Tag Archives: keith-olbermann

Olbermann Distorts Conservative Adage as a ‘Screw the Poor’ Attack

On Friday’s Countdown show, MSNBC host Keith Olbermann either showed his ignorance of conservative ideology, or he made his latest deliberate distortion to attack conservatives as he suggested that a Republican candidate for Oklahoma governor expressed a negative attitude toward the poor, referred to by Olbermann as “screw the poor,” when, in reality, she was making the case that the wealthy are important to the economy because they are the wage payers for many people. As she spoke out against raising taxes, Rep. Mary Fallin alluded to the conservative argument that a tax increase on the wealthy would be bad for their employees. Olbermann quoted her version of the common conservative saying that conveys this point. Fallin: “I don’t know about you, but I’ve never been offered a job by a poor person.” The MSNBC host, apparently not getting the point, concluded that her words were meant as an attack on the poor as being useless to her, and tagged her with the top dishonor of “Worst Person in the World.” Olbermann: At a recent tub thumping for the conservative cause, she insisted government spending needs to be cut and tax breaks be given to the wealthy. And then she added this: “I don’t know about you, but I’ve never been offered a job by a poor person.” She did not add, “So screw’em.” That was merely implied. Below is a transcript of the relevant portion of the Friday, August 27, Countdown show on MSNBC: KEITH OLBERMANN: But our winner, Representative Mary Fallon, who is inexplicably running for governor of Oklahoma. At a recent tub thumping for the conservative cause, she insisted government spending needs to be cut and tax breaks be given to the wealthy. And then she added this: “I don’t know about you, but I’ve never been offered a job by a poor person.” She did not add, “So screw’em.” That was merely implied. But, of course, Miss Fallon is factually mistaken. She’s been elected to public office six times since 1990, and if some poor people didn’t vote for her and offer her her job, then the party she belongs to must necessarily be the rich people’s party. Mary “Screw the Poor” Fallon, Republican candidate for governor of Oklahoma, today’s “Worst Person in the World”!

Read the rest here:
Olbermann Distorts Conservative Adage as a ‘Screw the Poor’ Attack

Beck ‘On Crack, Taking Stupid Pills’ Say Mika, Joe

When Joe Scarborough wondered out loud “how many times can you set your hair on fire?” before viewers stop being shocked, you might have thought he was talking about Keith Olbermann, the man whose scenery-chewing soliloquies inspired an instant-classic Saturday Night Live skit . But no, Joe was speaking of Glenn Beck.  Perhaps the shot Scarborough took at Ed Schultz a couple weeks ago exhausted his monthly quota of internecine MSNBC insults. On today’s Morning Joe, Joe and Mika Brzezinski took turns ripping Beck’s promotion of the rally at the Lincoln Memorial he’s staging Saturday on the anniversary of Martin Luther King, Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech.  Riffing off a Colbert Show segment showing clips of Beck, Mika claimed he sounded like a drama student “on crack.”  Scarborough, suggesting Mika might have gone too far, surmised Beck might merely have taken “stupid pills.” JOE SCARBOROUGH: Hey, I don’t get it. MIKA BRZEZINSKI: I don’t either. SCARBOROUGH:  How many times can you set your hair on fire before you stop having your viewers being shocked? BRZEZINSKI: It’s like the boy who cried wolf in drama form, on crack. SCARBOROUGH: On crack?  That’s awfully harsh. I don’t know if I’d go that far. BRZEZINSKI: It’s just silly: how many times can you set your hair on fire? SCARBOROUGH: On crack? Maybe he’s taking stupid pills.   I don’t think it’s crack. BRZEZINSKI: That’s better: you’re so smart.

