Change still needed

The buzz is that Sen. Hillary Clinton will be offered, and will accept, the position of Secretary of State in the Obama administration. She certainly earned it.

What is still missing, however, is a national discussion on sexism.

"This is the most underwritten story of this campaign ... by the press ... by the media. [...] Nobody understood the agony that women, particularly of my generation, were undergoing about this ... issue ... and to this day, it has been swept under the rug and been forgotten because she didn’t win. [...] We did not examine the fact that we didn’t get, we haven’t gotten nearly as far ahead as we thought we were about equality between the sexes. And that ought to be revisited as a result of what happened ... and it happened to Sarah Palin too." -- Howard Dean

Dean is right. We haven't yet address the issue of sexism, and until we do we will continue to see women abused by the media, corporate America, and certain religions.

A good start would be to never again have an all-male panel discussing issues of the day.


h/t to egalia at Tennessee Guerilla Women

.

Olbermann and Matthews Out

MSNBC has announced that Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews will no longer anchor political night coverage. My response? It's about damn time. These guys did everything within their power to influence the Democratic Primary -- with some of the most sexist coverage ever witnessed outside a FOX News broadcast. Their inability to be impartial has caught up with them, and they will now be demoted to the position of commentator.

MSNBC said Sunday it is replacing Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews as co-anchors of political night coverage with David Gregory, and will use the two newsmen as commentators.

The change reflects tensions between the freewheeling, opinionated MSNBC and the impartial newsgatherers at NBC News. Throughout the primaries and summer, MSNBC argued that Olbermann and Matthews could serve as dispassionate anchors on political news nights and that viewers would accept them in that role, but things fell apart during the conventions.

Gregory, the veteran Washington hand, will anchor MSNBC's coverage of the presidential and vice presidential debates and election night, said Jeremy Gaines, network spokesman. The change was first reported by The New York Times.

I'm not sure David Gregory is much better. The network probably should have just asked Tom Brokaw to handle MSNBC, while Brian Williams covered NBC. Or bring in Meredith Vieira or Ann Curry to handle the MSNBC coverage. They seem to be able to report in a professional manner.

MSNBC has been plagued with squabbles by their male anchors. Keith, Chris, Joe Scarborough and David Shuster. There isn't a professional among the lot of them.

Jon Stewart had an interesting take, when interviewing Brian Williams on "The Daily Show."

All the drama made MSNBC a punch line when top NBC anchor Brian Williams appeared on Comedy Central's "The Daily Show" last week. "Is there no control?" Stewart asked him. "`Is it `Lord of the Flies?'"

A sheepish Williams said that every family has a dynamic of its own.

"But does MSNBC have to be the Lohans?" Stewart said.

Stewart has proven once again that the best anchor this election season may just be a comedian!

FOX News Script: (insert candidate name here)

FOX News pundits sure are lazy. They simply pull out an old 2004 script and insert "Obama" for "Kerry." Geezzzz

The Media's Obsession with Clinton

Must read posts from the blogosphere:

Hillary Clinton speaks at convention. The press concocts a story
by Eric Boehlert

The Media's Clintonitis
by Taylor Marsh

Hillary Sexism Watch, #109
by Melissa McEwan

.

Sexism in the Media -- You Bet!

Wow ... if a major newspaper is going to publish an article on sexism in the media, is THIS really the image that should accompany it? Note the photo above of Sen. Hillary Clinton. Her head is missing, and the camera seems to be is focused on her chest ... and some people wonder if there is sexism in the media? Good grief!!

The New York Times has a report on sexism titled: Critics and News Executives Split Over Sexism in Clinton Coverage

No shit.

I'm not sure how this can even be described as a "split." The one woman with the courage to speak up -- Katie Couric -- is being lambasted by the dozens of men so entrenched in their own misogyny they can't see just how bad their behavior actually is!

Taking aim from the inside, though, was Ms. Couric, who herself has faced harsh criticism as the first woman to be the solo anchor of an evening news broadcast. Ms. Couric posted a video on the CBS Web site on Wednesday about the coverage of Mrs. Clinton.

“Like her or not, one of the great lessons of that campaign is the continued — and accepted — role of sexism in American life, particularly in the media,” Ms. Couric said.

She went on to lament the silence of those who did not speak up against it.

