy to help lead the way when it comes to a “kinder, gentler” style of debate …

Related Reading:

• NYT – Olbermann Split Came After Years of Tension

I really have nothing to add to this story except: Good riddance, hateful jack a$$. And thanks for the early birthday present.

Turns out “indefinitely” only meant “a couple days.” After suspending Keith Olbermann for donating to Democrat candidates on Friday, MSNBC announced Sunday evening the Countdown host will return to the air on Tuesday.

From Phil Griffin, president of MSNBC:

After several days of deliberation and discussion, I have determined that suspending Keith through and including Monday night’s program is an appropriate punishment for his violation of our policy. We look forward to having him back on the air Tuesday night.

Rob Port points out:

But I also wonder how much of MSNBC’s decision had to do with the fact that lots and lots of MSNBC employees give money to political candidates. I can’t link directly to the search results, but if you click here and enter MSNBC in the employer field you come up with a big list of contributions from MSNBC employees to political candidates and/or political parties.

Some interesting names come up, like frequent on-air commentator Bill Press ($500 to the DNC) and morning show host Joe Scaraborough (a 2006 contribution to Derrick Kitts while he was the host of his former show Scaraborough Country on MSNBC).

Politico’s Mike Allen reports that “network sources” told him that Olbermann was not suspended last week after the discovery of his political contributions but instead because he refused to apologize for them on air:

BEHIND THE CURTAIN: Network sources tell Playbook that Keith Olbermann was suspended because he refused to deliver an on-camera mea culpa, which would have allowed him to continue anchoring “Countdown.” Olbermann told his bosses he didn’t know he was barred from making campaign contributions, although he is resisting saying that publicly. Olbermann may not hold as many cards as he thinks. He makes $7 million a year and MSNBC’s prime time is not as dependent on him as it was before the addition of Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O’Donnell, who make considerably less.

Mediaite backs this up, with additional information (via):

MSNBC’s ratings certainly back up the last line about Olbermann not holding as many cards as he thinks, something Steve Krakauer pointed out on Friday: “Rachel Maddow is getting better ratings than Olbermann in the key A25-54 demographic, and Lawrence O’Donnell isn’t far behind. Olbermann is no longer the center of the strategy either – as the network has unveiled a vibrant, massive new campaign “Lean Forward” which focuses on half a dozen members of the MSNBC talent pool.”

As for whether a public apology would solved all of Olbermann’s problems at the network? History suggests otherwise. Back in 2008 David Shuster apologized on air for his “pimped out” remarks and still faced a two week suspension. So perhaps the likelier scenario is that Olbermann was offered a reduced suspension for an on air apology and turned it down. That said, Olbermann is no David Shuster and his absence on the network, despite any inner strife at MSNBC is huge.

Yes, and he will now be viewed as a heroic icon even more than he was before by the Nutroots Left.

Which might increase his viewership by, like, 7.

Next?

MSNBC host Keith Olbermann has been suspended indefinitely without pay after POLITICO reported that he made three campaign contributions to Democratic candidates.

MSNBC President Phil Griffin said in a statement Friday: “I became aware of Keith’s political contributions late last night. Mindful of NBC News policy and standards, I have suspended him indefinitely without pay.”

Olbermann made campaign contributions to two Arizona members of Congress and failed Kentucky Senate candidate Jack Conway ahead of Tuesday’s election.

Olbermann, who acknowledged the contributions in a statement to POLITICO, made the maximum legal donations of $2,400 apiece to Conway and to Arizona Reps. Raul Grijalva and Gabrielle Giffords. He donated to the Arizona pair on Oct. 28 — the same day that Grijalva appeared as a guest on Olbermann’s “Countdown” show.

NBC has a rule against employees contributing to political campaigns, and a wide range of news organizations prohibit political contributions — considering it a breach of journalistic independence to contribute to the candidates they cover.

I really can’t stand Keith Olbermann whatsoever, and I understand MSNBC’s rules and regs when it comes to political contributions but Olbermann is an opinion “journalist” rather than a mainstream media “unbiased” reporter. Not seeing how this breaches any “journalistic independence” on his part considering he’s made it pretty darn clearn he’s not in the slightest bit independent. Ed Morrissey has a similar take:

The more I think about this, the more ridiculous it gets. MSNBC offers the most ridiculously biased televion coverage of politics possible, crowning it with Election Night coverage that had people wondering if NBC needed to hire grief and anger counseling for the entire on-air staff. And now, because Olbermann contributed to three Democrats last month, suddenly Griffin suspends him because “these activities jeopardize his or her standing as an impartial journalist because they may create the appearance of a conflict of interest”?

