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.

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.

RELATED: Current TV Source: Keith Olbermann Has Not Responded To Request To Cover New Hampshire

Gore spoke to the AP in a report published last night, explaining that Olbermann was a pivotal member of the team and that he considered the beauty of Current TV to be its strict point of view:

Former Vice President Al Gore on Friday described Current TV as the “consistent” liberal TV network compared with MSNBC, and said it will keep Keith Olbermann in the fold.

“He’s fine,” said Gore, chairman of the network in 63 million U.S. homes, dismissing rumors that Olbermann was seeking to leave. “He has been the key to our ability to pivot and develop our whole network as a progressive news and commentary network.” [...]

“They’ve got a few progressive shows on MSNBC in prime time,” Gore said, “but they’ll start the day with a conservative show in the mornings, and then they’ll get the prison channel on the weekends. They’ll be all over the lot in the middle of the day. We’re consistent.”

Current TV officials have said that Olbermann’s absence at programming meetings is due to his being on vacation, and the network brass seems to publicly be on his side. Current CEO Joel Hyatt attributed MSNBC’s liberal tendencies to Olbermann’s work, and blasted the network as lacking “authenticity” to the AP. MSNBC and Olbermann did not respond to Current’s remarks, but it sounds like a very different tune from the lawyer-laden reports of the past week, and appears to confirm that the network and the anchor are committed to staying together.

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:

RELATED: Keith Olbermann and Current TV Battle Over Iowa Caucus Coverage

The strife appears to have begun sometime earlier in the week, with the New York Times reporting that Olbermann would not be covering Iowa with the assembled team for the night– an update that was, apparently, news to Olbermann. He later tweeted that he would not host Countdown last night and, as our Tommy Christopher reported, Current TV explained that “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,” which seemed incongruous with Olbermann’s tweets and previous statements.

Now Olbermann tells The Hollywood Reporter that he was not given a “legitimate” opportunity to host, which is why he declined. His attorney added:

Patricia Glaser, the Hollywood litigator who represented Olbermann during his exit from MSNBC and his subsequent hiring by Current, tells THR that conversations between the Olbermann camp and Current have begun over his role with the network.

“Keith’s lawyers and Current’s lawyers are communicating,” Glaser says. [...]

“I was not given a legitimate opportunity to host under acceptable conditions,” Olbermann said in a statement to THR on Wednesday. “They know it and we know it. Telling half the story is wrong.”

Olbermann also took another shot at Current for what he apparently perceives as too low-budget an enterprise for his program:

On Monday, Olbermann sent THR an e-mail defending the editorial integrity of Countdown while sardonically referencing the technical glitches that have plagued his show. “The team I’m fortunate enough to be a part of has produced — in my opinion and that of the veterans of the old show — the best editions of Countdown we’ve ever had,” Olbermann wrote. “The studio lights might go off, but the editorial illumination is better than ever.”

It is as yet unclear how this ends, but if it becomes a lawyer situation, it may lead to another difficult situation between Olbermann and his bosses. THR reports that “Olbermann also has expressed his displeasure with the level of influence he has been given over the hiring of other Current hosts,” but that they were unable to receive legal specifics on the case.

Update: Tommy Christopher spoke with a source close to the network earlier this evening, prior to the Hollywood Reporter report, and here’s what he says:

According to a source close to the network, Keith 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. While Olbermann now disputes the acceptability of the conditions under which such a program would be produced, he hasn’t explained why he told his staff and his viewers that he was unaware there would be no Countdown on Tuesday night. The emails that this source saw contradict that notion.

According to the same source, the network is eager to have Keith Olbermann anchor their New Hampshire primary coverage. However, this was all prior to the THR report that Olbermann’s attorney is now involved.

Keith Olbermann is Current TV’s franchise player, so it’s hard to imagine they want anything other than a speedy, friendly resolution to this matter. Based on his actions, it looks like Olbermann might not. It’s worth noting that the URL to that Hollywood Reporter item (URLs often contain earlier versions of the eventual headline) reads “Keith Olbermann Quits Current TV Lawyers,” which could indicate that a source on the Hollywood Reporter story walked something back before publication. – Tommy Christopher

RELATED: Keith Olbermann Tweets ‘Countdown Will Not Be On Tonight,’ Refers Questions To Brass

It appears that Morgan fired the first shot on this one, tweeting about his coverage tonight of the Iowa caucuses and not being able to resist poking fun at the fact that Olbermann, despite being head of the news department at Current, would not be on tonight. He tweeted the following:

Olbermann, not being one to sit tight on such an insult, responded, “Great! So you’ll be showing your latest subpoena?” an apparent reference to Morgan’s tangential involvement in the News of the World scandal earlier in the year.

