The main thrust of Olbermann’s commentary is that the resignation of Komen senior VP Karen Handel is not enough to restore the broken trust of women who support, and rely on, the charity to keep politics out of the fight against breast cancer. It’s a sentiment that has been echoed far and wide in the media. Handel and Co. have tried to portray the stunning backlash against the decision as bullying, but that’s a bit like Nelson Muntz crying when someone punches him back. Against the wishes of its supporters, the Komen board wielded their fundraising muscle to made a political statement. The impulse to protect Komen, because it has become so ubiquitous, so identified with its cause, too pink to fail, underscores the importance of restoring that trust.

Olbermann’s comparison of the right’s coordinated attacks on Planned Parenthood to McCarthy-style witch hunts is based on Komen’s original rationale (or pretext) for the defunding, the partisan congressional investigation launched by Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL). More broadly, though, the right’s campaign against women’s health care probably has a better historical analog in the religious Inquisitions of the Middle Ages. Not content to target abortion rights, Republicans have widened their attack to include contraception, the vaccine for cervical cancer, and in this instance, breast cancer screening and prevention, all in service of imposing their own morality on women’s health care.

Where Olbermann crosses the line is in his presumptuous stewardship of Susan Komen’s memory, an inappropriate intrusion into another’s personal grief. “Mrs. Brinker has dishonored both her sister’s memory, and this essential cause,” he said, in an obvious and manipulative attempt to shame Ms. Brinker. Keith Olbermann, as far as I know, never met Susan Komen, and really has no claim to her memory.

This misstep does illustrate an important facet of this controversy, though. I never met Susan Komen, either, but as someone who cares deeply for a great number of people with breasts, that name does mean something to me. Until now, it has meant thousands of little pink yogurt tops, and pink towels at NFL games, and ribbons, and all things breast cancer awareness. As this controversy played out this week, though, it made me wonder, if that all goes away, what’s there to replace it? Some will find Keith Olbermann’s declaration that this “witch hunt” will “kill some women” overwrought, but for those whose only access to health care is often from Planned Parenthood, that’s a very real possibility.

A great arachno-American once said “With great power comes great responsibility,” and it is the stewardship of that responsibility, in her late sister’s name, that Nancy Brinker ought to think about before she decides to make it into a big, pink political football.

Here’s the clip, from Current TV:

Signs of trouble began in December, when Olbermann abandoned his glitch-prone set for an austere black background, and escalated a dispute with management about his participation in the network’s coverage of the Iowa caucuses. Now, in a lengthy feature, Newsweek‘s Rebecca Dana reports that Olbermann may be close to walking away, and scuttling former President-Elect Al Gore‘s plan to build a 24 hour cable news channel around him.

RELATED: Bill Press Hosts Current TV’s Florida Primary Coverage On Countdown

The report doesn’t add much flesh to the bones that have already been reported, and what flesh there is comes mostly from an unnamed source at the network, who confirms what most observers probably already concluded: that Gore and company are doing everything they can to keep their temperamental star happy. The source also paints a grim picture of Olbermann’s future at Current, and consequently, of Current’s future.

There’s nothing wrong with this kind of sourcing, mind you, but in Keith Olbermann’s case, it’s worth noting that even a perfectly honest and reliable source might succumb to some level of wishful thinking. Let’s face it, talented people can be difficult. Not all of them, mind you. Rachel Maddow has managed to step in and fill the franchise player role at MSNBC, while still being universally regarded as the Queen of Nice, and even that network’s polarizing Ed Schultz saves his firebreathing for the big show.

But some talented people can be difficult, and the people around them can react in one of two ways. They can either decide the talent is worth the difficulty, and manage it, or they can become resentful. When you’re the “complicated guy” in the cast of According To Jim, you probably won’t be around long, but when a network builds an entire programming strategy around you, they’re going to put up with a lot.

By all accounts, Keith Olbermann is more than worth it to the management of Current TV, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t some unhappy campers a bit farther down the food chain. The host may, indeed, be bored or unhappy, but the question these reports of his departure never really get around to answering is, where is he supposed to go? Set aside the burning of bridges, now that he has become so closely identified with progressive politics, where else would he even fit now?

The media types that I’ve spoken with, though, all see an unhappy end for Olbermann and Current, so it’s possible that if he doesn’t remain there, he goes the Bobby Fischer route, just takes his money and vanishes. He might have the tortured soul for that, but talent-wise, even he’s got to know that he’s not the Bobby Fischer of cable news. Maybe he could ratchet the tortured soul setting down a bit. He’s at John Belushi, when he ought to be closer to Jim Belushi.

Unfortunately, all of this drama has eroded the fruits of that talent. His once-appealing wit has become increasingly bitter and petty, and has served to undercut the authority with which he was once able to speak. It’s tough to segue from a fingerbang joke into an impassioned soliloquy about civil liberties. Also, the black background was kinda cool for about a minute, but he really ought to bring the set back.

That Newsweek report does shed some light on the business side of Current (the good news: the network is great at drawing advertiser-attractive younger viewers; the bad news: they’re racing against time to renew carriage agreements with cable systems that expire over the next few years), and Current president David Bohrman revealed to Dana that the network is now trying to develop a morning show to compete with Morning Joe (hmmm, now who could they get to host that?).

All of this depends greatly on Keith Olbermann not just staying put, but getting his head back in the game.

The Young Turks, Countdown, and The War Room will all feature live Florida primary returns, with reporter David Shuster providing on-the-ground coverage for all three, and there’s a strong possibility that Cenk Uygur’s The Young Turks will go live again at 10pm.

Monday night also saw the debut of former Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm‘s new show, The War Room, which is the next step in fulfilling Current’s promise to feature a 24 hour slate of news and commentary. At a press conference to roll out Gov. Granholm’s show a few months ago, I pressed Current TV executives to reveal who else might join Granholm, Olbermann, and Cenk Uygur‘s Young Turks in the network’s lineup. For some reason, they decided they’d rather unveil their programming on their own timetable. Spoilsports, I say.

Still, it doesn’t take a genius to see that Bill Press, a TV veteran as well as a popular syndicated radio host, is a natural fit for Current. His appearance in the Countdown anchor chair could be an indication that a Bill Press hour on Current is in the offing. With Bill’s radio show starting at 6am, he would probably be a better fit for an earlier timeslot, perhaps 6pm.

Eliot Spitzer, who’s still looking for a cable news home since the cancellation of his CNN show last year, would also be a great addition to the Current slate, and his style and skill set match up well with Gov. Granholm. A Spitzer show at 10pm looks like a good bet.

Since Countdown‘s debut on Current TV last year, the network has been building on the audience bump they got from Keith Olbermann’s hour, and have been working on signing more cable systems to allow them to reach more households. Current is now available in 60 million US households, and as they build their brand, they expect that total to increase, and with it, their programming’s ratings.

RELATED: This Exists: Police Investigate After Couple Tapes Themselves Having Sex…While Skydiving

One Marine who boarded the thrill ride revealed to his friend he would rather be back in Afghanistan than getting shot 400 feet into the air. The ride supervisor prepared the squeamish rider by beginning a countdown then — psych! — sent them both careening as the soldier screamed bloody murder.