LOL. Yeah, MSNDC’s all of a sudden concerned about the appearance of a lack of journalistic integrity? Go figure.

Bill Kristol opines:

First, he donated money to candidates he liked. He didn’t take money, or favors, in a way that influenced his reporting.

Second, he’s not a reporter. It’s an opinion show. If Olbermann wants to put his money where his mouth is, more power to him.

Third, GE, the corporate parent of MSNBC, gives money to political organizations. GE executives and, I’m sure, NBC executives give money. Why can’t Olbermann?

Perhaps Olbermann violated NBC News “policy and standards.” But NBC doesn’t have real news standards for MSNBC—otherwise the channel wouldn’t exist. It’s a little strange to get all high and mighty now.

But it does, however, have standards for CNBC: Don’t be so mean to Obama.

Anyway, so I see Morrissey’s and Kristol’s points: He’s an opinion journalist, so who cares, and MSDNC hasn’t demonstrated standards before so why worry now? However, I also see Michelle Malkin’s POV, which is – essentially – too bad, so sad, buhbye (emphasis added by her):

Olbermann railed against FNC in August for its corporate donations while whitewashing NBC/GE’s:

On the August 17 edition of ‘Countdown,’ host Keith Olbermann used the donations to do the only thing he’s capable of doing: criticizing Fox News.

“We now have another million reasons why Fox News is the Republican news channel, correct?” Olbermann asked Media Matters president Eric Burns.

Olbermann said that GE, MSNBC’s parent company, donated an equal amount of money to both the DGA and RGA. He didn’t mention, however, that according to OpenSecrets.org, in 2008, 100 percent of MSNBC Cable’s donations went to Democrats and 99 percent of NBC’s donations went to Democrats.

Additionally, so far in 2010, 100 percent of ABC News’s donations have gone to Democrats and CBS Corporation’s PAC has contributed $51,000 to Democrats in 2010.

The Media Research Center previously noted News Corp.’s donations favored Democrats and that other outlets critical of the donation, such as Viacom’s Comedy Central, have all given substantial money to Democrats, yet there is no outrage over their political contributions.

Olbermann’s sanctimony and hypocrisy only compound his core failure to disclose the donations before Election Day — especially during the show in which he hosted one of the beneficiaries of that cash.

Network “insiders” are saying that Olby won’t be back – at all. However, don’t feel sorry for the hateful clown who, in addition to numerious BushHitler comparisons, has made “jokes” about John McCain buying Depends, and who has taken misogynistic “comedy” to new lows – all with MSNDC’s blessings. He’ll land on his feet – hip deep in donkey poop, of course.

Bill Jacobson suggests the suspension frees Olby to officially join the Democrat team. If he does so, he’ll have a long line to wait in alongside the other 2,000 or so official Democrat Congressional aides who in effect lost their jobs this week after the “shellacking” their bosses took on Tuesday.

Awww.

Cross-posted to Right Wing News.

And while we’re on the topic of hilarious MSDNC follies, check out Kyle Drennan’s screencap of a headline that flashed on the bottom of the TV screen today during a “debate” of sorts on the controversial Arizona immigration bill that signed into law by Jan Governor Brewer on Friday. It reads:

“Law Makes It A Crime To Be Illegal Immigrant”

Umm …

Oh, and speaking of immigration, CBS News (surprisingly) pretty much nails it on how Democrats are trying to play politics in an election year by bumping up “immigration reform” as a top issue:

This was supposed to be the day that three senators – Republican Lindsey Graham, Democrat John Kerry, and Independent Joe Lieberman – unveiled their bipartisan climate and energy legislation plan.

But over the weekend Graham put the brakes on the bill. The reason was not that he no longer liked the legislation. Rather, it was that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (pictured) had decided to prioritize immigration reform instead.

“Moving forward on immigration — in this hurried, panicked manner — is nothing more than a cynical political ploy,” Graham wrote in a letter to his two co-sponsors.

He has a point.

The climate bill, after all, had a legitimate chance to pass this year. In a difficult but successful vote for many members, the House passed a climate bill last June; with Graham on board and Democrats holding 59 votes in the Senate, a bill had a clear chance to pass through that chamber as well.

There are, of course, major differences between the bills in the two chambers, chief among them on the issue of cap-and-trade (the House bill includes it, and the Senate proposal does not.) Neither a Senate vote to pass the bill nor a subsequent process to reconcile the two bills would be easy. But there was a reasonable chance that the Senate could pass its version and a compromise could be hammered out, getting the legislation to the president’s desk this year.

