What liberal commentator do you dislike the most?

[paul718]

Also, before this thread goes any longer, I'd like to take the "omg you hack" position of these commentators are far more reasonable and accurate than their conservative counterparts.

What do you mean?

It means that between the man who cited The Paris Business Review, and someone who makes point-by-point refutations based on various statistics, I'll go with the geek.

So you're saying that this group of commentators isn't as bad as the group in the "conservative commentators" thread?  I'm not looking to argue, I just want to make sure I understand your point.

[MK13]

Believe it or not I use to be a Bill Maher fan before they booted him off of ABC i think it was. In a way I still like to hear what he has to say.

Then again I was 17-19 years old at the time.

[© Tweed the Younger]

Maddow pissed me off on election night when she called Islamic fundamentalists 'nihilists' which a) makes no sense and b) is offensive to nihilists.  I should have demanded an apology or something.

Wouldn't be getting offended at anything be completely against nihilism?

one can be insulted while realizing it does not matter.

[bullmoose88]

Huffington is a true annoyance.

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

Maher, then Olbermann.

[President Marokai]

I chose Bill Maher.  Bill Maher is just plain rude and seemingly anti-Christian.  Most of these commentators, while they are liberal, don't seem to be anti-Christian.  I actually like Keith Olbermann, he provides decent analysis on NBC's Football Night in America on Sunday Nights during football season.  He does stand up to the right.  Now, the question is, will he do the same to the Obama/Biden administration if they start getting out of line?

Of course not, exactly as Rush Limbaugh never got upset with the behavior of the Bush administration.

Why would Olbermann oppose a liberal administration?

Olbermann and Maddow have criticized Obama on various things over the last year.

[President Marokai]

Say what you want about Olbermann, but he was the first big-network-anchor who dared to speak publicly against the Bush/Cheney regime, and at a time when this wasn't exactly hip.
All that while some other big names, like Saint Tim Russert, were faithfully regurgitating the administration's talking points on their shows.

Yes, he is pompous, arrogant, and sometimes condescending. But you can't deny that the guy has balls.
And I think that the ''Worst Person in the World'' segment is funny as hell.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Yet gets his a$$ handed to him by Bill O every single week.

Is there a reason you're so stupid, or are you just trying to seem different?

[Rob]

I voted for Matthews because he isn't a "liberal." Colmes would be my second choice.

[Holmes]

The only person on this list that I get on my TV is Jon Stewart, and I love him...

[paul718]

Also, before this thread goes any longer, I'd like to take the "omg you hack" position of these commentators are far more reasonable and accurate than their conservative counterparts.

What do you mean?

It means that between the man who cited The Paris Business Review, and someone who makes point-by-point refutations based on various statistics, I'll go with the geek.

So you're saying that this group of commentators isn't as bad as the group in the "conservative commentators" thread?  I'm not looking to argue, I just want to make sure I understand your point.

[President Marokai]

Also, before this thread goes any longer, I'd like to take the "omg you hack" position of these commentators are far more reasonable and accurate than their conservative counterparts.

What do you mean?

It means that between the man who cited The Paris Business Review, and someone who makes point-by-point refutations based on various statistics, I'll go with the geek.

So you're saying that this group of commentators isn't as bad as the group in the "conservative commentators" thread?  I'm not looking to argue, I just want to make sure I understand your point.

By far, yes. Because I care about facts.

[Torie]

Believe it or not, Maher.

He's patronizing, self-aggrandizing, and, frankly, boring.

Yeah but one time 12 years ago he was funny.  For about 5 minutes.

(I feel like I'm missing a comma)

   Ditto.

[Coburn In 2012]

I can't think of a single one I like.  They all suck. 

You should add Ed Schulz to your list -- he's quite the loony leftie

[Wall St. Wiz]

Olbermann.  Politics aside, I have no respect for any man who rants and raves like a sissy.  He needs to man up and stop being so damn emotional. 

[President Marokai]

All of you can whine about the liberal commentators if you like, but I'm still waiting on how they're inaccurate. Bias doesn't equal inaccuracy or even necessarily fairness.