The group that really takes the cake is MSNBC -- or as I like to call them the Misogynist Sexist Network Boys Club. Their spokesperson, Keith 'don't-tell-anyone-I'm-a-sexist' Olbermann had this to say:

"... while there were “individual, sexist, mistakes,” there was no overall sexism. ... there was “constant reflection and analysis at MSNBC, and I must say there was constant good faith in trying to make certain Senator Clinton was not treated unfairly.”

Bullshit.

Olbermann, and his buddy Chris Matthews, were co-presidents of the 'no-girls-allowed' club. Their daily rants are a major reason anyone is even examining the issue. After all, it was Olbermann who suggested a party official needed to take Sen. Clinton in a room, and "only he comes back out."

Cable television has come under the most criticism. Chris Matthews, a host on MSNBC, called Mrs. Clinton a “she-devil” and said she had gotten as far as she had only because her husband had “messed around.”

Mike Barnicle, a panelist on MSNBC, said that Mrs. Clinton was “looking like everyone’s first wife standing outside a probate court.” Tucker Carlson, also on MSNBC, said, “When she comes on television, I involuntarily cross my legs.”

The establishment news media were faulted too. The New York Times wrote about Mrs. Clinton’s “cackle” and The Washington Post wrote about her cleavage.

Ken Rudin, an editor at National Public Radio, appeared on CNN, where he equated Mrs. Clinton with the actress Glenn Close in “Fatal Attraction.” “She’s going to keep coming back, and they’re not going to stop her," Mr. Rudin said. He later apologized.

The article does mention Howard Dean's to-little-to-late comment on sexism, as Sen. Clinton was ending her campaign.

Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic Party, who says he was slow to pick up on charges of sexism because he is not a regular viewer of cable television, is taking up the cause after hearing an outcry from what he described as a cross-section of women, from individual voters to powerful politicians and chief executives.

“The media took a very sexist approach to Senator Clinton’s campaign,” Mr. Dean said in a recent interview.

“It’s pretty appalling,” he said, adding that the issue resonates because Mrs. Clinton “got treated the way a lot of women got treated their whole lives.”

Mr. Dean and others are now calling for a “national discussion” of sexism.

Gee, thanks Howard.

“We’re certainly not going to take this lying down,” said Ellen Malcolm, the president of Emily’s List. She said her hope was for a national discussion to focus on “what is fair in the new political world of Internet, cable and traditional news coverage.”

I would second that. Not only do we need to examine MSM, but also the so-called progressive blogosphere as well. That is a discussion I would welcome.

.

Keith Olbermann Strikes Again

I wondered who Keith was going to beat up on now that Hillary Clinton is out of the race for the White House. It didn't take him long to find his new target, and no doubt she was selected for making a comment that hit too close to home for Keith 'yes-I'm-sexist' Olbermann.



Keith Olbermann, claiming that he observed a reporter covering the Obama campaign and deemed him to be completely objective, is like the fox standing at the hen house door saying "there were no chickens inside, why would you think there were chickens inside?".

Taylor Marsh writes:

Mr. Olbermann takes it personally that Couric makes an assessment that even Cowan admitted was real. The Boys Club mentality of the MSNBC anchor is nakedly on view every time he talks about Clinton or women in general. What Olbermann doesn't get is that journalism is about being unbiased and undeterred by atmospherics in order to report. Cowan admits being somewhat seduced himself, to his credit, except that means he failed to do his job, even as good as he is. Olbermann can't handle that truth. His anger last night at Couric once again revealed his own biases (and ego), as well as the inability to look at something very important in our media, of which Olbermann is a prime culprit. His venting at Couric says one thing. Me thinks Keith he is no Edward R. Murrow Olbermann doth protest too much. [...]

... Olbermann's review of Couric in "worst person" is beyond insulting. "A little Kool-aidish, but her opinion and she's entitled to it," is his response to any suggestion of sexism during the primary season. The man couldn't be more clueless. Everyone's got their own brand of Kool-Aid. Keith just takes his introveniously.

It's well past time to either show Olbermann the door, or label his program for what it is -- sexism at it's worst.