See original here:
Beck ‘On Crack, Taking Stupid Pills’ Say Mika, Joe

Olbermann Rips ‘Racist’ Nugent for Speaking at Beck Rally He’s NOT Going To

Keith Olbermann on Friday evening once again stuck his foot in his mouth on national television when he bashed Ted Nugent for appearing at Glenn Beck’s “Restoring Honor” rally next Saturday. Problem is Nugent is booked at the Boise Knitting Factory Concert House that night, and won’t be attending the Beck event. But this actually wasn’t the only fact Olbermann got wrong on MSNBC’s “Countdown,” for he also accused Nugent of making racist remarks while giving a concert in Dubuque, Iowa, a few weeks ago. Turns out that was 100 percent false as well (video follows with transcript and commentary): KEITH OLBERMANN, HOST: But our winner, Ted Nugent, former musician. He doesn`t have a call in phony advice show and he was never on anything as big as “Seinfeld,” so it has taken nearly two weeks for this to get out. At the Mississippi Moon Bar in Dubuque, Iowa, August 5th, Mr. Nugent looked out over his audience and, according to the “Dubuque Telegraph Herald” said, quote, “there is a lot of white people in this crowd. I like that. This is a white town.” Witnesses say he then pointed to at least one member of the audience and questioned that man`s race. Why would overt racism from a prominent right wing nut job and gun freak take two weeks to get national attention? Because Ted Nugent hasn`t been famous since about 1977. But here`s the punch line: one of the speakers at the Beck-apocalypse August 28th, the anniversary of Martin Luther King`s “I Have a Dream Speech” near the Lincoln Memorial? Ted Nugent. I know. I know. You thought he was dead, today`s worst person in the world. Well, Keith, according to the schedule at the Knitting Factory website, Nugent is performing there on August 28: Nice job of research there, Keith! Of course, as Tommy Christopher pointed out shortly after Olbermann’s faux pas, it appears the “Countdown” host once again blindly relied on the shills at Media Matters who wrongly wrote about this issue early Friday afternoon. Making matters worse, a photographer that was in the crowd at the Mississippi Moon Bar in Dubuque on the evening in question has flatly contradicted what Olbermann, Media Matters, and the Telegraph Herald claimed: Although the Telegraph Herald seemed to be reporting that Ted Nugent put on a racially biased show last night, what I head [sic] him say in his opening monologue was this: “Hey there sure are a lot of white people in this crowd. You need to do something about that.” He later said, heavy on the sarcasm, “Dubuque is a white town.” If anything, Nugent showed how much he honored and respected black performers of the past such as Wilson Pickett, Ray Charles, Chuck Berry and James Brown among others. He said at one point that all American soul came from these black performers who gave their blood, sweat and tears to the music. He even launched into an American Soul retrospective with songs such as Soul Man and Hey Baby. So, it appears Olbermann and the shills he foolishly allows to do his research for him got this issue totally wrong. General Electric and NBC must be so proud of their employees involved with this prime time MSNBC program!  That said, I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for Olbermann to retract this nonsense next week for that requires character.

Go here to see the original:
Olbermann Rips ‘Racist’ Nugent for Speaking at Beck Rally He’s NOT Going To

Olbermann Backs Down From ‘Over the Top’ O’Reilly Parental Abuse Attack

Let it never again be said that no line of attack is too low for Keith Olbermann. On Tuesday, the MSNBC libtalker distanced himself from comments made the week prior about Fox News host Bill O’Reilly. Olbermann attributed O’Reilly’s condemnation of comments about motherhood by actress Jennifer Aniston to the abuse O’Reilly supposedly took as a child. OIbermann didn’t actually say what he was backing away from, but until Tuesday it seemed that almost no line of attack would be too cheap or personal for “Countdown.” Some comment must have been really bad for him to actually back away from it, and label it “over the top” on air. The parental abuse line is the only one that seems to fit the mold. Video via Mediaite : Last night on his program, Bill O’Reilly went after MSNBC’s parent company, GE, for something that even O’Reilly acknowledged was ‘hard to get outraged about.’ It was not news, but appears to have come in response to some over-the-top remarks made here about O’Reilly.   Olbermann’s comments were a preface to a bit attacking Fox’s parent company News Corp. Olbermann apparently did not want anyone to think that he was reigniting his infamous feud with O’Reilly. In any case, mark down Tuesday, August 17 as the day a line of attack was too low even for Keith OIbermann. Not that he apologized for it to O’Reilly or to Countdown’s remaining viewers or anything.