My problem with many conservative commentators isn't because they're conservative, it's because they're wrong, not that I think they're wrong, that they are actually wrong.

[The Mikado]

All of you can whine about the liberal commentators if you like, but I'm still waiting on how they're inaccurate. Bias doesn't equal inaccuracy or even necessarily fairness.

My problem with many conservative commentators isn't because they're conservative, it's because they're wrong, not that I think they're wrong, that they are actually wrong.

I wouldn't say that my pick, Bill Maher, is always wrong, though I disagree with him on a fair amount.  However, he manages to turn everything into this bizarre display of his ego and his patronizing, condescending attitude that everyone who doesn't share his interests is some sort of mouth-breather redneck.


Here's a case of Maher being right:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlyJmhwa1c0

Him outing Senator Craig on national television (well, HBO) a full year before the toe-tapping scandal.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlyJmhwa1c0

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

All of you can whine about the liberal commentators if you like, but I'm still waiting on how they're inaccurate. Bias doesn't equal inaccuracy or even necessarily fairness.

My problem with many conservative commentators isn't because they're conservative, it's because they're wrong, not that I think they're wrong, that they are actually wrong.

• Olbermann said that Palin vetoed $275,000 for Special Olympics.  That was wrong.
• He said that Michael Medved defended slavery in his article here: http://townhall.com/columnists/MichaelMedved/2007/09/26/six_inconvenient_truths_about_the_us_and_slavery.  Olbermann highlighted some points, but failed to read off where Medved said, "Along with the displacement and mistreatment of Native Americans, the enslavement of literally millions of Africans counts as one of our two founding crimes—and an obvious rebuttal to any claims that this Republic truly represents “the land of the free and the home of the brave."
• This article highlights his misquote of Brit Hume: http://homepage.mac.com/mkoldys/iblog/C1049953760/E20060411220251/index.html
• Bill Maher falsely said about the Pope that he, "wrote a letter instructing every Catholic bishop to keep the sex abuse of minors secret until the statute of limitations ran out."

[President Marokai]

All of you can whine about the liberal commentators if you like, but I'm still waiting on how they're inaccurate. Bias doesn't equal inaccuracy or even necessarily fairness.

My problem with many conservative commentators isn't because they're conservative, it's because they're wrong, not that I think they're wrong, that they are actually wrong.

• Olbermann said that Palin vetoed $275,000 for Special Olympics.  That was wrong.

Alot of news agencies reported the opposite, Olbermann can't necessarily be held solely at fault for the failure of the media at large to correct their error.

• He said that Michael Medved defended slavery in his article here: http://townhall.com/columnists/MichaelMedved/2007/09/26/six_inconvenient_truths_about_the_us_and_slavery.  Olbermann highlighted some points, but failed to read off where Medved said, "Along with the displacement and mistreatment of Native Americans, the enslavement of literally millions of Africans counts as one of our two founding crimes—and an obvious rebuttal to any claims that this Republic truly represents “the land of the free and the home of the brave."

Regardless of how you want to rationalize this one, Medved was still defending American slavery to some extent. You could nitpick at Olbermann for not pointing out that Medved eventually stated that slavery was obviously wrong (duh) but the entire point of the article was essentially Slavery wasn't THAT bad.

• This article highlights his misquote of Brit Hume: http://homepage.mac.com/mkoldys/iblog/C1049953760/E20060411220251/index.html

Oh good heavens, he misquoted someone. End his career.

• Bill Maher falsely said about the Pope that he, "wrote a letter instructing every Catholic bishop to keep the sex abuse of minors secret until the statute of limitations ran out."

Bill Maher is often hysterically wrong (and does a very bad job of explaining himself). I won't even try to defend him, though I enjoy his show, mostly for his panels.

 - - - - - - - - - - -

I'm not trying to say liberal commentators are perfect and get everything right. But they are often more willing to dig into something, report context, and cite something to back themselves up. Bill O'Reilly cites fictional statistics to argue against gay marriage and France, Hannity cites fictional earmarks to attack the stimulus bill, Ann Coulter is a lying bitch on most occasions, Limbaugh is not only a hypocrite, but a known liar, and I could go on and on.

