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.

Where are Olbermann's sexist comments?

No one is disputing that Hillary Clinton has not been the target of some of the most vile, sexist, disgusting lies and name calling for many many years (I also remember those scumbags at faux going after Chelsea, even implying she was whore for supporting her mother during the campaign). These attacks have mostly come from the right wing noise machine and corporate media.

But I thought the discussion was about Olbermann's treatment of Hillary. If that is the case, I don't see the sexism.

From most of the media, their coverage of her might as well have been delivered by Carl Rove himself.

Which brings me to another point that I think is worth making.

Many of the sexist attacks against Hillary have been launched by knuckle dragging idiots who are at their core are sexist and would attack any woman running for political office. I also believe that there are another group who launch these sexist attacks against Hillary not because they are sexist (they may or may not be), but because they now it is yet another divisive tactic they can use to divide the American electorate.

The republicans cannot win national elections with a mostly united electorate. An electorate divided by class, sex, race and religion is where the republicans can and have had great success. Carl Rove knows and teaches this.

Olbermann's producer said some really stupid things in that interview (maybe even bad enough for Keith to go looking for a new, slightly less ham fisted, producer). But I don't think it adds up to sexism on Olbermann's part.

Sorry this was so long.

I agree with you.

Truce?

I would like to veer from the debate over the underlying reasons Olbermann has given Hillary rough treatment on his show and shift to the allegations, stated and implied, that Olbermann is the left's version of Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Really or any other right wing hack.

Limbaugh and his ilk spread lies and half truths in support of their republican masters. They obediently read the republican talking points as though they are news and assonate the character of Democrats or anyone who would dare call them out on their lies or disagree with them.

Olbermann has one thing common with them, he is not a newsman.

He is a debunker.

When faux news distorts the truth or puts out lies dressed up to resemble the truth Olbermannn call them on it. When a talking head starts to assonate the character of someone who disagrees with them, he points that out. When the right wing flame-heads try to shout down or 'cut the microphone' off of someone who is besting them in a debate, Olbermann holds them up to public scrutiny and ridicules them.

When the president of the United States tells a lie, he sets the record straight. When Bush says the Iranians are an immanent threat when all intelligence says they are not, he demands proof, and examines their motives.

Truth is his weapon and debunking liars is his trade. If you think he is good at it, or bad at it or too partisan or just rubs you the wrong way, please don't accept the false argument that he is "the lefts version of Rush". After Olbermann there is no one I know of on network television that debunks the right wing noise machine, and as you all know, its a full time job. To use a cliché, you need wings to stay above the right wing bull crap.

Al Franken was the brilliant at debunking the right and I am almost with he hadn't run for office just so he could keep bludgeoning the right with the truth.

There is no one on the left like Rush of Billo and I hope there never is.