“That wasn’t a countdown!” he exclaimed.

Watch below:

(h/t BuzzFeed)

Holton is a 23 year old who suffers from Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy (DMD), which, as he explained to Gov. Romney when he met him in New Hampshire during the 2008 presidential campaign, is a rare form of the disease. He also explained to Romney that his five doctors all recommended that he use medical marijuana, which helps to relieve his pain and stimulate his appetite, and asked if Romney, as president, would have him or his doctors arrested.

Gov. Romney starts off by raising the issue of synthetic marijuana, which Holton says makes him vomit. Romney says “I’m sorry to hear that,” but he may as well be apologizing for a bowl of cold soup.

“I’m not in favor of medical marijuana being legal,” Romney concludes, and as Holton tries to press Romney for an answer as to whether he would enforce that position by arresting doctors and patients, Romney has already moved on to pressing the flesh. When a bystander asked Romney why he didn’t answer Holton’s question, Romney wheeled and curtly replied, “I spoke with him.”

Now, Romney supporters would probably call this encounter manipulative, and as the guy hectoring Romney with “You’re just going to ignore a person in a wheelchair?” indicates, they would be right about that, to some degree. Olbermann, for his part, never even bothers to identify Clayton Holton by name.

However, there is a human face to almost any policy, and a candidate for high office needs to be able to defend political positions to those human faces. If Romney’s position protects some greater good, then he ought to be able to articulate it, especially in a situation like this.

It’s worth noting that the Obama administration has been criticized for sending mixed messages on medical marijuana, At Clayton Holton’s NH Compassion page, there are links to videos of his encounters with other 2008 presidential candidates like Hillary Clinton, John McCain, and John Edwards. Unfortunately, there isn’t one for then-Sen. Barack Obama; it would be interesting to see how he would handle such a question now.

However, the President’s actions on this issue are still far and away more progressive than the current crop of Republican candidates (except Ron Paul), one of whom (Newt Gingrich) once proposed the death penalty for quantities of marijuana equal to a carton of cigarettes.

As a minor side note, I noticed, when searching for this clip, that the clip posted at Current’s website is significantly edited, clocking in at 3:14, out of the Worst Persons segment’s full running time of 4:42, but the site doesn’t disclose that fact. That seems like an odd way to promote content, especially from the network’s flagship program.

Here’s the clip, from Current TV’s Countdown:

RELATED: Dana Loesch Endorses Taliban Desecration By Marines: ‘I’d Drop Trou And Do It Too’

Countdown host Keith Olbermann and liberal watchdog Media Matters, among others, have called for CNN to fire Loesch over the remark, and according to Big Journalism, even Politico is in on the act. Lest you think that this is all a bunch of ginned-up liberal outrage, however, a conservative think-tank in Illinois also backed away from Loesch over the comments, withdrawing an invitation for her to appear at their ”Women, Liberty, and America’s Future” event.

RELATED: Military Investigating Video That Appears To Show U.S. Marines Urinating On Corpses

Olbermann took to Twitter to slam CNN, and to add some trademark innuendo:

A) why hasn’t CNN fired her already; b) she sounds way too familiar w/topic @DLoesch says she’d urinate on dead Taliban

He also paid Loesch a backhanded compliment, while also saying she was worse than the Taliban:

Actually, no. They are unthinking religious fanatics. You’re worse RT@DLoesch So @KeithOlbermann thinks I’m the Taliban? So ridiculous.

The implication there is that, unlike the Taliban, there is thought behind Loesch’s remarks.

Big Journalism‘s John Nolte notes that Politico, like Mediaite, reached out to CNN for comment on Loesch’s remark, but went the extra mile by wondering “whether or not it will have any impact on her role at CNN.”

CNN responded with this statement to Mediaite:

CNN contributors are commentators who express a wide range of viewpoints—on and off of CNN—that often provoke strong agreement or disagreement. Their viewpoints are their own.

Media Matters, though, has gone full-bore at Loesch. In addition to a Twitter barrage from Eric Boehlert challenging Loesch to repeat the sentiment on CNN’s air, their investigative reporter Joe Strupp has published an article in which numerous CNN on-air sources (anonymously attributed) express displeasure and embarrassment at Loesch’s remarks.

That last item is probably the biggest reason for concern for Loesch, who could probably count on CNN to ignore pressure from liberals, but might lend a more attentive ear to internal voices. Loesch’s supporters can tell themselves that Strupp’s reporting is meaningless because the sources are unnamed, but he’s a real reporter with a real reputation. Those quotes are real, and depending on the relative juice of the speakers, could signal trouble for Dana Loesch.

As someone who knows a thing or two about being fired over political speech, I think it would be wrong of CNN to fire Dana Loesch over this. Within reason, my philosophy is that more speech is always better than less speech. Most of the speech-related firings of the past few years could have been handled more productively, in my view, by expanding the dialogue, rather than shutting it down.

RELATED: Bill Maher Not Outraged Over Marine Urination Scandal: ‘If They Were Real Taliban… I’m Not That Upset’

In this case, rather than see Dana Loesch fired for saying something so silly and wrong, I’d rather see her defend those remarks on a panel with people like Bill Maher (who, while not cheering the desecration, said he didn’t see what all the fuss was about), former Marine Goldie Taylor, and maybe even Sen. John McCain, who knows a thing or two about war atrocities. Like it or not, Loesch’s false bravado resonated with a lot of people, and such a discussion could prove clarifying for Loesch and her defenders. Alternately, Loesch could possibly smoke them all in a debate, and we’d all run out to look for an appropriate corpse to piss on. Who knows?

The point that the “fire Loesch” crowd misses, and that CNN apparently gets (if their statement is any indication), is that aside from being offensive and cheap, Loesch’s remarks were revealing in a way that true journalism is supposed to be. Having disparate viewpoints represented on their air has value to CNN viewers because they come away knowing something they previously didn’t. In this case, I learned that if Loesch is going to be at my funeral, I’d better request a closed casket.

RELATED: Goldie Taylor Calls Out CNN’s Dana Loesch On CNN Over Urinate-Gate

There are cases in which pressure campaigns like boycotts are justified, but often, efforts like this are led by people who aren’t watching in the first place. Except in extreme cases, my solution is simple. If I don’t want to see someone on my TV, I change the channel. For example, I was very disappointed in the way Joe Scarborough handled Ann Coulter‘s slurring of the late Sen. Ted Kennedy on Morning Joe a few months back. Before that, I was a fairly regular viewer of Scarborough’s program.

I didn’t call for a boycott of Morning Joe, or for Scarborough to be fired. In fact, I still tune in every once in a while, but the incident soured me on the program, tainted the collegial vibe that was key to its appeal. As a result, Morning Joe lost a loyal viewer. Now, who knows, maybe they also gained a bunch of fans who groove on that sort of thing.