Olbermann puts the Misogynist in:

Misogynist
Sexist
Network
Boys
Club

Obama's Media Problem

Keith Olbermann invited Dana Milbank to appear on Countdown with Keith Olbermann tonight to discuss where Sen. Obama goes from here. In talking about how to appeal to Sen. Clinton's supporters, Olbermann suggested it might include Obama needing to talk more about health care (as he has been doing over the past 48 hours or so).

Milbank disagreed, saying there is no "real difference" in the policy proposals of Clinton and Obama, that the campaign turned more on personalities -- and that is what Obama would need to address. Milbank went on to clarify that he didn't think we should expect to see Obama suddenly start "doing shots" or "weeping" on the campaign trail.

Not missing a beat, Olbermann agreed.

Don't these two idiots get it?

The Obama camp better ask for a meeting with these two men quickly, to urge them to ramp DOWN their sexist comments. They are doing Obama NO FAVOR keeping this shit going.


.

NBC owes Ashleigh Banfield an apology - and back pay!

And Phil Donahue, too!

Ashleigh Banfield, the reporter who made wearing glasses fashionable, was basically dumped by MSNBC for daring to make a public speech critical of the way reporters were covering the war. Given all the current hype over Scott McClellan's new book, I think NBC owes Banfield and Donahue an apology -- and back pay!

In 2003, Banfield was asked to speak at Kansas State University, as a participant in the school's Landon Lecture series. Her speech touched on many issues, with probably the most controversial being the "sanitized" coverage of the war.

You didn't see where those bullets landed. You didn't see what happened when the mortar landed. A puff of smoke is not what a mortar looks like when it explodes, believe me. There are horrors that were completely left out of this war. So was this journalism or was this coverage? There is a grand difference between journalism and coverage, and getting access does not mean you're getting the story... . [...]

As a journalist I'm often ostracized just for ... going on television and saying, "Here's what the leaders of Hezbullah are telling me and here's what the Lebanese are telling me and here's what the Syrians have said about Hezbullah. Here's what they have to say about the Golan Heights." Like it or lump it, don't shoot the messenger, but invariably the messenger gets shot.

We hired somebody on MSNBC recently named Michael Savage. Some of you may know his name already from his radio program. He was so taken aback by my dare to speak with Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade about why they do what they do, why they're prepared to sacrifice themselves for what they call a freedom fight and we call terrorism. He was so taken aback that he chose to label me as a slut on the air. [...]

How can you discuss, how can you solve anything when attacks from a mere radio flak is what America hears on a regular basis, let alone at the government level? I mean, if this kind of attitude is prevailing, forget discussion, forget diplomacy, diplomacy is becoming a bad word.

Banfield goes on to talk about the "FOX news effect" and how by having an "agenda" in their coverage they were able to take viewers away from CNN and MSNBC. Marketing replaced reporting. A memo that I'm sure was meant to be confidential leaked about why Donahue was fired. MSNBC didn't want an "anti-war" voice while FOX was waving the flag every night, calling anyone who opposed the war unpatriotic.

I'm hoping that I will have a future in news in cable, but not the way some cable news operators wrap themselves in the American flag and patriotism and go after a certain target demographic, which is very lucrative. You can already see the effects, you can already see the big hires on other networks, right wing hires to chase after this effect, and you can already see that flag waving in the corners of those cable news stations where they have exciting American music to go along with their war coverage.

As responsible citizens I think we must question the actions of our government, and our media. The Fourth Estate has great power, and with that power should go a responsibility to serve the best interests of the people. It can do that by presenting all sides of an issue, and then letting the people decide.

When a news outlet bangs the war drum, we need to call them on it. And when it jumps on the bandwagon for a particular candidate, we need to call them on that as well.


See:
MSNBC's Banfield Slams War Coverage
Ashleigh Banfield: "Don't Shoot The Messenger"
Commentary: The Surrender Of MSNBC
Battling For The Soul Of Donahue

Reliable Sources - Misogyny in the media

[I]f you ever saw the language, the vulgarity, the vitriol that is hurled at Hillary Clinton by liberal Democrats, by the liberal blogs, largely by, frankly, Obama supporters, you'd be appalled. I mean, you'd punish your children for this.

--Marie Cocco


h/t Tennessee Guerilla Women

Strong Women, Sexist Men

The Women's Media Center and Media Matters created this video to illustrate the problem and send a message to the media: Sexism might sell, but we're not buying it!