Immigration is a different story: Nobody really expects a comprehensive bill to pass in 2010. For one, the energized Republican base is worked up enough about the prospect of “amnesty” for illegal immigrants that supporting the bill would be toxic for most GOP politicians; immigration reform is the sort of issue that could well result in an explosion of anger that makes the health care debate pale by comparison.

[...]

Supporting the bill would also be an extremely tough sell for many vulnerable House Democrats, who will not want to cast an unpopular vote in favor of “amnesty” in the run-up to the midterm elections. But the politics make more sense: Those vulnerable Democrats get an opportunity to take a strong position against a reform bill, which could help them hold on to their seats.

Meanwhile, Senate Majority Leader Reid, who is facing a tough reelection battle, gets a chance to stand with his state’s sizable Latino population, which he hopes will help him squeak through to another term. To top it off, Republicans in general end up looking bad in the eyes of Latinos, a crucial voting bloc that only gets more important with each passing year.

[...]

The calculation facing Reid was this: He could force his fellow senators to make a difficult vote on a climate bill and then deal with a tough fight to get a compromise bill to the president, a battle that would not be unlike the painful process to get a health care bill passed. Or he could push an immigration proposal that will likely not pass but which will help his party politically and may keep him from losing his seat.

The fact that Reid chose the latter is what has Graham arguing convincingly that the majority leader put politics first. Indeed, Reid’s decision may have effectively killed the push to pass a climate bill in 2010, widely seen as the best opportunity to pass legislation in light of expected Republican gains in the midterm elections. The decision “has destroyed my confidence that there will be a serious commitment and focus to move energy legislation this year,” Graham wrote.

[...]

The White House, for its part, wants a climate bill. But it is not going to stand in the way of Reid, who risked his political life by taking on the health care fight. President Obama has already signaled that he is willing to get involved in the immigration fight, and he may take action soon to discourage other states from following Arizona’s lead to pass their own tough immigration laws.

The upshot? Lawmakers appear to be embarking on a push for an immigration bill no one expects to pass while leaving a carefully-crafted climate bill out in the cold.

Whatever you think of Lindsey Graham – especially on the issue of illegal immigration, he may have very well just helped greatly hinder whatever possibility Democrats had this year of passing both “comprehensive immigration reform” (Democrat style) and cap and tax. Would much rather take up these issues under a more Republican Congress – even if we don’t get back the majority – than a Democrat Congress, and I especially would rather it be done during an “off” election year (although we have to keep in mind that next year is when all the GOP and Dem (?) hopefuls for President will be making their voices heard in advance of the 2012 Presidential election). That said, assuming we do make a lot of gains this fall, immigration reform could still be rough sailing, as it was when the Bush admin tried to tackle it in 2007, but cap and tax might effectively be DOA and a more reasonable and responsible energy plan could be under consideration by early next year.

Re: the Arizona immigration bill, please let me know your thoughts on it. On Twitter the last couple of days I’ve read a fair amount about conservatives voicing concerns about it – including prominent illegal immigration opponent Tom Tancredo, essentially saying that it may “go too far” in enabling law enforcement to stop people suspected of being illegal immigrants and “demand to see their papers.” What do you think?

“A week-long anchoring stint on MSNBC by Donny Deutsch ended abruptly on Wednesday,” writes the New York Times‘ Brian Stelter,” after “Mr. Olbermann was shown briefly in a series of clips of media bloviators during a segment that pondered what role the media plays in fomenting the public’s anger.”

While no one at MSNBC would go on the record for fear of getting fired by Mr. Olbermann, Stelter reports that “the four people briefed on MSNBC’s decision said Mr. Olbermann’s anger about the segment prompted the cancellation of the weeklong ‘America the Angry’ series.”

Scott Whitlock at Newsbusters has the transcript and video of the segment in question. It’s interesting when you watch the segment and read the transcript, because Deutsch, while not expressly defending the Olbermanns and (Ed) Schultzes of the world (at least not until towards the end of the segment), takes guest Hugh Hewitt to task for the way he talks about them – chiefly, Ed Schultz.

Whitlock also notes:

However, in February, when Deutsch dismissed Hispanic senatorial hopeful Marco Rubio as a “coconut,” a term that the New York Times described as meaning “brown on the outside and white on the inside,” MSNBC took no action.

[...]

Deutsch ultimately apologized for referring to the Hispanic Rubio as a “coconut.” However, the host certainly got in nowhere near the trouble that he did for daring to challenge MSNBC’s liberal left-wing heavyweights.