For CNN, it’s probably tougher to gauge Loesch’s performance in terms of viewers, and I don’t think I’ve seen enough of her segments to pass judgment on them, but I don’t think they hired her to play tiddlywinks.

From The Hollywood Reporter:

“I am pleased that I’ll be running the election coverage on Current, following this Tuesday’s New Hampshire primary,” said Olbermann in a statement to The Hollywood Reporter on Sunday. “However, I don’t think those participating in the New Hampshire primary will share my satisfaction.”

A spokesperson for Current confirmed that progress between the two parties was made over the weekend and that they expect Olbermann to participate in election coverage going forward.

…Olbermann will have complete creative and editorial control. But it’s unclear exactly what that coverage will look like; whether Olbermann will do a special edition of Countdown with his own panel of guests or lead the network’s Politically Direct election specials, which have featured Cenk Uygur, Jennifer Granholm and network co-founder Al Gore.

The whole thing began when The New York Times‘ Brian Stelter reported on possible tensions between Olbermann and Current TV, as manifested by his scheduled (as in, ahead of time) absence from Current’s Iowa Caucus coverage. That made it all the more strange when, several days later, Olbermann tweeted his followers that he was “headed into the office now” for Countdown‘s return from holiday hiatus, followed by a more dramatic tweet that advised viewers “So as not to mislead: I am informed Countdown will not be on tonight. I must defer on all questions to @JoelHyatt@AlGore and@Current.”

But according to the network, Olbermann was more than “informed” about his absence from the schedule Tuesday night; he was responsible for it. A Current source confirmed to Mediaite that Olbermann was kept appraised of the Iowa Caucus plans at every turn, and acknowledged as much, in at least four or five emails dating back to mid-November. In those emails, Current executives tried to secure Olbermann’s participation in the program, as they have previously stated, but he refused.

Then, Wednesday night, The Hollywood Reporter broke news that the whole thing had gone to the lawyers, but a source at the network told Mediaite, Thursday, that, while Olbermann’s representatives are frequently in contact with Current as a routine matter of course, they have not been contacted about this matter. The source also said that the network had invited Olbermann to anchor Tuesday’s New Hampshire primary coverage, but had not gotten a response.

Olbermann also pushed back hard at reporting by The New York Times‘ Brian Stelter, accusing him of “threatening” Olbermann in order to get him to go on the record. Now, as suddenly as it started, the whole mess appears to be over.

Whatever touched off this spat, it’s a safe bet it runs deeper than some equipment malfunction. Olbermann and Current have smoked the peace pipe for now, but as THR notes, he’s got four years left on his contract with the network, and it looks like those years just got a lot longer.

When I saw the “Duke It Out” headline, I was surprised (and disappointed I’d missed it), because while Olbermann is famous for his Twitter-warring ways, Stelter is about as genial a guy as there is. As it turns out, on Thursday, Brian Stelter promoted his reporting on Twitter (and actually avoided conflict with Olbermann by not using his Twitter handle), while Keith Olbermann pushed back on it. Here’s the timeline:

brianstelter: Keith Olbermann is famous for estranging himself from his bosses. At Current, he’s done it in record time: nyti.ms/z3Zywj 5 Jan
KeithOlbermann : 4) Best laugh? Lead of @BrianStelter NYT story. 2 of the 3 networks he claims I “estranged” myself from later asked me to rejoin them 5 Jan

brianstelter A cold war between Keith Olbermann and his channel, Current TV — my Bizday story in today’s NYT: nyti.ms/z3Zywj 5 Jan

KeithOlbermann: See previous: not really, no RT @nytjim Is Current TV too low-rent for @KeithOlbermann? Good piece by @brianstelter.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/bus… 5 Jan

KeithOlbermann Not when he tries to threaten me into giving one RT @grahamdudegive writer interview next time, probably be a better story@BrianStelter 5 Jan

KeithOlbermann @msbellows And the reason you assume the article is not poorly-reported pap? 5 Jan

KeithOlbermann I’m sorry, but in denying he tried to threaten me into commenting on the record, @BrianStelter of NY Times is flat out lying. 5 Jan

brianstelter New Twitter followers: here’s my story about Keith Olbermann’s cold war with Current TV. It is in today’s Times: nyti.ms/xcBtMA 5 Jan

KeithOlbermann Advised there were factual errors in his story @BrianStelter said he’d correct them only if I went on record w/him, which I legally can’t 5 Jan

KeithOlbermann Thus @BrianStelter chose to use erroneous information he attributes to an anonymous source, rather than facts. It is shameful. 5 Jan

KeithOlbermann .@RBS07 It was explained to him. @BrianStelter demanded it be explained on the record while not demanding that of the source of falsehood 5 Jan

brianstelter Here’s my latest on Keith Olbermann vs. Current, as of 3pm, about the lawyerly handling of it all: nyti.ms/zHu7o2 5 Jan

brianstelter @GregMitch i’ve yet to convince anyone who works with olbermann to go on the record. they seem to fear for their jobs. i continue to try. 5 Jan

KeithOlbermann Actually they seem to believe in loyalty, to their company & maybe even to me RT @brianstelter i’ve yet to convince… tl.gd/f5n1vt 5 Jan

KeithOlbermann More over (sic), @BrianStelter, employees in nearly all companies do not have an unfettered right to speak to the media. I don’t, you don’t. 5 Jan

The “threat” that Olbermann refers to appears to be his claim that he advised Stelter that there were “factual errors” in his story, but that Stelter “said he’d correct them only if I went on record w/him,” and accused Stelter of a double-standard, saying he “demanded it be explained on the record, while not demanding that of the source of falsehood.”

Without knowing the exact details, but based solely on what Olbermann is saying, Stelter’s actions don’t constitute a threat, but rather, standard journalistic procedure. If Olbermann is the sole source of the “factual” correction, he has to be “on the record” in some fashion in order for Stelter to print it. Additionally, the fact that Stelter “attributed” something to an anonymous source means that source was on the record, just not named. Olbermann doesn’t say if Stelter offered him a background attribution; I asked him, and he hasn’t responded.

It’s a serious accusation, but as Olbermann lays it out, Stelter did nothing wrong. I’ve had sources push bad information to me off-the-record (it’s called “guidance”) to try to get me to kill or alter a story, but if off-the-record information can’t be independently verified, it may as well not exist.

The whole thing began when The New York Times‘ Brian Stelter reported on possible tensions between Olbermann and Current TV, as manifested by his scheduled (as in, ahead of time) absence from Current’s Iowa Caucus coverage. That made it all the more strange when, several days later, Olbermann tweeted his followers that he was “headed into the office now” for Countdown‘s return from holiday hiatus, followed by a more dramatic tweet that advised viewers “So as not to mislead: I am informed Countdown will not be on tonight. I must defer on all questions to @JoelHyatt @AlGore and@Current.”

But according to the network, Olbermann was more than “informed” about his absence from the schedule Tuesday night; he was responsible for it. A Current source confirmed to Mediaite that Olbermann was kept appraised of the Iowa Caucus plans at every turn, and acknowledged as much, in at least four or five emails dating back to mid-November. In those emails, Current executives tried to secure Olbermann’s participation in the program, as they have previously stated, but he refused.