Read this article:
Olbermann Backs Down From ‘Over the Top’ O’Reilly Parental Abuse Attack

Liberal HuffPoster Smacks Down Ed Schultz’s GM Success Story

A liberal Huffington Post contributor and board member of the website’s Investigative Fund rained on Ed Schultz’s GM success story victory parade on Thursday. After the MSNBC host crowed about the positive earnings report from the government-owned car company, he clearly expected that left-leaning guest Leo Hindery was going to join him in the celebration. Quite to the contrary, the admittedly “progressive” Hindery, who has contributed almost $1.5 million to Democrats in the past ten years, quickly threw a heapin’ helpin’ of cold water on this party before it got started. “I love being on this show. But I`m going to push back a little bit on your accolade for GM,” he marvelously began.  “There will be more jobs created in Mexico by the Big Three automobile manufacturers than will be created here in the United States” (video follows with transcript and commentary, pay particular attention to the smile being washed off Schultz’s face): ED SCHULTZ, HOST: Well, the automobile loan program seemed to have worked. General Motors also known as “Obama motors,” “government motors,” raked in over $33 billion in revenue last quarter. It`s G.M.`s strongest performance in six years. To top it off, the company is set to go public again, possibly as soon as Friday. Now, this is I think an unbelievable success story. This was a great American company on the brink and the ripple effect would have been unbelievable. And what did President Obama do? He put a team together that came in and fixed it. The bottom line: government intervention sometimes works. Folks in Washington should be looking at how they can do the same thing in other sectors of the economy but, of course, the Republicans aren`t for that. And, you know, it`s interesting, we don`t hear any Republican naysayers today. They`re out there being so quiet because this is a successful story. The ripple effect if the government had not loaned G.M. the money, it would have been so strong, there would have been hundreds of thousands of jobs lost across our economy. Joining me now is populist hero, Leo Hindery, managing partner of Intermedia Partners. Mr. Hindery, good to have you with us tonight. We have — we`ve had quite a battle with the White House in recent days about the professional left. I would say that this is a pretty good story to start off on to go in a different direction, wouldn`t you think? This is what they ought to be talking about. LEO HINDERY, INTERMEDIA PARTNERS: You know, Ed, I think I was labeled one of the professional left earlier this week, but, you know, I love being on this show. But I`m going to push back a little bit on your accolade for G.M. And we should take pride as a nation that the bailout did produce the profits that you describe. But we`ve got to be real honest about what`s going to happen here over the next decade. There will be more jobs created in Mexico by the Big Three automobile manufacturers than will be created here in the United States. So, these profits are important. But we didn`t put — we didn`t put any quid with the quo so to speak and we didn`t demand that the growth in these three companies, the recovery of these three companies be found here in American workers. And you and the Reverend Jackson just spent a compelling 10 minutes or so pointing out that the only thing that matters right now is the real employment, and in converse, the real unemployment of Americans. And I`m distressed when I hear that G.M., especially, just committed in the last week or so, $500 million more to yet another one of its plants in Mexico. So, give them a pat on the back for sure. But don`t give them too big a pat because they`re not creating jobs here in the United States. SCHULTZ: Well, but they are saving jobs, are they not, Leo? They did save a ripple effect of plastics, of electronics, of upholstery, of tire and glass that would have been even more devastating than the economy that we saw? HINDERY: Right. And there is — there`s a sharp line, a bright line, Ed, between saved jobs and created jobs. SCHULTZ: Yes. HINDERY: We need both. But what we didn`t get out of G.M. or Chrysler is a commitment to create jobs here in the United States. And that`s why I pat them on the back for saving a bunch of them, and I couldn`t be happier for the state of Michigan, the state of Ohio, and the state — Upstate New York. SCHULTZ: But moving forward is your concern, and moving forward, it should be a concern based on the news that came out today. The CEO of General Motors, Ed Whitacre, is going to be stepping down and he`ll be replaced by Daniel Ackerson. He is a managing director of the Carlyle Group. Now, the Carlyle Group is known for one thing, and that is shipping jobs overseas. How troubling is this move in your opinion? HINDERY: Well, it`s very troubling because that is Dan`s modus operandi. And nothing we`ve heard in the last several weeks and we were all surprised by Mr. Whitacre`s announcement today. But we`ve not heard a single word out of this company about committing to American jobs. So, they`re going to grow and they`re going to grow based on taxpayer money, tens of billions of dollars. SCHULTZ: So, what should the president do at this juncture? Get a commitment? Try to get a commitment or where do we go? Where is the loyalty? HINDERY: Well, I think Secretary Geithner let the nation down when he just gave them money and didn`t demand that they create U.S. jobs. Again, I like the fact that we saved a bunch of `em. But we need to find, Ed, 22 million jobs to put this nation back at full employment. And we need our big manufacturers to be stable and growing here in the United States. And G.M. and Chrysler made no such commitment when they took our money. SCHULTZ: Mr. Hindery, always a pleasure. You do great work. I love reading your stuff on “Huffington Post.” I appreciate your time tonight. HINDERY: It`s always a privilege to be here, Ed. Thanks. SCHULTZ: You bet. For the record, Hindery is quite left of center. Last week he admitted in a HuffPo piece that he is on the “progressive side.” According to Wikipedia, his name was being tossed around in 2004 as a successor to Democratic National Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe. He served as senior economic policy advisor to presidential candidate John Edwards, and is even an advisor to the Obama administration. As such, Schultz probably wasn’t expecting any push back on his celebration. Wasn’t it glorious?