Now there’s a shocker.

Olberpunk is denying he had anything to do with Deutsch being kicked off the air in an anchor role, but then again KO’s a chronic liar, so take his denials with a grain of salt.

By the way, if you have a Twitter account, make sure you’re following @KeithOlbermann – purely for the comedy factor.

So last night that race-peddlin’ buffoon over at MSNBC… wait, that’s pretty much everyone on that network. Let me be more specific. OK, so, last night Keith Olbermann used his self-parodying Special Comment segment to ask the following question: Where are the people of color at the Tea Parties? Now, implying and outright saying that Tea Party protesters are racist is commonplace in the far left. No news there. But two things in particular bother me about his question:

First, his choice of words. People of color? Who are these colored people he’s referring to? What does that mean? It may be because I’m not a native English speaker, but I find this “people of color” business to be really bizarre. So as a Boricua, am I colored? I guess I’m olive but if I hit the beach on a sunny day I can be golden brown. Is he referring strictly to skin color? Culture? Ethnicity? I mean, I’m not that much darker than Mr. Olbermann himself. Do I fall into his “people of color” category?

[...]

And secondly, the question is stupid, the premise terribly moronic and the insinuation totally insulting. The Tea Party protesters aren’t racist. Are there a few kooks with nefarious motivations? Sure, every movement has them. It’s nice how, during the Bush years, the MSM did everything they could to whitewash the fringe elements of the antiwar movement, but I digress. What’s Olbermann’s evidence that Tea Parties are overwhelmingly racist? Apparently, that there are no “people of color” at these rallies. That is so blatantly false as to induce uncontrollable laughter. There are people of all backgrounds at the Tea Parties. But even if an event is dominated by a certain race group, what does that prove? Similar to what Glenn Reynolds said earlier this month, if you look at a group of white folks and the first thought that pops into your head is “racists!” then you have some serious issues.

So I put together this video response to Olbermann’s burning question. Here are his “people of color” he’s been inquiring about.

The vid:

Love it, love it, love it. Tip o’ the hat to this patriotic American for handing KO’s behind to him on a silver platter.

Of course, if MSDNC had made that video compilation, rest assured that the heads of the “people of color” in question would have been cut out of the video so you wouldn’t know that they were … “people of color.”

Via Ed Morrissey, who won blogger of the year at CPAC – and who was intro’d by none other than Rush Limbaugh. Mega congrats!!

Partial transcript:

“In short in Scott Brown we have an irresponsible homophobic racist reactionary ex-nude-model tea-bagging supporter of violence against women and against politicians with whom he disagrees. In any other time in our history this man would have been laughed off the stage as an unqualified and disaster in the making by the most conservative of conservatives. Instead the commonwealth of Massachusetts is close to sending this bad joke to the Senate of the United States.”

(Via Right Scoop)

Update – 10:38 PM: Fellow MSNBC talker Joe Scarborough responds.

Are we getting close to the Apocalypse?

Meanwhile, what’s the WH’s admitted favorite “news” network been up to these days? Well, Chris Matthews was caught yesterday openly fantasizing on air about how “somebody’s going to jam a CO2 pellet into [Rush Limbaugh's] head and he’s going to explode like a giant blimp.” And liberal icon Keith Olbermann? He blathered on last night about how he felt Michelle Malkin, without the “fascistic hatred,” was “a big mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick on it.”

No wonder the WH likes MSDNC so much. It treats critics of the administration the same way they do. You know what they say: Birds of a feather …

Here is an actual correction from Page A4 of today’s print edition:

FOR THE RECORD:

TV listings: The Prime-Time TV grid in Thursday’s Calendar section mistakenly listed MTV’s “Jackass” show on the MSNBC cable schedule at 7 and 10 p.m. where instead MSNBC’s “Countdown With Keith Olbermann” should have been listed.

It’s not the Worst Mistake in the World.

But without this kind of correction, online too, a few thousand people might have tuned into MSNBC, the Obama administration’s favorite cable channel, expecting to see a ‘Jackass’ show and instead they’d have found Keith Olbermann.

Worse, what if nobody noticed the difference?

Ya think?