Then, last night, The Hollywood Reporter broke news that the whole thing had gone to the lawyers, but a source at the network says that, while Olbermann’s representatives are frequently in contact with Current as a routine matter of course, they have not been contacted about this matter. The source also says that the network has invited Olbermann to anchor Tuesday’s New Hampshire primary coverage, but has not gotten a response.

Olbermann told THR that he “was not given a legitimate opportunity to host under acceptable conditions,” adding, “They know it and we know it. Telling half the story is wrong.”

The half of the story that Olbermann isn’t telling (at least not yet) is why he feigned ignorance of the schedule change, an apparent game of chicken to force his disgruntlement into the public eye.

There has been speculation that the rift might involve technical issues with the set that caused Olbermann to switch to a set-less black background, but according to the network, those issues were quickly resolved. The continued use of the non-set is Olbermann’s choice, perhaps stylistically, or perhaps as some kind of statement.

Current TV hasn’t said much about the dispute publicly, perhaps in a wise effort not to antagonize their franchise player, but even behind the scenes, the source of the agita seems to be an enigma. According to Olbermann’s manager, he’s not looking to leave the network, but “was unable to answer other questions because of confidentiality clauses in the anchorman’s contract, which is believed to last five years and be worth $50 million total.”

So, what’s the problem? According to Olbermann’s manager, he can’t say, and according to Current TV, they don’t know. Current obviously wants to keep Olbermann on board, as he is key to the aggressive programming strategy that they hope will result in a 24 hour slate of news and commentary this year. An unidentified Current exec told The Wrap “I hope Keith is part of our future, but it’s up to Keith,” adding, “Keith set us in the right direction and we’re on that path now … and as I’ve learned over the years, everybody is replaceable.”

That may be true, but anyone rooting for the success of a 24-hour news home for progressive programming, and anyone who values a diverse media landscape, ought to hope that it doesn’t come to that. One cause for optimism on that front could be the fact that, given his employment history, Keith Olbermann can jump, but he doesn’t seem to have anywhere to land.

We reached out to Mr. Olbermann for comment on this story, but as of this writing, have not received a response. We will, of course, update you if and when we do.

However, activist and columnist Dan Savage did offer some fresh insight into Rick Santorum’s presidential prospects, reminding Keith Olbermann that Santorum doesn’t just have an anti-gay agenda, “he has an anti-straight agenda, too.”

“He’s against birth control,” Savage continued, “he’s against abortion, he’s against pornography, he’s against all sorts of things that straight people use and enjoy frequently, almost once a week at least.”

I’m 0-for-3 this week (unless you count reruns of The West Wing as pornography), but Savage’s point is well-taken. Santorum gets a lot of attention for his weirdly-stated, disturbing views on homosexuality, thanks in no small part to Dan Savage’s Google campaign, but his views on heterosexual behavior are arguably farther out of the mainstream. I don’t know many people, conservative or otherwise, who want to wait to get laid until they’re ready to have a baby. Hell, most of us can barely wait through dinner.

Also, conservatives, before you line up behind Santorum’s opposition to sodomy, you really ought to take a closer look at what activities are covered by that label. Let’s put it this way: in Santorum’s America, “Hummers” would be for driving (and overcompensating) only. The only kind of “oral” you’d see would be Roberts.

About that Google campaign, liberals are perhaps justified in their glee over the poetic comeuppance involved, but I agree with Jon Stewart: the bit is wearing thin. It was good for a chuckle, and for a little victim-y campaigning, but the shelf-life is long overdue.

However, Savage revealed a new wrinkle in the Google Santorum bedsheets. ““I’m getting letters from people who think that the neologism came first — [that] this was actually what ‘santorum’ meant and that Santorum was burdened with this unfortunate last name and why didn’t he change his name before he ran for president.”

Okay, that is funny, and an instructive demonstration that is is, in fact, possible to redefine a word.

Here’s the clip, from Current TV’s Countdown:

It was almost a year ago that Olbermann suddenly announced the end of Countdown on MSNBC, which precipitated his move to Current. Last week, The New York Times’ Brian Stelter cited unnamed sources and programming inconsistencies as indications of strife between Olbermann and Current TV.

As if Olbermann’s referring questions to Current executives Al Gore and Joel Hyatt wasn’t disturbing enough, the programming change appears to have taken the Countdown host completely by surprise. He tweeted to a fan, earlier Tuesday, that he was “headed into the office now” for Countdown‘s return from holiday hiatus.

At the time I reported on Olbermann’s move to a set-less black void, I asked Current if it was some form of protest, to which they replied that it was a stylistic choice borne of a technical mishap, but maybe it was somebody’s way of sending a message, either Olbermann bristling at a more austere network, or Current expressing dismay at Olbermann.

It’s hard to say what will happen next. Although the details aren’t known, it’s a safe bet that Olbermann’s contract is hella lucrative, and puts him in the driver’s seat. If Current wants him gone, though, it’s hard to see him sticking around, even if cutting him loose costs them big.

As of this writing, Current has not returned requests for comment, but we will update as we have new information

Update: Keith Olbermann subsequently tweeted: “Back by popular demand, Countdown returns Wednesday Night 8 PM Eastern. Now with 99% less Santorum (google it).”

Additionally, Current returned our request for comment, saying they had nothing to add.

Update 2: This explanation was posted on the Current Live Chat:

Hi FOK et al – We wanted to answer the questions about Keith Olbermann’s participation… Current asked Keith to be the sole anchor and exec producer of our primary and caucus coverage beginning tonight. Unfortunately, he declined to anchor or participate.

We’re excited for tonight’s live four hours of Politically Direct featuring Vice President Gore, Governor Granholm and Cenk Uygur.

Countdown will be back tomorrow night!

That’s a pretty strange explanation, since, hours before, Olbermann was convinced he was doing a show Tuesday night. We’ll keep an eye on this.

RELATED: Exclusive: Why Countdown With Keith Olbermann Has Been Broadcasting From A Dark Place

Olbermann took issue with this passage from a recent Ted Nugent column from The Washington Times:

While I don’t condone violence, watching the cops pounce on and pepper-spray a few Occupy stooges and then drag the dirtballs off to jail in shackles is good for my conservative soul and gold for my sense of humor. Everyone needs at least one hearty laugh every day.

You have to admit that watching a stinky, dirty hippie being dragged off to jail is as funny watching James Brown drive across railroad tracks on the rims of his pickup truck, listening to Joe Biden stick his foot in his mouth, or watching Moe hit Larry and Curly with a pipe wrench. This is funny stuff, funny stuff. Lighten up.

Nugent got his coveted “Worstie” for the pot/kettle sin of calling anyone a dirty, stinky anything after becoming marginally famous as the long-haired singer of an ode to pubic lice. (That is what Cat Scratch Fever is about, isn’t it?)