Follow this link:
Liberal HuffPoster Smacks Down Ed Schultz’s GM Success Story

MSNBC’s Harris-Lacewell: 14th Amendment Debate about Eugenics, Xenophobia

Whenever Fox News host Glenn Beck raises the history of progressives and eugenics, or the possibility that eugenics is part of the motivation of a legitimate policy debate, the left-wing has a hissy fit . But when the left introduces it, we’re supposed to accept it as high-minded and scholarly, especially in the case Princeton University’s Melissa Harris-Lacewell.  On MSNBC’s Aug. 12 “Countdown,” liberal blowhard Keith Olbermann asked Harris-Lacewell, an MSNBC contributor, what the motivation was behind the proposition the 14th Amendment of the Constitution should be altered to close a loophole for illegal immigrants to achieve legal status in the United States. As expected, Harris-Lacewell suggested it was motivated racism, but took it even further to say there was some sort of desire for genetic purity pushing it. “It certainly is xenophobia, but it’s got a little eugenics mixed in with it,” Harris-Lacewell said. “Part of what I see going on here is, first, a deep misunderstanding about the 14th Amendment, and for whom the 14th Amendment provided citizenship. And although certainly part of it was about newly freed persons after the Civil War, it was also about all Americans.” Back in March, Harris-Lacewell demonstrated her ability to play the race card in a unique way – by likening the individual backlash to ObamaCare to the causes of the Civil War . This time she proposed this harebrained theory that altering the 14th Amendment would lead to a genetic purity test used to prove American citizenship. “In other words, I want Americans to pause for a moment and ask themselves on what basis would you determine citizenship, if not based on where a child is born?” Harris-Lacewell said. “So are we willing to go to a kind of genetic grandfather clause for American citizenship? Do you have to have two parents who are citizens? How about grandparents? How about great- grandparents? The notion becomes very quickly a racialized one, where the idea of who will count as American becomes genetic rather than location.” The latest left-wing meme has been that the anchor baby issue really isn’t a significant one based on data from the Pew Hispanic Center , so why worry about it? But the a closer look at the Pew study shows it’s based on U.S. Census data , which has historically been fuzzy on its numbers with undocumented immigrants. And rather than scrutinize the report, left-wingers have accepted it as indisputable fact since Pew, as Olbermann put it, is “nonpartisan.” And that’s allowed liberals like Harris-Lacewell to suggest there is a malicious intent to alter the 14th Amendment and try to de-legitimize a component of the illegal immigration. “And I think all of us, white Americans, black Americans, Latinos who are in the country as citizens, and people who are here illegally and without documentation, should all be worried about such a notion,” Harris-Lacewell said.