Morgan corrected Olbermann that he had never been supoenaed, but snarked back, “But on the subject of criminal offences [sic], how are your Countdown ratings?” Olbermann didn’t address the swipe, instead making a joke about Morgan knowing where Parliament wanted him by hacking phones. As it stands, Morgan is demanding Olbermann concede defeat.

Of course, anyone who has followed Olbermann’s career must know that Morgan will probably need a lot of luck for an easy concession, but as this is going on live, Olbermann had yet to respond. It’s a silly bit, and somewhat unexpected for Morgan to attack Olbermann of all people on this matter (doesn’t Lord Sugar have an Iowa caucus special to mock or something?), but it will surely be an entertaining, live and raw exchange between two hosts that, back in the dark ages before the existence of Twitter, neither host’s audience could have imagined seeing develop in real time.

*yes, we know that Rep. Ron Paul is in the mix, too. In fact, I predicted he’d win. But he doesn’t work for the purposes if this analogy here.

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

Stelter reports that Olbermann “is not scheduled to anchor Current’s coverage of the Iowa caucus or the New Hampshire primary in January;” the network has placed anchors Cenk Uygur and Jennifer Granholm in that position, along with the head of the network, Al Gore. And despite having been hired to be a part of special reports, as well, Olbermann has not been around. What’s more, Olbermann’s program will actually not run on Monday, January 2 and in its stead will be a two-hour Iowa caucus preview hosted by Uygur.

Stelter does not provide concrete answers, but did find some rumblings of discomfort with Olbermann among the staff:

In the television industry, Mr. Olbermann is well known for fights with his bosses; stories abound about his refusal to speak to managers and executives. At Current, this behavior has continued, according to four people with knowledge of the situation, one of whom described Mr. Olbermann as “disgruntled.”

Current’s chief executive, David Bohrman, did not respond to requests for comment on Thursday, on what is traditionally a holiday week. Mr. Olbermann did not respond to an e-mail.

Stelter also notes that Olbermann himself has not made any indication that the absences from other program are unusual, adding that his final live program of the way only made note that he would be back to anchor on Tuesday, January 3.

Are these the tiny squeals of discontent that preempt the involuntary opening of the proverbial floodgates? It’s too early to tell, but there is certainly something unusual about his absences from major programming, as well as the silence surrounding the story.

UPDATE: Stelter reports that it appears Olbermann himself was not in on the plan to have him absent from the programming:

On Thursday afternoon Mr. Olbermann suggested that Current’s published plans might not be accurate. When a reporter asked him via email why he was not participating in the Iowa caucus coverage, he answered, “That’s not my understanding. We’ve already prepared a ‘Best Of Countdown’ for Monday, and are planning a live Countdown on Tuesday.”

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?

What I found remarkable about my last report on this subject is that hardly any right-wing blogs picked up on it, despite the fact that it clearly made a prominent liberal look like an utter moron. Based on nothing whatsoever, Moore accused the President of ordering a nationwide crackdown of Occupy protests, tweeting his followers, “Dozens of Occupys across US raided this weekend-& now NYC- Planned & coordinated by the Dept. of Homeland Security? Did O give green light?”

He then went on Countdown with Keith Olbermann, where they rapturously shared the delusion like a couple of tone-deaf American Idol wannabes. What righty blogger wouldn’t want to point and laugh at that?

The answer, of course, is that Moore’s delusion has the dual benefit of attacking Barack Obama, and of distracting people from serious issues surrounding the Occupy protests, like the casual use of “less than lethal” force on peaceful protesters. At best, Moore is wasting a lot of people’s time with this. At worst, he’s feeding dangerous delusions.

At about 3 o’clock this morning, Moore renewed the attack, tweeting this to his followers:

This double tap of OccupyLA & OccupyPhilly by our new militarized police force I’M SURE has NOT been coordinated by anyone in DC. No way!

This is the kind of logic-proof statement that makes people ignore everything you say, and frankly, marginalizes the people Moore is supposed to be lending his support to. There are already plenty of other people eager to fill that job.