While any public figure open to such scrutiny will be found to be wrong on something, the ratio to inaccuracies, misquotes, and/or outright lies, are probably 3-1 against conservative talking heads.

[paul718]

I'm not trying to say liberal commentators are perfect and get everything right. But they are often more willing to dig into something, report context, and cite something to back themselves up. Bill O'Reilly cites fictional statistics to argue against gay marriage and France, Hannity cites fictional earmarks to attack the stimulus bill, Ann Coulter is a lying bitch on most occasions, Limbaugh is not only a hypocrite, but a known liar, and I could go on and on.

While any public figure open to such scrutiny will be found to be wrong on something, the ratio to inaccuracies, misquotes, and/or outright lies, are probably 3-1 against conservative talking heads.

They ALL stretch the truth.  They're ALL arrogant.  SOME invite opposing viewpoints onto the show (Rush Limbaugh and Keith Olbermann don't).  It's not like they're news programs.  They're "commentary" shows -- meant for entertainment and kool-aid drinking only.   

It seems like you're the only one who turned my little poll threads into partisan debate.

[President Marokai]

Yes, yes I did.

Only because I don't like people who say "Conservative biased commentators are inaccurate lying jerks, therefore all biased commentators are inaccurate lying jerks!"

[JSojourner]

Say what you want about Olbermann, but he was the first big-network-anchor who dared to speak publicly against the Bush/Cheney regime, and at a time when this wasn't exactly hip.
All that while some other big names, like Saint Tim Russert, were faithfully regurgitating the administration's talking points on their shows.

Yes, he is pompous, arrogant, and sometimes condescending. But you can't deny that the guy has balls.
And I think that the ''Worst Person in the World'' segment is funny as hell.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Yet gets his a$$ handed to him by Bill O every single week.

Your WHAT hurts?

[JSojourner]

Colmes for me. 

I think Rachel Maddow is cute as a button.  And yes, I know she's gay.

[paul718]

Colmes for me. 

I think Rachel Maddow is cute as a button.  And yes, I know she's gay.

I like Maddow a lot.  I agree with her on almost nothing, but she seems like someone I'd get along with.  I must admit that I haven't seen her new show, but I used to watch her on Road to the White House.  I saw her guest-host one time and you couldn't tell what her personal opinions were.  She was very fair.

Colmes is okay, too.  I think he's funny and thought he and Hannity played well off of one another.   

Olbermann, on the other hand, makes my skin crawl.  Whenever I see his mug on the Sunday Night Football halftime show, I have to hurl an obscenity at the TV.  I can't help it. 

[TheresNoMoney]

Bob Shrum is my least favorite, a perennial loser. Alan Colmes is also a pu**y and was only on Fox to serve as Hannity's punching bag.

My favorites:

1) Thom Hartman: love his radio show, he is the most substantive commentator on political radio. Spends most of his time discussing real issues, and little time discussing politics

2) Rachel Maddow: great personality, really smart. Her show started out a little rough but has gotten really good. Very likeable person no matter what your politics are

3) Bill Maher: I love his show on HBO, he's hilarious.

4) Keith Olbermann: a little over the top, but I like liberals with a spine

[JSojourner]

Colmes for me. 

I think Rachel Maddow is cute as a button.  And yes, I know she's gay.

I like Maddow a lot.  I agree with her on almost nothing, but she seems like someone I'd get along with.  I must admit that I haven't seen her new show, but I used to watch her on Road to the White House.  I saw her guest-host one time and you couldn't tell what her personal opinions were.  She was very fair.

Colmes is okay, too.  I think he's funny and thought he and Hannity played well off of one another.   

Olbermann, on the other hand, makes my skin crawl.  Whenever I see his mug on the Sunday Night Football halftime show, I have to hurl an obscenity at the TV.  I can't help it. 

Much as I detest Bil O'Reilly, I hate Olbermann almost as much.  They both drag our national conversation to amazing lows.  I guess a lot of the people on the list do that at least some of the time.