Sign the Women's Media Center petition

Sexism in Media: Enough is Enough

Alex Castellanos, appearing on CNN, said: "It can be accurate to call a woman a bitch." Emily's List responds:

Dear BAC,

It's happened again.

Talking heads on cable news using vile, sexist language that insults and degrades women.

This time it's GOP consultant Alex Castellanos -- purveyor of a racist attack ad on behalf of former Sen. Jesse Helms -- appearing on CNN's Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer Tuesday, May 20.

Commenting in a discussion about a comedy routine characterizing Hillary as a "white b**ch," Castellanos said: "And some women, by the way, are named that and it's accurate."

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!

In that same discussion, Castellanos went on to describe Hillary as "a very abrasive, aggressive, irritating person. . ."

Join me in telling CNN that it’s time to stop condoning sexism and start showing some respect for women.

A good first step is to stop inviting Alex Castellanos onto their programs.

A better solution is to set a firm policy against letting anyone -- host or guest -- come onto CNN and spout off hateful, sexist commentary.

Please help by sending your own letter to CNN.

Feel free to borrow language from our sample message.

Click here to watch the video and send a letter to CNN.

Together we can make our voices heard,
Ellen R. Malcolm
President

As was pointed out in the video, no one on MSM today would be allowed to say a similar disparaging comment about Sen. Obama. If they did, not only would they be fired, but we would never hear the end of it. Using racist language is unacceptable -- AS IT SHOULD BE. But SEXIST LANGUAGE SHOULD BE UNACCEPTABLE AS WELL.

I encourage you to take a moment and make your voice heard on this important issue.

Sexism

Sen. Hillary Clinton, in an interview with Lois Romano of the Washington Post, addresses the sexism in this contest that many of us have complained about for months.

"It's been deeply offensive to millions of women," Clinton said. "I believe this campaign has been a groundbreaker in a lot of ways. But it certainly has been challenging given some of the attitudes in the press, and I regret that, because I think it's been really not worthy of the seriousness of the campaign and the historical nature of the two candidacies we have here."

"The manifestation of some of the sexism that has gone on in this campaign is somehow more respectable, or at least more accepted, and . . . there should be equal rejection of the sexism and the racism when it raises its ugly head," she said. "It does seem as though the press at least is not as bothered by the incredible vitriol that has been engendered by the comments by people who are nothing but misogynists."

Grey, at Taylor Marsh, offers the following:

The sexism has been pervasive and blatant, though rarely taken seriously, a great miscalculation on the part of the Obama campaign. Should he become the nominee, there won't be enough good will left for him to even begin to repair the rift, and he should not operate under the illusion that women, as well as many of their male allies, will "get over it" and fall in line. The repeated, insistent calls for Sen. Clinton to abandon the race aren't helping and are, in fact, rankling her supporters:

"I'm real tired of the pundits telling me the race is over -- telling America what it should think," said Dorinda Perkins, 63, a lab technician. "I do not want her to quit."

"I love her because she's a helluva fighter. She's tenacious and I like that," said Pat Parker, a night-shift worker at Hardee's in Bowling Green. "She cares for everybody, for people like me. . . . I'll tell you, she's been treated pretty shabby."

I have said before, if Obama becomes the nominee he will have a lot of work to do in just trying to win over the base of the Democratic party -- women.

Hillary and the "Timmy" Factor

Clearly Sen. Clinton is moving on, in spite of what Tim Russert, et. al, might want.

The MSNBC pundits are fond of claiming that Hillary is constantly "changing the goal posts." Well, it's interesting how Tim seems to be the one changing the goal posts. Take a look at this.


And what is my response to all this? Let the dogs bark, baby, 'cause the caravan is moving on!

The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on

The mostly male pundits on talking-head TV just don't get it. It appears Sen. Clinton is going to win Pennsylvania by 10 points.

Before the polls closed they all said if she didn't win she should quit. Then, as the results starting coming in, they said if she didn't win by more than 7 points she should quit. Then, when she was ahead by 8 points they said if she didn't win by double digits she should quit.

When are they going to 'get it' ... that the PEOPLE don't want Sen. Clinton to quit.

Clearly Democrats are not ready for this contest to end.

Sen. Obama outspent Sen. Clinton at least 3 to 1, running literally THOUSANDS of television ads. Hey, I worked in advertising for a decade. I was sure his ad budget alone would make this a very close contest, if not tip the scale in his direction. I was wrong.