The idea of a federal crackdown on the Occupy protests has created a minor schism among liberals, with the sane ones pointing and laughing at the likes of Moore and Naomi Wolf.

I have no problem with people questioning authority, or being skeptical of the “official story,” but you can’t just replace the official story with whatever you can pull out of your ass.

Paranoia is common at either extreme of the political spectrum, so it’s not surprising that Michael Moore has an audience for this insanity. What is surprising is that, in a movement of supposedly free thinkers, few have risen to call him out on it.

“As an American, I’m depressed, as a comedian, it’s hard to split the difference. I’m a patriot, man,” Lewis said about the current crop of Republican presidential contenders. “I want, you know — this is disgusting. This is like the new Christy’s Minstrels, it’s like a silly muppet show!”

“Or a parade going by,” Olbermann added.

“Yeah, I mean, look. This whole things that’s been going on. Cain — you know, the big deal he had was with the Godfather’s,” Lewis observed, drawing attention to the politically-wounded candidate. “But with all these things going on, he’s lucky to be, I don’t know, a doorman. Bada-bing! He’s gone.”

“Well, I think that may be the next job,” snarked Olbermann. “He has some experience in this area, apparently.”

Lewis went on to explain why he was a Democrat, saying they were “more humane” and “they cared more about the middle class and the people who have nothing.”

Watch Lewis tear into Herman Cain 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:

This is especially interesting, notes Forbes‘ Jeff Bercovici, because Matthews Sr, on whose show the series is apparently based, had agreed to make a cameo, only to have MSNBC ask him to pull out because execs were worried that Sorkin’s show “might present an unflattering view of the network and/or cable news and/or left-wing media.” All this after MSNBC had allowed Sorkin onto the set of Hardball to conduct research for his show.

RELATED: Aaron Sorkin’s HBO Pilot Features Olbermann-Like TV Host

But perhaps MSNBC is right to be worried: While the cable new on the series might be based on Hardball‘s format, its main character, played by Jeff Daniels, apparently has more in common with controversial former MSNBCite Keith Olbermann.

But wait! There’s more! Adds Bercovici:

As if all that wasn’t self-referential enough, there’s also a Kennedy connection: Kathleen “Kick” Kennedy, granddaughter of Robert F. Kennedy, is also in the cast as another producer. “She’s the partner to Thomas on the show,” says Chris Matthews, whose book about John F. Kennedy came out this week. “They sit together. They’re like bookeends.”

Metariffic!

h/t Forbes

In our brief interview, Uygur discussed the media portrayal of Occupy Wall Street (it’s getting better), how anger towards corporations isn’t the thing (its corporate cronyism), and how the OWS movement is very similar in spirit to that of the Tea Party movement. He also revealed that his new show should be launching on Current in about a month, and that while he and Keith Olbermann clearly share a similar political point of view, there will be differences in their two shows. In particular, Uygur is looking to have more dissenting opinions on his program, and is actively hoping for more conservative guests with which he can engage in a serious discourse.

Working in television for a number of years engenders a certain cynical approach, to both fellow media peers and viewers. On-air personalities are often the most jaded of the sort, who often bring a strange mix of egomania alongside an over-reliance on a writer/producer to help him or her look good. Uygur was quite the opposite, however. Perhaps his humble start as a YouTube star, or his somewhat unceremonious departure from MSNBC, combined to make Uygur a remarkably down-to-earth and likable guy.

Of course it helps that he was surrounded by (mostly) like-minded people at Zuccotti Park, though there was one rabble rousing Wall Street protester, “Kenny,” who considered Uygur’s taping of material for his new show to be “pornography,” and did everything in his power to disrupt the taping. No worries for Uygur, he didn’t complain and just went about his business.

Current’s press release described the show this way:

From the caucuses to the campaign trails to Capitol Hill, the hour-long program will shed light on the news of the day and will feature in-studio commentary by political insiders, campaign veterans, opinion leaders and newsmakers whose unique perspective will both inform and inspire.

According to Current, The War Room “will cap off a nightly roster of thought-provoking content beginning at 7:00 pm ET/PT with Cenk Uygur’s The Young Turks (launching November 2011) to be followed at 8:00 pm ET/PT by Countdown with Keith Olbermann.”