The cynical media critic in me, of course, wants to make the obvious observation that the use of the choice verbiage is a self-conscious attempt at provocation and attention-getting edge. Earlier this month, in fact, Olbermann pointed out his unleashed-ness to his Twitter followers by twice reminding them that he had called Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker a “fascist bastard.”

We get it. Current TV is not MSNBC, and this is not your father’s Countdown. Sets are for poseurs and suspensions are for children’s pain relievers.

On the other hand, Ted Nugent really is an asshole, and if calling him an asshole on basic cable can draw more attention to the problem, who’s to say there’s anything wrong with a little self-conscious provocation?

Here’s the clip, from Current TV’s Countdown with Keith Olbermann:

RELATED: Bill O’Reilly Gets Ambushed In DC, Though Not At Gingrich Fundraiser As Reported

While setting up the interview, Olbermann played some of Lane’s video, and O’Reilly’s fact-challenged response, pausing to relish a wind-assisted freeze-frame of the Factor host’s undone combover. Very mature.

Lane, for his part, seems to have taken the incident in stride, saying it was simply an indication of “the kind of guy Bill O’Reilly is, and the type of people that the 1% are,” the type of people that the Occupy protesters “converged on DC” to send the message that “we’re fed up, and we’re not going to sit back and be silent about it anymore.”

Olbermann asked if O’Reilly had knocked him over. “I didn’t get knocked to the ground,” Lane replied. “When he attacked me with the umbrella, he did knock me off the sidewalk, onto the street.”

The host then pointed out the fact that O’Reilly is, in fact, famous for dishing out just this type of ambush, and asked Lane if he was surprised by O’Reilly’s reaction. “I was shocked,” Lane said, adding, “You would think that someone that’s in the public spotlight, just like you are, would not react that way.”

Lane also said he never thought about pressing charges against Bill O’Reilly, saying that it would distract from his real message. “There are many people around this country who are unemployed, who are underemployed, and they are ready to fight back.”

RELATED: Bill O’Reilly Reacts To D.C. Video Ambush: ‘I Felt The Guy Was Out Of Control’

Branden Lane seems to be a nice enough guy (even if he does keep saying um-brella, instead of um-brell-a), and overall, I think he and Olbermann have the right take on this. They’re both a bit too dismissive of the kind of anxiety that an approaching, camera-wielding stranger in the dark can evoke, but O’Reilly shouldn’t have hit the guy with his umbrella.

I’ve been ambushed like this before, though, and while I didn’t hit the guy, I understand the impulse. O’Reilly could have been forgiven that lapse (given that Lane thankfully wasn’t injured) if he had just said, afterwards, “Look, I got a little pissed off and shoved the guy with my umbrella. Maybe I shouldn’t have done that, but hey, I’m human. The guy was freaking me out.”

Instead, though, he changes key details in the story that are obviously false, most glaringly the notion that he “shielded” himself with the umbrella. That’s obviously false, underscored by O’Reilly’s sarcastic “Sorry about that!” once Lane righted himself.

If O’Reilly wants to act like a toughguy when someone he disagrees with approaches him (and again, I understand that impulse), he ought to display the same toughness in owning his actions.

Lane did offer O’Reilly a chance to atone for his attack. By way of apology, Lane said, he would accept an official “The Spin Stops Here” golf umbrella. Your move, Billo.

Here’s the clip, from Current TV’s Countdown with Keith Olbermann:

I missed Monday’s episode, so when I tuned in Tuesday to see Olbermann lighting a candle at the top of the show, gaping black maw of eternity behind him, I figured it was some in-joke that I had missed the setup to. As it turns out, an on-air technical mishap the night before had forced the host to change locations. Here’s where the problem started, and Olbermann’s candle-lighting gag:

Since then, Olbermann has continued to host the show with that black background, and has taken to cracking wise about the low-tech milieu, making copious references to the DuMont Network. Although born of necessity, the look is oddly, enigmatically compelling, like a living black-velvet Elvis painting, or a newscast from some alienated sci-fi dystopia.

Even more mysterious is the fact that no one seems to have noticed. There was no mention of the change on Olbermann’s Twitter feed, so apparently, his fans took it in stride as well as he did. Maybe it’s my fascination with behind-the-scenes minutiae, but not knowing what could possibly force a 21st century television personality to broadcast from the inside of a sensory deprivation tank was just driving me nuts.

Well, mystery solved. According to Current TV President David Bohrman, “The facility we lease for the production of Countdown has had a series of technical problems. Monday a dimmer rack overheated and blew out the lights, forcing the crew to move to a different part of the set.”

It probably is just me, but I find it amazing that it looks like Olbermann is at the very edge of the universe, when he’s really just a few feet away from his usual set. I’m also fascinated by the fact that the desk Martin Bashir teases his show from looks like it’s a picture on the wall of Tamron Hall‘s studio. No, that’s actually Martin Bashir in there!

According to Bohrman, the change might just become permanent. “They may stay there moving forward,” he told me, via email. “We are discussing this new look.”

So, Countdown fans, here’s your chance to weigh in. Should Keith Olbermann return to his boilerplate cable news set, or continue to boldly go where no cable newser has gone before?

RELATED: Janeane Garofalo To Keith Olbermann: ‘Herman Cain Hides The Racist Elements Of The Republican Party’

Shuster mentioned Congressman Joe Walsh‘s characterization of Occupy Wall Street protesters as un-American, and asked Garofalo if the GOP was so far in the pockets of the banks that they would call dissenters unpatriotic.

“This is the party of freedom fries!” Garofalo exclaimed. “It’s so silly, it infantalizes us all, and unfortunately, the mainstream media is quite willing to help them do this, quite willing to let these things slide, but they do love a black man like Herman Cain, and Michael Steele, and is it Ron Christie? Any of these pundits who pretend we’re in a post-racial society. They like that kind of black person.”

Watch Garofalo’s analysis of the Republican 2012 strategy below via Current TV:

(h/t RCP)

While West’s courtship of motorcycle clubs like The Outlaws is still worthy of scrutiny, the fact is that he made no such admission.

In the weeks before the 2010 mid-term election, NBC News reported that West defended The Outlaws motorcycle club in an email to a supporter, and that he was photographed at an event speaking to other clubs affiliated with The Outlaws.

At the time, West’s campaign manager, Josh Grodin, issued a statement saying the report as a “political hatchet job by the liberal mainstream media…Let me be perfectly clear, Allen West has absolutely no ties to the outlaw bikers club – an organization with a history of criminal activity, as well as racism against African Americans.”

On his program last night, Keith Olbermann mangled even the basic background of the story, saying that last year, NBC reported that “goddamned liar” West “had once been a member of an otherwise all-white motorcycle gang.”

Perhaps Olbermann can be forgiven this slip, though, since it was West himself who appears to have originated that oversell when he told an interviewer, “”This most recent desperate insidious attack where Lisa Myers [of NBC News] did her piece where they are trying to associate me as a member of the Outlaw motorcycle club…” (emphasis mine).

But then, Olbermann makes the bewildering claim that “now, when it’s useful for a compulsive liar like Allen West to admit that he was in that gang because he can use the ‘yes’ answer to play the race card.”