Sen. Clinton is connecting with working Americans. Blue collar voters who are concerned about the economy are voting for Clinton. They see her as someone who can fix the problems created by Bush & Co. Clearly they don't have that same opinion of Obama. This is the audience Democrats MUST have to win in November.

I certainly hope superdelegates are paying attention.

Neither candidate can secure enough pledged delegates to win the election, so it's going to be up to superdelegates. I hope they recognize that Clinton has won all the key states Democrats must win to wrap up the November election. I hope they recognize that core Democrats have consistently supported Clinton from the start. I hope they recognize that it's going to take a fighter to win against John McCain, and Obama has consistently demonstrated that when the going gets tough he folds.

As I write this the talking heads are still talking. They are desperately trying to give Sen. Obama hints about what he needs to do to win.

In the meantime, Sen. Clinton is rolling up her sleeves and getting ready for Indiana and North Carolina. I think she honestly believes she can make the lives of everyday Americans better. If you think so, too, and you haven't yet contributed to her campaign, it's time to pull out your wallet and send her a few bucks.

I'm not asking you to do anything I haven't already done myself. My $100 is part of the more than $2.5 million she has raised since the networks called PA for Clinton.

You know you want to .... DONATE NOW!

Fair & Balanced?? ... or why Tim Russert should move to FOX News

It's taken a while for me to find the time to post this, but I simply can't let this pass without comment. If anyone watched "Meet The Press" on Sunday you no doubt heard Tim Russert say there would be a discussion at the end of the program between David Brooks of The New York Times, who thinks Sen. Clinton should drop out of the race, and Peter Beinart of Time magazine, who thinks she should stay in the race.

I'm posting this because after watching the discussion it's clear this was yet another example of media bias.

Beinart, who was allegedly supporting Clinton's continuation in the contest, was anything BUT a supporter. Anyone who has been watching NBC or MSNBC knows the network has a definite anti-Clinton bias, but this was really over the top.

As mentioned above, the segment featured Brooks, who basically took the position that Clinton should drop out of the race, and Beinart who all but flat out said Clinton should drop out. As I watched this I kept asking "where is the voice for those of us who think Clinton has every right to continue this contest."

I won't share with you the comments by Brooks, because he was billed as the person opposed to Clinton continuing. Instead, let's take a look at what the so-called "Clinton supporter" said:

MR. BEINART: I think Barack Obama is actually a stronger candidate, just as David was saying, today, than he was a few months ago. He has weathered this Jeremiah Wright scandal, which was the biggest problem of his campaign. It's better for him that it came out now. Imagine if we only learned about Jeremiah Wright in October. He has shown that he can take a punch, he's shown that he knows how to respond to a Swift Boat-style attack and I think he's actually become a better candidate because these primaries have been so tough. [...]

MR. RUSSERT: Peter, Pat Leahy's saying that Hillary Clinton's comments about Barack Obama, not measuring up as commander in chief and so forth, hurting Obama more than anything McCain has said about Obama.

MR. BEINART: I don't think that's true. I think, in fact, that Barack Obama is a stronger general election candidate today than he was. And the general problem is you can't ask Hillary Clinton to drop out, it seems to me, reasonably, if she's winning states. If she starts to lose states, I think there's no question she will be out of this race. If she loses Pennsylvania on April 22, if she loses Indiana, certainly, on May 6. Maybe even if she just loses North Carolina on May 6. But if, in the unlikely event that she manages to win these states, it's going to be very difficult to tell her to drop out. [...]

Thank goodness for a short audio clip from former Gov. Madeleine Kunin (D-VT) who said: It seems a bit patronizing to tell her, "Honey, you've got to drop out for the good of the party."

Then back to a discussion of Rev. Wright.

MR. BEINART: But we just went through Jeremiah Wright, and David already said that it hasn't hurt Barack Obama amongst independents. The evidence is in.

MR. BROOKS: Among the independents, among Democrats.

MR. BEINART: But it hasn't hurt him amongst independents, either. It has hurt him a little bit amongst Republicans. Republicans, I think, are coming home to John McCain, to some degree. I think that was probably inevitable. I think it's worth noting that we also--this seems so stretched out because the primary was so compressed, the calendar's changed over the four years that it's become so compressed that now it seems epically long, when it's really just as long as it was eight or 12 years ago. [...]