Gore was effusive in his praise of Granholm, saying in a press release, ““Jennifer Granholm is a supremely talented and dedicated public servant whose deep understanding of the issues makes her one of the most relevant voices in politics today. She would be an asset to any news organization, and I am delighted that she has chosen Current TV as her new home. I have no doubt that her ability to illuminate and provide context to the issues of the 2012 election will prove to be of inestimable value to Current’s audience as well as to the public policy discussion surrounding the election.”

In a conference call with reporters, Gore went quite a bit further. Echoing comments he made to the former governor over dinner last night, Gore said, “I sincerely believe that if (Jennifer Granholm) had not been born in Canada, she would have been a leading candidate for President of the United States, and would have been, very possibly, the first woman President of the United States.”

He went on to say that she has “a combination of insight, intelligence, and personality that…is really going to be fantastic on television. I’m very excited about it.”

I asked the former Vice President if he would share his wish list for the rest of Current’s lineup, and he jokingly declined, but also declined to give specifics on the network’s inroads into being available in more households, saying that “the ratings have been good,” and that he was in “many different conversations, and we’re very optimistic” about distribution. Gov. Granholm did reveal that comedian Brett Ehrlich, who formerly hosted infoMania on Current, will be a contributor to her show.

I also asked Gov. Granholm if she could gauge the political temperature of her show, relative to Keith Olbermann on the “hot” end of the spectrum, and Rachel Maddow on the “cool” side.

“I think we’re gonna be a hot show,” she said, with a laugh. “It’s going to be hot in the sense that people will want to watch it, we want it to be fast-moving, and we want it to be entertaining, yes, but we also want it to be very thoughtful.”

“Yes, I’m progressive,” Granholm continued, “I’m on the left end of the spectrum, but I’ve also had to be a pragmatic governor, and can explain what that’s like, dealing with a Republican legislature, and how important compromise is. It will be a blend of temperatures, but hopefully, the show itself will be a hot show.”

It’s probably not what she meant by a “hot show,” but earlier in the call, asked if the Detroit Tigers should start Justin Verlander in Game 4 or save him for game 5, replied with an earthy turn of phrase, saying, “I say shoot the wad tonight, you gotta take it every game at a time.”

For the month of September, CNN averaged 257,00 viewers in the 25 to 54 age range during primetime, closely approaching MSNBC’s average 269,000 viewers. (Fox bested both stations by nearly double, drawing 526,000 viewers per night on average.)

However, with unusually high viewership nights — like the debates — excluded, CNN edges out MSNBC, earning on average 219,000 and 207,000 viewers, respectively.

Comparing this September’s numbers to last September’s, the New York Times’Bill Carter suspects that MSNBC might have been hurt by the loss of Olbermann at 8pm hour. Lawrence O’Donnell‘s ratings for that hour are down 100,000 viewers from Olberman’s; and that 35 percent loss is comparable to that which CNN has gained in moving network-darling Anderson Cooper‘s show up. Carter wonders if just enough viewers could have left the network with Olbermann, tipping the scales in CNN’s favor:

Mr. Olbermann averaged just over 50,000 viewers in the 25-to-54 measure in September, or less than 20 percent of what he attracted on MSNBC. Still, many of those 50,000 may have previously been viewers of MSNBC — and Mr. O’Donnell was 30,000 viewers behind Mr. Cooper in September.

MSNBC President Phil Griffin insists that such is not the case: that Olbermann’s exit had no impact and that the network’s lagging numbers this quarter were just a fluke. “I am confident we will increase our ratings as politics become the dominant story over the next year,” he told the Times.

MSNBC meanwhile maintain their still-winning stance in a press release sent out this morning. “MSNBC continued to top CNN in primetime for 3rd quarter of 2011, finishing ahead of the formerly dominant news network for the 8th consecutive quarter,” they report, boasting double-digit gains for Morning Joe, Hardball, and Maddow and opting not to mention CNN’s creeping growth.

The goal, as it currently stands, is to set up camp on and around Wall Street for two whole months and repeat one simple demand… to be decided by those participating. Music and culture website Death and Taxes, bemoaning the lack of mainstream media attention being given to the protests, summarizes its general goals thusly: “The Occupy Wall Street protesters, on the other hand, have ideas and are intent on highlighting the mechanisms at work within the perpetual boom/bust cycle that is the American economy and democracy. One of their main messages would appeal to many hundreds of million of viewers: That the wealthiest 1% of Americans own 40% of this country’s wealth and that the other 99% of fighting for the scraps.”

The movement currently boasts its own website and Facebook page to facilitate other like-minded protests all over the world.