Notwithstanding the mysterious premise (how would boasting about membership in the Outlaws help West?), the clip that Olbermann plays, from the conservative Scott Henen Show, is obviously not an “admission” of past membership in the Outlaws, but rather, West citing an example of what he believes to be the false media attacks that he and Herman Cain must endure. Here’s what West said in the clip that Olbermann says consists of a “boast” that West was the “only member of a white supremacist biker gang”:

Scott Hennen: Is it an attack on a black conservative because he’s a black conservative?

Congressman West: “Oh come on, I mean you know I was the only black member of a white supremacist motorcycle gang, so liberals and there are certain others I would say even within our party that are not comfortable with strong black conservative voices, and I would say there are people that feel very threatened by that because we do stand on principle. We are someone or entities that are out of the mainstream, if you want to call it that, so liberals are definitely going to come at you. But I think you also have this inner fight within our primary candidates for that piece of the pie that they want to have.”

Olbermann wasn’t the only one to report West’s comments this way, which could explain why he misinterpreted the clip, but it’s hard to imagine something so obvious getting past everyone on his show.

Ironically, West’s supporters now have to choose whether to spread West’s lie that NBC accused him of being a member of the Outlaws, or call him out for it, or simply give Olbermann a pass. It’s the rare win-win in partisan political poo-flinging.

Here’s the clip of West’s “Worsts” award, from Current TV:

Olbermann finished his segment by saying “There it is, America 2011, laws written by sociopaths like Brad Drake inspired by bloodthirsty goobers he met at the Waffle House!”

Olbermann’s obscenity aired uncensored. The lefty political commentator may have been making a legitimate point that Drake was foolish to base capital punishment laws on conversations he’s had at breakfast fast-food chains, but gratuitously hurling invective at the politician debases our political discourse and makes his entire network look bad.

MSNBC suspended Mark Halperin for calling President Obama a dick. It seems unlikely Al Gore will punish his flagship star at all for his use of profanity on the air, but viewers of his channel deserve better.

Watch the segment below via Current:

The one thing that Krugman got right, though, was the deep division that occurred in this country in the years following 9/11, and while his connection of that division to our commemoration of 9/11 was sickening, the fact that so many conservatives were offended for Bush & co., and not Krugman’s attack on the sacred occasion of the 9/11 anniversary, was nearly as sickening.

Olbermann’s overarching point seems to be to challenge Rumsfeld’s standing to take offense, given his role in creating those divisions, but his refusal to acknowledge that an offense was committed dooms his argument to failure.

Conservatives will likely seize upon his calling Republicans “terrorists” as a violation of the “new tone” that Olbermann regrettably signed up for earlier this year. I have no problem with the metaphor on those grounds, but while it fit the circumstances of the debt ceiling debate as a metaphor, it doesn’t really work here. If the idea is to call the Bush-era Republicans villains, you can’t just plug in any random villain. Terrorism is a specific kind of tactic, and what Republicans did after 9/11 (with significant help from Democrats and the mainstream media) was to succumb to terrorism.

Again, though, I can’t say this strongly enough, the anniversary of 9/11 will never be, should never be, an “occasion for shame” for any American, for whatever ill that followed it was not born that day, nor was it abetted by those we remember. Krugman, and now Keith Olbermann, ought to recognize that.

Here’s the clip, from CurrentTV:

He estimates production costs for Beck’s show at an elastic $10-17 million.

He was able to identify a metric at which he was beating Beck. “Beck premiered today having lost 90% of the audience he had at Fox,” Olbermann said, realizing, “Wait, so why am I angry at him?”

That’s an excellent question.

It’s true, Olbermann held onto significantly more than 10% of his MSNBC audience, which was less than half the size of Beck’s Fox audience. But really, is it at all fair to compare a real live cable show to an internet subscription-only service, a notoriously tough sell? He’s beating the pants off of Oprah’s OWN service, for example.

Don’t get me wrong, I love a good feud as much as the next guy, but when your own audience is around 200,000 total average viewers, this might not be the best ground on which to wage battle. The fact that Beck was able to exceed that on day one of his show, when he’s not even on TV anymore, is damned impressive, and probably a sign of the apocalypse.

To Olbermann’s credit, though, he absolutely nails the toss to commercial, as his production script hits the camera dead-on. It was a damn nice throw.

Here’s the clip, from Current’s Countdown:

The Associated Press reported, Sunday, that Major League Baseball Baseball turned down the Mets’ request to honor first responders during Sunday’s game:

Major League Baseball denied the New York Mets’ request to wear baseball caps Sunday night honoring New York emergency service departments for their game against the Chicago Cubs on the 10th anniversary of the 2001 terrorist attacks.

Joe Torre, MLB’s executive vice president for baseball operations, told The Associated Press in a phone interview the decision was made to keep policy consistent throughout baseball.

“Certainly it’s not a lack of respect,” Torre said. “We just felt all the major leagues are honoring the same way with the American flag on the uniform and the cap. This is a unanimity thing.”

Olbermann does an excellent job of filling in the historical context of MLB’s decision, and of expressing the outrage that many, if not all, people will feel over the decision, but he’s not buying Torre’s “unanimity thing.” The real reason for this knuckleheaded move, he says, is the almighty dollar:

If you still haven’t figured out why MLB is permitting this public relations disaster to happen; why Commissioner Bud Selig didn’t get on the phone and tell the Mets they could wear those caps right away and damn the consequences, the answer is to be found here.

In case you don’t want to follow the link, here’s your answer: this is available as of tonight directly from MLB for just $36.99.

Whatever the real reason, it’s a lousy decision, and as a lifelong Yankee fan, I’m not as inclined as Olbermann is to give Joe Torre a pass here. Olbermann writes, “they blamed it on MLB Vice President Joe Torre, the native New Yorker who wore these caps at the end of the 2001 season. So if it hadn’t been shameful already, pinning it on Torre made it doubly shameful.”

The implication is that Torre would never have made such a call himself, and was forced to walk this idiotic plank by the evil MLB owners cabal. Sorry, no sale. If Torre had any qualms about this decision, he could have referred the AP to any number of MLB flacks, or better yet, he could have prevailed on his overlords not to do this. Whatever sense of betrayal this episode creates, Torre owns a piece of it.

There is a delicious irony to the fact that Olbermann writes his anti-MLB screed on his Official MLB blog, where they’re not likely to miss it, but perhaps he should take a page from one of his Twitter followers, and donate whatever MLB pays him for that to a related charity.

Olbermann makes another observation in his column that I found interesting for the way it illustrates the different ways Americans feel about 9/11. Asked, by someone on Twitter, what’s so patriotic about wearing first responder caps, Olbermann writes:

It never crossed my mind. It has nothing to do with patriotism. 343 firefighters and paramedics died that day. 23 New York policemen did. And 47 from the Port Authority Police. This is about remembering them – and acknowledging what all those who survived did for this city and the wounds they still have. For me, as the grandson of a New York fireman, and the descendant of several others, and many NYPD and regional PD, this is something deeper than patriotism.