MR. BEINART: I totally agree with David that her chances are 5 percent or even less at this point. [...]

MR. RUSSERT: The superdelegates would say, even though she's behind in elected delegates, she's shown momentum and strength as a candidate.

MR. BEINART: I wouldn't bet the mortgage on it. [...]

This is the best Tim Russert could do? And why promote this as a balanced discussion, when it was anything BUT balanced? Even the most ardent Obama support should be able to see the clear bias.

I'm not the only one who has posted for months about the media bias against Sen. Clinton. This latest example does little more than add fuel to the fire.

The interview prompted me to send yet another contribution to Sen. Clinton's campaign. If you agree with me, please do the same.

ABC-Sleazy News Network's Gutter Journalism

Can there be any doubt about sexism in the media following the sleazy reporting surrounding the release of 11,046 pages documenting Hillary Clinton's schedule as First Lady? Just when you think they can't set the bar any lower, along comes Brian Ross at ABC News with THIS report:

Hillary Clinton spent the night in the White House on the day her husband had oral sex with Monica Lewinsky, and may have actually been in the White House when it happened, according to records of her schedule released today by the National Archives.

Lambert at Corrent is urging everyone to send BRIAN ROSS at ABC SLEAZY NEWS your thoughts or call -- 212-456-7612 -- and tell him politely what you think of his report!

Why should anyone expect anything OTHER than this from a news network that would demote a female anchor when she became pregnant?

Keep in mind we are selecting a president, so shouldn't the focus in reviewing Sen. Clinton's papers be on what role she played as a representative of the United States government when traveling abroad? What does the infidelity of her husband have to do with her ability to be president?

But wait ... there's more!

Tennessee Guerilla Women provides this evidence of sexism as well:

ASSOCIATED SLEAZY PRESS: Schedules show Hillary Clinton was home during husband’s encounters with Lewinsky -- WASHINGTON - Hillary Rodham Clinton was home in the White House on a half dozen days when her husband had sexual encounters there with intern Monica Lewinsky.

SLEAZY TIME: Clinton First Lady Papers Released (WASHINGTON) — Hillary Rodham Clinton kept her schedule packed when allegations exploded that her husband had an affair with a White House intern.

WALL STREET SLEAZY JOURNAL: Clinton’s Calendar and Vince Foster -- Among the many things Hillary Clinton’s schedule sheds light on are her activities before, during and after major events in her husband’s presidential tenure — such as the death of Vince Foster. . In July 1993, he was found dead in a park in Virginia with a gunshot wound. After a three-year investigation by Whitewater Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr, Foster’s death was ruled a suicide, but many conspiracy theories persist suggesting he was murdered.

TGW suggested reading list:

Susie Madrak at Suburban Guerrilla: And if we let them get away with this, they will do even worse to whoever turns out to be our nominee.

Donklephant: ABC News’ Gutter Journalism

The Brad Blog: 'Investigative' Reporter Brian Ross Defines Shameful New Low...On the 5th Anniversary of the Iraq War, No Less...

Glenn Greenwald at Salon: The worst, sleaziest press corps possible

Jill at Brilliant at Breakfast: Would someone please get the mainstream media laid already?

Olbermann's Kid Glove Treatment of Obama ... can you say biased?

The special commentary Keith Olbermann leveled at Sen. Hillary Clinton the other night was so over the top I refuse to post it on this blog. And his pontificating was triggered by a rather bland comment made by Geraldine Ferraro.

But what about comments made by Sen. Obama's spiritual mentor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright?


Now take a look at the kid glove treatment Olbermann gave to Sen. Obama, and THEN try and convince me there is no bias here:



ABC News reports:

In a campaign appearance earlier this month, Sen. Obama said, "I don't think my church is actually particularly controversial." He said Rev. Wright "is like an old uncle who says things I don't always agree with," telling a Jewish group that everyone has someone like that in their family.

And on another occasion said to ABC News:

"I would not repudiate the man," Obama said. "It's like a member of your family that says something that you really disagree with: You don't stop being a member of the family but you have to speak out forcefully on the issue."

Olbermann's bias is clear, and for that he owes all of us an apology.