Moore told Olbermann that he has high hopes that more and more people will join in:

This is really the very first, down on Wall Street in the Financial District, the very first attempt since the crash of ’08, to take a real stand and it’s been powerful. And I gotta believe that even though it may number in the hundreds right now, this is gonna grow. Not only on Wall Street, but in communities all over America.

He then encouraged Americans who find themselves far from New York to consider protesting at local bank branches using “possibly even civil disobedience.” He also reserved some harsh words for the big banks themselves:

They think they’re going to get away with this. These people who stole the pension funds of the American public, who stole their money, who stole the future of our kids and grandkids, they think… They’re kleptomaniacs and they think they’re going to get away with it. They have taken our democracy and formed it into a “kleptocracy.”

Moore then quoted New York mayor Michael Bloomberg as saying that there will be “rioting in the street” if things don’t change and more jobs aren’t provided soon.

Olbermann followed up with a question: “The pretext of the left-wing media,” he said, “exists to amass the kind of right-wing media belligerence — I wouldn’t use the term bias, but it’s belligerently right wing. Assuming that’s not going to change, what do the protesters in this group…what do they need to change, modify, improve to make the system bend to their will?”

One of several suggestions Moore had was for those who have been foreclosed on to remain in their homes since, given the way individual mortgages were split and bundled into derivatives, “nobody really owns your mortgage.”

Have a look at the segment, from Current TV:

Cenk Uygur with fans in Asbury Park, NJ

On the heels of CurrentTV’s announcement that The Young Turks will join Keith Olbermann at the network as Countdown‘s lead-in, host Cenk Uygur and Current president Al Gore held a tele-press conference Tuesday afternoon. Gore talked about expanding Current’s lineup even more, and Uygur assured current Young Turks fans that he would be bringing the whole TYT crew, and the show’s magic, to the hour leading in to Countdown. Although Olbermann has the higher profile, The Young Turks has an arguably larger, more loyal audience to bring to Current.

Gore and CurrentTV CEO and Co-Founder Joel Hyatt revealed that the addition of TYT is the first step toward a full lineup of news and commentary. I asked Al Gore if he had anyone specific in mind, like top-rated progressive radio host Bill Press, or Thom Hartmann, who already produces a TV show in addition to his syndicated radio broadcast.

“Well, without getting into specific names, the answer to your question are we looking at someone else to add to the lineup, yes, we are,” Gore replied. “Stay tuned, you won’t have to wait that long.”

Current president David Bohrman added, “I’ll just tell you. We are going to have an entire broadcast day full of people. We had a beachhead with Countdown with Keith, now Cenk will lead into that, we’re working on the program afterwards and hopefully we’ll be able to talk about and crystallize and the rest of the day will follow. This is going to be a – you know, we are going to transform the network into political news commentary and analysis and you’re seeing it start.”

Although he declined to be specific, it sounds as though Gore and Current Chief News Officer Keith Olbermann already have someone in mind for the 9pm hour. Asked why TYT was being scheduled as Countdown‘s lead-in, rather than its lead-out, Hyatt replied that he hoped Cenk would bring new viewers to Countdown, and added, “We have a plan for that larger audience being handed off by Keith at nine, as well.”

While Gore joked that he expected TYT to continue its 300% annual audience growth rate (“I was going to say a billion,” Uygur cracked), he and Hyatt said they don’t have a number in mind for the show’s audience size. The Young Turks has the potential to bring a significant built-in audience to Current. Their daily Youtube audience of over a million is roughly equivalent to what Countdown was pulling in at MSNBC before the move, but The Young Turks has the added advantage of coming from a more interactive medium. A more invested fan base could result in a surprisingly large debut audience.

Uygur’s MSNBC show didn’t include any of the elements that have made The Young Turks popular, and was hampered by a lack of identity, generic graphics, and sub-par production values. Cenk assures viewers that the CurrentTV incarnation of TYT will bring the show’s familiar vibe along for the ride.

“Ana (Kasparian), Jayar (Jackson), Jesus (Godoy) will appear on air, as they normally do on TYT from time to time,” Uygur told me. “…We’ll also be having the same crew of guest hosts, co-hosts, etc, Wes Clark, Jr., Michael Shure, Richard Eskow, Jimmy Dore, Brian Unger. All these guys have been great to us throughout TYT history, Ben Mankiewicz.”