On the Glenn Becks and Howard Beales: The White House doesn’t want to give Glenn Beck a bigger platform or extra oxygen — especially regarding his remark yesterday that the president has “a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture” — so they won’t comment, even off record. Beck, after all, is a radio DJ who somehow ended up getting a national platform to give his opinion on politics. What’s most amazing about this episode is that what Beck said isn’t a fireable or even a SUSPENDABLE offense by his bosses. There was a time when outrageous rants like this would actually cost the ranters their jobs. But not anymore; if anything, it’s now encouraged. And all of this could turn ACTUAL journalists into the next Howard Beales. It’s getting nuts that the folks who are creating the perception of an ideological/polarized media world are people who have never really spent their lives being journalists. Whether it’s former political consultants-turned-TV execs or former radio DJs, or former California socialites, the folks helping to accelerate the public’s perception of the media off a cliff made their livings trying to do other things. Of course, Beck’s crazy language could have one unintended consequence: It could cost him bookings with any Republicans who want to be popular outside Beck’s hard-core bizarro-land viewers.

Hysterical. Has Murray ever watched the clowns on his OWN network? KeithO, to be specific? Olbermann – who was a sports “journalist” before coming on board as a political commentator on the Obama-loved MSDNC – was like a walking sewer mouth last year, and the year before, in fact, when it came to describing the Bush admin. He equated Bush with Hitler multiple times and took some truly cheap shots at McCain like the “joke” he made about him needing to “buy more Depends,” doesn’t mind gay-baiting when the mood suits him, said Fox News was a bigger threat to this country than AQ, and joined in on making despicably sexist remarks about the former Miss California – and that’s just the short list. Yet Murray is worried about Glenn Beck’s suggestion that Obama is a racist? Maybe the morons at MSDNC should clean up their own backyards before they start whining about someone else’s. In fact, if we go by Murray’s standards, pretty much their entire evening line up would have to be fired with the possible exception of Rachel Maddow.

But hey – I keep forgetting: We are now living in a country where all scrutiny and criticism of our President should only come from more “serious journalists” like former sportscasters like KeithO and liberal shills like Chris “Sarah Palin was McCain’s mail-order bride” Matthews who who believe it’s their duty as American patriots to “help the Obama administration” succeed, tingly legs and all. A sentiment shared by the higher-ups as well, I should note. My bad!

Hat tip to Matthew Vadum at AmSpec, who has more on so-called “liberal tolerance” – including the campaign by the far left to have CNN fire Lou Dobbs for his position on illegal immigration and for his discussion of the “Birther” issue.

Where’s the standard liberal feminist outrage at over this blatantly sexist, trashy rant? All I hear is crickets chirping.

All we heard last year was how most of the major nets were “biased” against women because of the ways some of them talked about Hillary Clinton. Liberal feminists were boiling with rage for months over treatment of her they deemed to be all too representative of American “patriarchy.” Yet Miss California has had the kitchen sink thrown at her from the far left over her opposition to gay marriage, and even though that isn’t all that unusual considering how intolerant they really are of people who disagree with them, the sexist remarks that have come from certain corners – mostly from MSDNC types – you’d think would spur feminists from coast to coast to challenge and ridicule those making the sexist remarks. You don’t have to agree with what a woman says to be able to slam her critics for trashing her based solely on her sex.

But no, we won’t see many – if any – prominent feminists starting letter writing campaigns to MSDNC demanding apologies because most of your prominent feminists despise conservative women and other females who express conservative viewpoints because they view those women as “traitors” to their sex and, essentially, no better than all those evil males out there who want to “keep good women down” (literally and figuratively). To these women, conservative women – or women who express conservative opinions – aren’t really “real” women. That’s the dirty little secret of the feminist movement: They claim to support “equality for all women” when in reality the only women they care about making “equal” are those whose viewpoints line up with their own radical ones.

Same s***, different day.

Here’s a sneak peek:

JANEANE GAROFALO: She dated him, so either she suffers from Stockholm Syndrome – a lot like Michael Steele, who’s the black guy in the Republican party who suffers from Stockholm Syndrome, which means you try and curry favor with the oppressor.

KEITH OLBERMANN: Yes, you talk about self-loathing.

GAROFALO: Yeah, and there’s, any female or person of color in the Republican party is struggling with Stockholm Syndrome.

Max Twain at the Race42012 blog responds (via Memeo):

Get that? If you are a person of color and you don’t act and think the same way as liberal people of color, then you have a mental disorder. I’m pretty sure suggesting that members of a certain race should all act and think the same way is…umm…RACIST.

Shhh! Don’t tell that to the head honchos at NBC. They’re too busy worrying about whether or not CNBC is being “too mean” to Barack Obama.

Final word, from Matt Lewis:

If you still think liberalism is about diversity of opinion, intellectual discussion, and tolerance, you’re not paying attention.

Right on.