Read more:
MSNBC’s Harris-Lacewell: 14th Amendment Debate about Eugenics, Xenophobia

Arianna Huffington Displays Staggering Ignorance of Business, Taxes and Economics

Liberal publisher Arianna Huffington on Monday displayed an absolutely staggering ignorance of business, taxes, and economics. Appearing on MSNBC’s “Countdown” to discuss Republican plans to stimulate the economy and curb the exploding budget deficits, Huffington was sarcastically asked by Keith Olbermann, “Does Huffington Post hire more people when your personal tax rate changes?” Realizing the host was mocking the GOP’s desire to extend the Bush tax cuts to all wage earners including those making over $250,000 a year, Huffington replied, “Huffington Post operates like most American businesses which is that our hiring practices have nothing to do with the income or the tax rate of the people who are running the business.” Ironically, the liberal publisher contradicted herself in the very next breathe (video follows with transcript and commentary): KEITH OLBERMANN, HOST: Now let’s bring in Arianna Huffington, editor in chief, co-founder of the Huffington Post. Arianna, good evening. ARIANNA HUFFINGTON: Good evening, Keith. OLBERMANN: So, the GOP says renew the tax cuts for the richest two percent of Americans. That will free the richest two percent of Americans to start hiring everybody else, and the economy will be stimulated overnight and we’ll all have ice cream in the morning. Does Huffington Post hire more people when your personal tax rate changes? HUFFINGTON: Well, actually, Huffington Post operates like most American businesses which is that our hiring practices have nothing to do with the income or the tax rate of the people who are running the business. And it’s the same everywhere. Whether we hire or not depends on demand. It depends on whether we’re getting enough advertising dollars. So, her organization’s hiring decisions have nothing to do with the income of the people running the business. Instead, they depend on whether the publication is getting enough advertising dollars. Paging Ms. Huffington: isn’t the income of the people running this business directly tied to the website’s advertising dollars? After all, that is the publication’s only source of revenue. To suggest that a business owner’s decision to hire has nothing to do with his or her income is either the height of stupidity or dishonesty. Beyond this, as net income is indeed tied to taxes, to claim business owners hire irrespective of their income tax rate is equally preposterous. If this weren’t the case, maybe we should tax the highest wage earners including Ms. Huffington at 100 percent and see how that impacts their hiring practices. Care to test this premise, Arianna? 

Excerpt from:
Arianna Huffington Displays Staggering Ignorance of Business, Taxes and Economics

Howard Fineman: Obama’s Economic Policies ‘Saved The Day’