“We’ll also bring all the other progressives you’ve seen on my shows, as guests,” he continued, “and you know who they are. We are going to be a gathering place for progressives.”

He also assured fans of the online show that they’ll still be getting the content they’re used to. “Wee’re going to continue to do the two hours that we’re doing now,” Uygur said. “We’re going to do the hour of Current television, then we will do the two hours of The Young Turks online. And we will provide Members Only content as much as we can.”

Although the online show is free, TYT has about 3,500 viewers who pay $10 a month to access “Members Only” content, sort of like DVD extras for the hardcore fans.

Here’s a transcript of the call:(via email from CurrentTV)

Jeanne Meyer: Hi, everyone. Thank you for joining us on such short notice. We had some exciting news today at Current and assembled on this call are Current’s Chairman and Former U.S. Vice President, Al Gore, also Co-Founder of Current; also, Joel Hyatt who is Chief Executive officer and Co-Founder of Current; David Bohrman, who is our rather new President of Current TV; and Cenk Uygur who is our newest edition to the family as the new Host and Exec Producer of The Young Turks on Current TV.

I’d like to introduce everyone – or I’d like to turn it over to Mr. Gore, who will start things off today.

Thank you.

Al Gore: Well, thank you, Jeannie, and hi everyone. As many of you have probably heard, Cenk Uygur and The Young Turks are coming to Current TV. Joel Hyatt and I are extremely excited about this development. If you look up the term Young Turks in the dictionary, it will say something like, young, progressive, or insurgent member of an institution movement or political party.

And although the Oxford English Dictionary doesn’t add this, you might as well say, an alternative definition is Cenk Uygur, because Cenk and The Young Turks on YouTube and soon Current TV, are a group of progressive outspoken journalists and commentators who have build an incredibly fast-growing loyal network. Cenk and his collaborators and the army of followers that they’ve built really does live up to that definition of Young Turks.

Speaking personally, I’ve admired Cenk because he speaks truth to power without fear or favor. He gets that what audiences want today is context and insight about what’s going on in the world. They don’t want yelling, they want a smart take on the days’ news and the complex issues that affect their lives. They don’t want commentary that’s watered down by corporate or special interest influences. I liked how Cenk and his team boil it down for his viewers.

The Young Turks also understand that we live in a multi-screen world and they speak to an audience that wants to hear the truth, so Cenk, welcome to Current. I am so excited. And now I want to turn it over to my partner and Co-Founder, Joel Hyatt, who is our CEO.

Joel, take it away.

Joel Hyatt: Thanks, Al, I appreciate it. A few months ago, after we landed Countdown with Keith Olbermann, you know, Current changed its programming direction to become entirely focused on building a news analysis and political commentary network, one with a progressive voice and one that offers an alternative to what’s been in the marketplace.

We’re creating a new news network for a new kind of news viewer. People consume news in different ways today, on television, online, on mobile, and as Al said what they’re looking for is insight, context, and the truth. Cenk and The Young Turks is a great addition to our network. I share Al’s enthusiasm and excitement. This is just a wonderful development Current.

You’ve seen the stats. The Young Turks channel on YouTube gets about 30 million views a month, Cenk has 300,000 subscribers, and The Young Turks channel has racked up 1/2 billion video views. As we head into the election year people are eager to hear voices like Cenk’s, which can only be heard on an open independent platform like Current.

So, I want to add my welcome to that of Al’s to Cenk and his posse, and now let me turn it over to you, Cenk.

Cenk Uygur: All right, thank you both so much and I am incredibly excited to come to Current. As both the Vice President and Joel were just saying, it is a true home for independent television and for progressives all across the country. And I can’t wait to do a show there that is open, honest, aggressive, and also fun.

We’re in the fun business and we’re going to do it with a smile on our face, and we’re going to bring all the different strong progressives throughout the country to this show. It’s going to be a gathering place for progressives to meet and discuss the issues of the day, and I think it’s going to be a really exciting show and I couldn’t be more excited to do it with this great group of people.

I mean, for a progressive to have Joel Hyatt and Al Gore as your bosses and to have Keith Olbermann as your colleague, it doesn’t get any better than that.

Joel Hyatt: David?

David Bohrman: Well, we – we’re – we’ve already started. I mean, I was on already, must have sent 20 emails this morning already about the environment for The Young Turks and about how we’re going to produce the show, and what it may look and feel like.

