did start to get tougher on Clinton near the end of the primaries.

But where I disagree with you and others is the characterization that it was motivated by sexism.

Olbermann's trajectory on his attitude toward Clinton is close to most other democrats, which was very positive before and early in the primaries. Later on when it started to become clear that she was going to lose the primary she made a strategic decision to go negative to change her fortunes (kitchen sink strategy I think her own people called it).

She attempted to politically damage the person who going to win the Democratic nomination to the detriment of the entire party and the nation. She attempted to make the Democratic primary about her and not putting a democrat in white house, ("if you don't vote for me then I'm going to make sure a republican gets elected" was the threat.)

Any Democrat who used those tactics in the primary would have been taken to task by the great majority of the Democratic party members, male and female. But she, you apparently, and a small vocal group of Clinton supporters insist that the backlash against Clinton was based on sexism.

This is hogwash. If Clinton had been leading late in the race and Obama decided to "throw the kitchen sink" at her with all the dirt and damage to the party that results he would have been treated the same way Hillary was and you would have seen Olbermann getting tough on Obama for the same reasons he got tough with Hillary.

If Olbermann has sinned it has been in becoming openly supportive of the Democrats, but in light of the damage the republicans have done to this country, the people they have needlessly killed, and erosion of the constitution I believe it to be a completely understandable and forgivable sin.

Good suggestion about Bill Moyers,

Bill Maher would be even better.

Real issues would be discussed, not flag pins and who you want to have a beer with.

(Moyers would move it in that direction as well)

after the rants you have been posting?

take a deep breath, get out from under your sheet and turn off the flashlight, pop another pill and for God's sake put down that bottle Prozac should not be taken with alcohol ; )

is beyond the pale of polite discussion ring completely false, hollow and lame.

(except for jeffersonian who is apparently having a genuine meltdown.)

It sounds as though the flaming against anyone who would dispute a flattering falsehood concerning Russert would instantly go away if the deceased were someone with whom the flamer differed. Judging by the venom of the rants I would add that the flamers would probable rejoice in death of someone they did not like.

Russert is not being flamed, the notion that he was a great journalist of high integrity is being treated with the contempt that it deserves.

1.) No one has said anything mean, shrill or obscene about Russert. Its also interesting to see how many responses seem to imply the following... paraphrasing: "if we only knew where you were you were we'd make you shut up."

2.) I'm not sure if the objections are more to pointing out that because of Russert's pandering to the government during the run-up to the war, and after, he and his colleagues bear a degree of responsibility for the consequences of that war, or the ridiculous notion that you cannot disagree with anything wonderful said about a person who has recently died, not matter how preposterous it is.

3.) This type of debate will never happen in the media. Not because of this seemingly new rule that you must inflate the accomplishments of the recently deceased, but because he was one of them. If anyone points out that Russert has blood on his hands for his collusion to sell the Iraq war it means they do to, and they will never admit to that... If anyone did they'd be fired on the spot for if the news readers and talking heads have blood on their hands the corporate executives are covered in it.

4.) Plenty of evidence has been provided that Russert was in collusion with the government. No evidence, or even a rational argument, has been made that he was not pandering in order to get prime interviews and further his career.

"this is not a paen to the mainstream media, f**kwad. this is forbearance, some sense of propriety, and a modicum of class. the a$$ part you have down good and proper. G*Y."

--jeffersonian

The thought of you typing that, red faced, bloodshot eyes bugging out, has just made my day. Thank you friend. The gift of laughter is wonderful thing.

And these are not letters to his family.

If you want to write a goodbye eulogy filled with sweet accounts of the man's life and brush over reality, go ahead, I'm sure his widow will appreciate it.

But this is... or sometimes is, a news site. Trying to accurately convey the man's real accomplishments is what's important here. Any journalist that still claims to have any integrity would agree.

Russert, like most of the "journalists", working during the run-up to the war, had a chance to be great. But instead they chose another path.

Rest in peace to the four thousand US service men and women who have died at a much younger age than Russert. I hope they can forgive Russert and the rest of us for not speaking up or rising to the occasion.

The truth can be inconvenient sometimes. It can even spoil a fine eulogy.