Despite unemployment sitting at 9.5 percent and over 3 million jobs lost since this President was inaugurated, Newsweek’s Howard Fineman says the economic policies enacted by Barack Obama “were good ones and smart ones and saved the day.” Chatting with MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann on Friday’s “Countdown,” Fineman was nicely set up by the shill asking the questions. “Does anyone — can anyone actually believe that the Democrats had then done nothing and had maintained that status quo that the current economic situation would be better instead of worse?” With the ball positioned nicely on the tee, Fineman chunked a drive into the water on the left (video follows with transcript and commentary): KEITH OLBERMANN: Time now to call in our own list political analyst, Howard Fineman, senior Washington correspondent for “Newsweek” magazine. Howard, good evening. HOWARD FINEMAN, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: Hi, Keith. OLBERMANN: Despite what Senator DeMint claims there, in the downturn that started two years ago or more and Republicans policies were in place because there was a Republican executive in chief. Does anyone — can anyone actually believe that the Democrats had then done nothing and had maintained that status quo that the current economic situation would be better instead of worse? FINEMAN: No. I don`t think anybody can claim that, and when Barack Obama took action initially, and when he started making decisions or putting out the idea that he would make decisions even before he was inaugurated, Keith, you tend to forget, he had a firm hand there early on. He had Larry Summers advising him. They knew they were going to pump more money in with Ben Bernanke right away. Any fair-minded observer would say in those first months, those first key months, Barack Obama`s leadership and the decisions they made, which actually had their roots with Hank Paulson and Ben Bernanke in the previous administration, were good ones and smart ones and saved the day. You know, it`s an old American motto, an old Navy motto: Don`t just stand there. Do something. That`s practical American strategy — and that`s what Barack Obama did in the early days, and he was rewarded with very high poll numbers at the beginning for doing that. Indeed he was, for shills like these assisted the President and his Party in making the case that these policies if enacted would put a ceiling of 8 percent on unemployment and would indeed save the day. As it’s become painfully clear to most Americans that they were sold a bill of goods, the President’s approval rating is at an all-time low and the Democrats are looking at huge losses in the upcoming midterm elections. Regardless of such unpleasant realities, folks like Olbermann and Fineman continue to spin a yarn about how great these policies were. With this in mind, let’s look at the data then and now to see just how that day was saved by the man folks like these shamelessly helped get elected. In January 2009, there were 133.5 million Americans on non-farm payrolls. As reported Friday, there are currently only 130.4 million, over a 3 million decline. The unemployment rate in January 2009 stood at 7.7 percent. Today it’s 9.5. If that’s what Fineman thinks is saving the day, I can’t imagine what failure would look like. Yet, even this isn’t a full picture, for the Democrats took over Congress in January 2007. As such, their policies have been in place now for over two and a half years. In January 2007, unemployment stood at 4.6 percent, which means that under a Democrat-controlled Congress, unemployment has more than doubled with almost seven million jobs lost. If shills like Fineman and Olbermann want to blame this exclusively on former President George W. Bush, maybe they should reread the Constitution to learn that the legislature in our government creates budgets. The last budget Bush signed that was created by a Republican Congress had a deficit of only $160 billion. By contrast, the 2008 fiscal budget penned by Democrats had a $459 billion deficit. Only two Republicans voted for this in the Senate. Not one Republican voted for it in the House. As for the 2009 fiscal budget, the second created by this Democrat-controlled Congress, it produced a $1.4 trillion deficit. Once again, only two Republicans in the Senate voted for it with NONE in the House. To put this in even greater perspective, the final budget created by a Republican-controlled Congress and enacted by Bush called for $2.7 trillion in spending. By contrast, a Democrat-controlled Congress with a Democrat President have authorized $3.7 trillion in spending this fiscal year, a staggering 37 percent increase in just three years. Yet shills like Olbermann and Fineman want Americans to believe that our financial woes were all caused by Bush, and that the current President and his Party have absolutely no responsibility for the condition of today’s economy. Makes you sick, doesn’t it? 

Go here to read the rest:
Howard Fineman: Obama’s Economic Policies ‘Saved The Day’

Canadian TV Critic: Could ‘Family Guy’ Creator Seth MacFarlane Be The Next Olbermann?