I would quibble with the phrase “it has nothing to do with patriotism,” but between the lines, I think Olbermann identifies what is actually the cheapening of patriotism. Symbols are important, but patriotism doesn’t exist in a flag pin, or an embroidered cap, or a magnet that looks like a ribbon. It exists in the ways in which we come together; out of many, one. That anyone could miss the patriotism in the actions of those first responders, and those who seek to honor them, is evidence that some who promise to “never forget” never knew it in the first place.

(h/t)

First of all, silence costs nothing. He didn’t have to mention it at all, and the fact that he did shows that he’s got a healthier perspective on his relationship with Fox than you might have expected.

Second, Olbermann resists (or never feels) the urge to deflect his outrage at this game with examples of the same against liberals. While it bears noting, as Jon Bershad did, that right-wing overreaching condemnations of all liberals based on this game are ridiculous and unfair, Olbermann recognizes that the greater offense is the game itself, and rightly denounces it.

Unlike Keith Olbermann, I never bought into the idea that political speech should be attenuated to the reasoning capabilities of lunatics, he is absolutely right on this. Putting gamers in the “shooter’s seat,” and their political foes in the crosshairs, isn’t a metaphor, it’s at best a sick form of catharsis. I also don’t buy the premise that videogames translate into action, but that doesn’t make this okay.

Here’s the clip, from Current TV:

That last question was the way Olbermann broke down the Obama campaign logic, as, “during traditionally one of the quietest news days of the year,” the President “hands a victory to corporate polluters” by pushing back the date in which certain smog regulations would take effect to 2013. The logic given for this move is that the regulations, having been planned some time ago, were already obsolete, and as such it made so sense to implement them during this terrible economy when they would have to be thrown out and replaced in a a few years’ time.

This, to Olbermann, translated into the President “utterly caving,” as the Chamber of Commerce is “thrilled” (this is a bad thing) that “if you’re having trouble breathing, or if you just occasionally do breathe, kindly help the President out and hold your breath until the year 2013 or later.”

Meanwhile, Olbermann narrated the fact that some Republican candidates are staking out territory in the jobs plan realm, though dismissed them even more harshly than he did the President: “the crocodile tears of the Republicans fool nobody.” Not that he didn’t mock the rumors surrounding President Obama’s jobs plan, joking that the plan consisted in tax cuts, aid to employers, “and, like, a blender or something.” He concluded by claiming the Republican candidates wanted to “reinstitute serfdom,” which is not surprising, but a bit far from Square 1, which was that the President had postponed smog regulations that he agreed with and promised to apply in the future.

So, no, Olbermann doesn’t seem like he’s ready to vote for any Republicans quite yet, but the increasingly moderate positions of the President seem to be tempting him to have a political wandering eye– indicative, perhaps, of how the extreme progressive left that was once unconditionally approving of the President has withered into disenchantment.

The segment via Current TV below:

It’s weird that Olbermann would side with Christine O’Donnell in the walk-off saga, but even weirder that he would peg his jab at Morgan to the size of his audience:

Who walks out on @PiersMorgan tonight? I’m betting on…the audience (as usual)

Olbermann, of course, has seen the size of his audience greatly diminished since moving to CurrentTV, from MSNBC, a fact that Morgan jumped on in responding to Olbermann’s random slam:

Come on and debate with me you big coward @KeithOlbermann – or are you too busy with your 40,000 viewers a night?

Morgan’s estimate of Countdown‘s audience is off by a lot, and while Olbermann’s ratings have arguably exceeded some expectations (especially when compared with pre-Olbermann Current), Piers Morgan Tonight‘s ratings far exceed Countdown’s. I’ve never liked the idea that ratings=quality (Firefly, anyone?), but it’s particularly curious for Olbermann to set those terms of engagement.

As for Morgan’s challenge, Olbermann seemed to refuse, based on the claim that Morgan had banned him for life:

Just to wrap this up, most recent of 12 pleadings by @PiersMorgan that I appear on his show arrived 7/26. After he “banned me for life.”

Fortunately for Olbermann, and the viewers of a possible Olbermann/Morgan throwdown, Piers Morgan actually didn’t ban him for life. In fact, he told Entertainment Weekly he would ban Olbermann “Just because it would really annoy him. I think he’s a great broadcaster, but I know he gets wound up very easily. It’s not a lifetime ban, it’s a temporary ban, designed to confuse and bemuse him, and hopefully engender a violent reaction.”

So, since there’s no lifetime ban, there’s really no obstacle to Olbermann’s acceptance of Morgan’s invitation. It would be a huge win for the audience, and would give Olbermann a chance to finish what he started. Piers Morgan, no matter the outcome of their debate, would have scored an undoubtedly compelling interview. The only possible downside would be if the pair decided to debate football.

When rumors surfaced this week that Sharpton was under consideration for the MSNBC job, one NABJ member told colleagues without challenge, “This would still be just another non-journalist media ‘celebrity’ receiving a TV show based upon their name recognition, not their years of experience, training, ability and talent.”

Prince also noted that the hiring of Sharpton would serve to quell criticism of the news media’s lack of diversity.

From Current TV:

Prince’s criticisms are valid, of course. The news media landscape is littered with hosts who have little or no background in journalism, and the fact that hosting slots for black newsmen are so scarce makes this doubly grating. There’s also a fair case to be made in Sharpton’s favor, at least from a business perspective. He certainly knows his way around a TV camera, and is a sharp debater who, as Prince notes, has managed to mellow his way back into the political mainstream.

Olbermann’s amplification of this critique, however, seems opportunistic, aimed more at settling a score with his old employer than pointing out an injustice. When he was still at MSNBC, Olbermann vigorously defended the network’s diversity, even lambasting Mediaite in a mini-Special Comment for daring to report on it. For him to exploit the issue now that he’s on the outs with MSNBC borders on the offensive.

The suggestion that MSNBC President Phil Griffin’s “Keepers of the Dream” award played a part in the decision to hire Sharpton is laughable enough that Olbermann fell short of connecting those dots with a bright line, but again, the idea seems to be that Sharpton is less than deserving, and that the award was given to Griffin to butter him up. As inducements go, that’s some pretty weak sauce, and it flies in the face of Olbermann’s previous defense of the network.

There will be some who will even point out that Olbermann’s own Current contributors list is just this side of a Hoth chameleon, whiteness-wise, but that’s not really the point. Diversity is a problem throughout the mainstream media, and it deserves attention. It also deserves to get that attention because it is a serious issue, and not just to score cheap points against your old boss.

We contacted NAN and MSNBC for this story. MSNBC declined to comment, and NAN has yet to respond.

With the door at 30 Rock shut firmly behind him, ex-MSNBC host Cenk Uygur‘s version of events–that he refused to “tone down” his show in the face of political pressure–is getting sharply rejected by network bosses. “Cenk’s claims are completely baseless,” an MSNBC spokesperson told Mediaite. “It’s unfortunate that he’s decided to depart in such a negative fashion.”

