What is clear from watching Olberman is that is driven by a sense that those in power must be critically viewed and he takes special delight in exposing falsehood's, corruction, ignorance and hipocrysy. Since there is fertile ground to say the GOP and Bush admin in particular are very fonts of such attributes, Olberman, Stewart, Greenwald, Colbert and others who choose that career direction will look like they are biased against conservatives and therefore leftists. I would argue that were Dems in positions of power they would like come under the same scrutiny and mocking ridicule by these same people. That wouldn't make Olbermann a liberal traitor, let alone a conservative, just someone who thinks power should be held to account and a close watch. Kind of what those liberal Godhating enemy coddling Founders like Madison, Jefferson, Hamilton and Adams.

Mona: It depends on how you view the issue of medical care. If medical care is all about the most innovative technologies for people who have unlimited dollars to pay for them, then I guess the market has done a great job with healthcare in the United State. But, I think we need to set our standards a little higher for judging healthcare outcomes.

But, if we evaluate effective healthcare as providing the most efficacious and timely medical interventions for the general population, then the US market based system is a failure and getting worse.

Our market driven system has resulted in substantially poorer health outcomes than other developed nations, in every category, from infant mortality to access to vaccinations to life expectency.

We pay close to $5,500 per person in this country per year for our health care, while in the rest of the developed world the average is closer to $2,500.00. All that extra money is being spent to exclude individuals from health coverage and ensuring strong profits for the insurers.

Does anyone have it? If so, please email me (GGreenwald@salon.com) or, if you really prefer, leave it here. Thanks.

This little exchange needs a correction:

Anonymous: Hi, Howard. We hear incessantly about how this group or that group is funded by George Soros, as though that fact, by itself, proves the group's political affiliations. But those groups do not purport to be nonpartisan newspapers or sources of news. The Politico claims exactly that. Surely it is notable that those who created The Politico, who are funding it, and who are in charge of its operations, are long-time Republican operatives and those firmly implanted in right-wing circles. What do you think?

Howard Kurtz: If John Harris, Jim VandeHei, Mike Allen and Roger Simon are longtime Republican operatives, somehow it's escaped my notice.

In addition to the complete absence of Olberman/Hume references in his online chat, I noticed this gem from Kurtz:

Question: Surely it is notable that those who created The Politico, who are funding it, and who are in charge of its operations, are long-time Republican operatives and those firmly implanted in right-wing circles. What do you think?

Howard Kurtz: If John Harris, Jim VandeHei, Mike Allen and Roger Simon are longtime Republican operatives, somehow it's escaped my notice.

It's like he's not even trying anymore.

The questioner said nothing about the staff of thePolitico.com, but about its ownership.

"Adversarial" to the exclusion of all else is partisanship. More importantly, I have little doubt that sentiment will change as soon as a Democrat is elected President. Tsk.

The only job of press is to check those in power. They are not supposed to praise, they are supposed to test, challenge, and hold accountable.

FYI: In case you were in a coma during the Clinton admin, you missed the press relish every chance to attack with great joy, that Democrat.

The "liberal bias" is the biggest bunch of crap ever. The press has one bias, and it is toward sensationalism that leads to ratings that lead to money and influence.

There is only one politically biased "news" source and that is Fox. The others are all the same, in it for the money. It doesn't mean spit what reporters identify themselves as politically. Reporters report, the news outlets are owned by many clones of the same human: A gross, corpulent money hungry sub-species of human that has no interest in reality or truth, but only in selling things to consumers through fear and titillation.

You appear an easy mark.

stepped right on your comment below.

Other than this:

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/howard+kurtz/

...I got nothin'.

Glenn also conveniently omits that Hume was a longtime journalist with ABC News before his stint at Fox. Olbermann's time before MSNBC was reading sport highlights.

-- Charles Bird

So I take it that, in your opinion, since Glenn didn't post Hume's entire biography Glenn "conveniently omits" pertinent information about the bold and the beautiful Brit Hume?

Also, The Dixie Chicks are musicians, but that didn't limit their ability to understand that Bush is an embarrassment. So, with that in mind, I think Olberman's sports background is irrelevant to whether or not he is qualified to express an opinion.

He's as intelectually dishonest as they come. An idiot. They finally showed him the door at ObWi because he was such a loon. He scared too many people and he's obsessed with Glenn.

The New Hating on Charles Bird:

http://hocb.net/

So let me see if I'm keeping up adequately. Yesterday, Mr. Charles Bird called for the summary execution of Jane Fonda and Noam Chomsky.

Today, Mr. Bird gives vent to rather easily-debunked ravings of the rightwing Nutosphere.

And there he is, on the front page of Obsidian Wings!

I think I know all I need to know about this site. Have a nice weekend.

Don't get caught committing thoughtcrime, sedition, or treason!

http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2006/07/blog_whodunits.html#comment-20016674

First, a "weekend panel" does not describe the nature of the what is said. Chris Wallace moderates (which is exactly what Hume does on weekdays), and Hume and others opine on FNS. The point is that there is a clear line between those practice journalism and those who practice punditry. Your effort blurs those lines so that you can take your typical partisan potshot.

You would've been on firmer ground had you criticized Hume for taking on those dual roles, but hey, there's a certain character on MSNBC whom you must defend. That was the primary mission here, no? That, and take a shot at Hume. What a SVP suit at NBC says about Olbermann is the truly irrelevant because the content of the show speaks for itself.