Family Guy creator Seth MacFarlane laughed his way through an appearance at the Television Critics Association hootenanny, asking why the critics look so “(bad word) depressed” on the first day. So reported Canadian journalist Alex Strachan , who apparently was so impressed by MacFarlane that he asked him if woud like to become “the next Keith Olbermann” and rail against Fox News (as if he hasn’t):  MacFarlane has become a semi-regular guest on Real Time with Bill Maher, and Maher seems to enjoy his company. Might MacFarlane consider a future in social commentary? I asked him. Might he become the next Keith Olbermann, railing against the excesses of Fox News, even as a paid employee — and a highly paid one at that — of the Fox Entertainment division? “I have a great time doing that show,” MacFarlane said, serious for a moment. “Bill is a friend, and he’s one of the most standup guys I’ve met out here. “I don’t have a particular agenda to do that. As opportunities present themselves, if it sounds like fun, then I’ll do it. I’m not angling to expand into the news business. But (Real Time) is a fun show to do.” Strachan noted that MacFarlane earned lots of cash and awards and the “uncaring wrath” of the Parents Television Council. (What? There’s lots of loving care put into the wrath against MacFarlane.) He added that MacFarlane loved how the critics were appalled at his adolescent, flaming-bag-of-poo sense of humor in a forthcoming episode:  True to form, his Christmas episode of American Dad, in which a murderous Santa and his army of bow-wielding reindeer warriors traps the Smith family in a cabin during a Christmas Eve snowstorm, left much of the room appalled. MacFarlane seemed delighted — giddy, even — at the reaction. “A lot of neutral faces out there,” he said. “A lot of straight lines across the mouths.” Murderous Santa is apparently following Armageddon Commando Jesus in the Christmas sweepstakes. Fox Entertainment must be so proud of its big-bucks commitment to this twaddle. 

View original post here:
Canadian TV Critic: Could ‘Family Guy’ Creator Seth MacFarlane Be The Next Olbermann?

Ever-Ambitious Rachel Maddow Gets in Unsubtle Dig at Colleagues David Gregory and Chris Matthews

Only a matter of time before MSNBC’s answer to Eve Harrington ( shown here being introduced to theater critic Addison DeWitt/Keith Olbermann) took a shot across the bow of unsuspecting coworkers. On her show Wednesday night, Maddow recounted the “single strangest on-air moment for me” on election night in 2008 (video below the fold) — MADDOW: This happened after midnight East Coast time, Barack Obama had already won the presidency and we were here in this studio (Maddow, “Meet the Press” host David Gregory, “Hardball” host Chris Matthews, former congressman Harold Ford and Republican strategist Mike Murphy) covering the reaction to the election results around the country. And in the midst of that, with everybody else I work with here at MSNBC, this happened — GREGORY (describing aerial footage of large crowd in downtown San Francisco): I believe we’ve got some pictures out of San Francisco as well, some of the celebration pouring out in the Castro District of the city as it’s known. A place near and dear to your heart, Chris Matthews. MATTHEWS: Certainly me, having written for the papers out there all those years … MADDOW (interrupting): That may not all be celebration if it’s in the Castro and we haven’t gotten … MATTHEWS (reciprocal interruption): Well yeah, Prop 8 is … MADDOW (cutting Matthews off again, this time by abruptly ending clip in mid-sentence. Maddow now seen back in studio, waving hands for emphasis): Watch me saying, that may not all be celebrating, you guys! Have we heard anything about Prop 8? Which is Maddow actually asking, haven’t you heard about Prop 8? Duh! Note the curious hyperbole leading in, Maddow describing those on air with her at the time as “everybody else I work with at MSNBC.” You know, that cable network consisting of a single Sunday show host and two weeknight pundits. Despite the presence of “everybody else” at MSNBC, only she, the gimlet-eyed ingenue, can clearly see what’s happening while mortals remain oblivious. The segment may not raise an eyebrow if not for speculation that Maddow would make a splendid moderator on “Meet the Press” and should have been chosen instead of Gregory to succeed NBC patron saint Tim Russert. After every Maddow appearance on “Meet the Press,” for example, I watch for the inevitable story, usually via Huffington Post , of a ratings “burst” courtesy of Maddow’s presence. I’ll venture a guess that Gregory tracks his show’s ratings and knows when they spike, and with whom. Hmm, come to think of it, isn’t Olbermann more Margo Channing than Addison DeWitt?

More:
Ever-Ambitious Rachel Maddow Gets in Unsubtle Dig at Colleagues David Gregory and Chris Matthews