Uygur, host of the web talk show The Young Turks, had been hosting the 6 p.m. hour for MSNBC for nearly six months on a trial basis. The Rev. Al Sharpton is guest-hosting the hour this week, and the network is believed to be in negotiations with Sharpton about extending his stay or making him the permanent host.

In interviews Uygur has given since his departure from the network, he has claimed MSNBC bosses wanted him to tow the line:

In April, he said, Mr. Griffin “called me into his office and said that he’d been talking to people in Washington, and that they did not like my tone.” He said he guessed Mr. Griffin was referring to White House officials, though he had no evidence for the assertion. He also said that Mr. Griffin said the channel was part of the “establishment,” and “that you need to act like it.”

MSNBC disputes Uygur was ever told what to say. “We did have numerous conversations with Cenk about his style, not substance.” The network says an offer was made “to develop him into an even bigger television talent,” though not necessarily in the 6 p.m. host role.

Another ex-MSNBC host, Keith Olbermann, will have Uygur on his Current TV show Countdown tonight.

As you may have heard once or twice before, it’s a marathon, not a sprint (unless, of course, you’re talking about a sprint, then it’s a sprint, not a marathon). But we digress. Mark Rosenthal, CEO of Current TV, uses the sports metaphor to express his lack of concern over the second-week ratings drop for Keith Olbermann‘s Countdown. The show saw its ratings shrink by nearly a third during the week of June 27, averaging 93,000 viewers in the key 25-54 demographic. “Numbers are going to go up and they’re going to go down,” Rosenthal told Adweek‘s D. M. Levine. “It’s a marathon for us. And the show will build over time as more and more people continue to find Current, or continue to demand Current and cable operators continue to add it.”

Current, of course, is still a cable mystery to many viewers, and available in far fewer homes than Olbermann’s previous home, MSNBC–60 million homes versus about 100 million, says Rosenthal. “We’re not at distribution parity with the MSNBCs and virtually any other cable network out there.”

Beyond the issue of distribution, Countdown‘s ratings were bound to slide–and Current expected them to–in the show’s second week, after publicity and curiosity surrounding the show’s debut faded.

This isn’t about whether Michele Bachmann or Greta Van Susteren “deserve” this treatment (they don’t). There are legitimate criticisms to be made of Bachmann, but calling her a pig isn’t just over the line, it’s a non sequitur. Of the knocks leveled at Bachmann by even her sharpest critics, none would suggest such an appellation.

I consider Greta Van Susteren a friend, and someone who knows how to handle a disagreement. The blog post to which Olbermann refers did display an arguably tone-deaf set of priorities, which might explain why it was removed in favor of one that calls for Justices Prosser, Bradley, and Abrahamson to resign, and which takes the measure of the allegations against Prosser. Greta tends to shoot from the hip on Gretawire, which is a significant part of the blog’s appeal, but she’s also remarkably open to dialog.

There are some (like Baltimore Sun TV critic David Zurawik) who think Olbermann should tone down the insults, but I’m not one of them. Cutting wit has long been the workhorse in the stable of political discourse. Olbermann’s problem is that he needs to tune up the insults. His debut ratings demonstrate that the core audience that followed him to Current needs to be built upon, and even some of them might soon wonder whether the man who writes all of those impassioned, florid Special Comments can do better than this. He can, of course, but is showing no inclination to.

Despite what Zurawick says, Olbermann doesn’t have to choose between being a political commentator and an insult comic. He just needs to be better at both.

Zurawik also dinged Olbermann over his “rancor” and use of insults, but I think he missed the mark a little bit. Olbermann’s ability to go at his opponents has long been a key to his appeal. The problem is that the rancor and the insults have become increasingly artless and petty, in stark contrast to the sharp, florid wit present in much of his commentary. Zurawik says Al Gore should “rein him in,” but Gore would be better off sharpening him up.

The best observation, though, came from Glynnis MacNicol (now with Business Insider), who noted that “(Olbeermann)’s been trying to demonize MSNBC, and sort of make them the enemy he’s playing off of, and it clearly, in the first week, didn’t work, and he pulled back and said ‘Rachel Maddow’s my friend now.’”

Here’s the clip, from CNN’s Reliable Sources:

In the run-up to the Countdown re-launch, host Keith Olbermann launched increasingly sharp barbs at his former colleagues, and condescension at his former friends. Rather than positioning himself as an alternative to Fox News, or neutral CNN, Olbermann set himself up as the “us” in an “us vs. them” battle with the only other prime time liberal cable news bloc, MSNBC. As Glynnis observed, this strategy doesn’t seem to have worked.

Despite relatively strong ratings for his debut show, Countdown didn’t make a dent in MSNBC’s ratings, and his decision to overlap with Rachel Maddow’s show caused a swift backlash from fans who didn’t feel like choosing.

Olbermann cast his decision as a desire not to hurt Maddow’s ratings, the equivalent of a mosquito generously offering not to exsanguinate a crocodile. The truth is, by targeting his old friend’s show, he was making himself look like a jerk, and costing Maddow very little. That same dynamic likely applies to viewers of other liberal MSNBC shows, as well. Even those who might like Countdown better are bound to wonder why Olbermann can’t let his show stand on the merits, rather than trash the efforts of others on the same “team.” No one likes to see Mom and Dad fight.

The good news is that the cable news town appears to be big enough for two liberal sheriffs. With an impressive (especially for a small net like Current) debut of 179,000 demo viewers, and little (if any) effect on MSNBC’s numbers, it appears more likely that the cable news landscape can support two liberal-leaning networks, rather than settling on an eventual last network standing. The next step is for Current to fill in the rest of its prime-time lineup with the right kind of talent to build on Countdown’s success.

While the network said it was also very pleased with the ratings, Olbermann’s move from MSNBC to Current has cost him in viewership. His old timeslot at MSNBC, now occupied by Lawrence O’Donnell, attracted 237,000 viewers in the demo–and that was only good enough for a third place finish behind Fox News and HLN’s Nancy Grace. Olbermann did beat CNN, In the Arena, but that show’s host, Eliot Spitzer has been off this week, and CNN’s ratings overall have been lower as interest in the Casey Anthony murder trial seems to have sent viewers to HLN for its wall-to-wall coverage.

Will viewers find Olbermann and bring the ratings up? As the host said, it takes time for new shows (even ones that look pretty much identical to old shows) to find their groove. But as a rule, opening night ratings tend to be higher than the nights that follow, as curious drop-in viewers who want to have a look on the first night don’t come back. More than two million viewers tuned in to watch CNN’s Piers Morgan open his new show with guest Oprah Winfrey. On Monday, with guest Ryan O’Neal, the total viewership was a far smaller 689,000.

The difference between Morgan and Olbermann, however, is the network that surrounds each show. CNN has strong viewership throughout the day and night to remind viewers about Piers Morgan Tonight and promote the show. Current, with its significantly smaller average audience, is pitching Countdown to a comparatively tiny group of viewers, forcing Current to spend money on advertising the show, or, as they did last night, sending Olbermann off in search of free media with an appearance on CBS’ Late Show with David Letterman.