And, you know, I will tell you that, you know, our goal is to come up with something refreshing, difference, the – to try to capture the excitement and magic and dynamic that The Young Turks brought to the Internet, we’re going to, in our own way, turn that it into what I think is going to be a really fun, interesting, compelling, and passionate television program.

They bring their community of loyal viewers with them and, you know, Cenk and I we had an immediate meeting of the minds on the program and what it was going to feel like, and we are – we’re – I mean, we’re ready to go and we’ve already begun. So, we’re really looking forward to it and I think it’s going to be a great blast for us to do.

Cenk Uygur: Hey, let me add one other thing. You know, the – this is Cenk again, when you look at what David Bohrman’s done in his career, whether it’s World News Now and that kind of different irreverent, you know, more conversational shows, whether it was the site, whether it was what he’s did online, it – he was our President waiting to happen, in terms of the person that we would love to produce a show with.

So, I think it’s just the right combination and really excited about it.

Al Gore: We’re happy to take any questions. Jeannie, are you going to moderate it?

Jeanne Meyer: Yeah, I was just going to suggest that if you want to ask a question, to get in the queue. (Audrey) will tell folks how to do that, and I think we have a question from Tommy from Mediaite. Would you please…

Tommy Christopher: Hey…

Jeanne Meyer: …say your name and outlet? Thanks.

Tommy Christopher: Sure, I’m Tommy Christopher from Mediate. I actually – well, first of all, congratulations, Cenk.

Cenk Uygur: Thank you, Tommy.

Tommy Christopher: It’s great news. I have three questions if that’s okay, but one of them is really quick. First of all, Cenk, I wanted to know if – when MSNBC first started giving you static a few months back, did Keith ever tell you, you know, “Don’t worry about it. If doesn’t work out there, you know, we’ve got a spot for you?”

Cenk Uygur: No, no. I had no communication with Keith at time.

Tommy Christopher: All right, and now my second question for you was could you maybe ballpark us your total daily audience now, including the Internet stream, your YouTube views, and how many premium members do you have?

Cenk Uygur: Sure. You know, we use the number of one million from YouTube simply because YouTube dwarfs everything else, so when you put it all together it’s still in that ballpark. So, I think it’s just fair to say a million views a day, even though it’s probably a little over that we’re a little (queue) on it.

Tommy Christopher: What…

Cenk Uygur: But, and then…

Tommy Christopher: …do you get from the stream?

Cenk Uygur: What was it? Oh, our paid viewers are in the ballpark of 3500. That’s people who pay $10 for our podcasts; $10 a pod…

Tommy Christopher: All right and my last question’s for Mr. Gore, are you currently looking at any other progressive media talent? You’ve got Thom Hartmann doing a TV show, you’ve (Phil Press) out there, anybody else you want to add in the lineup?

Al Gore: Yes, stay tuned.

Tommy Christopher: Is said do you have anybody else that you’re thinking about adding to the lineup? You’ve got a lot of fresh…

Al Gore: Yes, I…

Tommy Christopher: …talent out there, Thom Hartmann.

Al Gore: Well, without getting into specific names, the answer to your question are we looking at someone else to add to the lineup, yes, we are. Stay tuned, you won’t have to wait that long.

Tommy Christopher: All right, you can’t see who, huh?

David Bohrman: This is…

Al Gore: Nope.

David Bohrman: …David, I’ll just tell you. We are going to have an entire broadcast day full of people. We had a beachhead with Countdown with Keith, now Cenk will lead into that, we’re working on the program afterwards and hopefully we’ll be able to talk about and crystallize and the rest of the day will follow. This is going to be a – you know, we are going to transform the network into political news commentary and analysis and you’re seeing it start.

Tommy Christopher: So, you’re going to be creating a lot of jobs liberals.

David Bohrman: (Yes), (unintelligible)…

Al Gore: We’re going to be creating a lot of jobs for people who are not afraid to speak truths to power without fear or favor.

Tommy Christopher: All right, sir. Thank you very much.

Coordinator: As a reminder, please press star 1 if you would like ask a question. And the next question comes from Sam Thielman. Your line is open.

Sam Thielman: Hi, guys, Sam Thielman from Daily Variety.

First of all, Cenk, congratulations and can you guys – can you tell me if you are looking at doing more programs like Cenk’s and Keith’s that are stripped five nights a week, or are you looking at doing – at like focusing in on a particular evening with more – with your other primetime programming.

David Bohrman: I think you’ll find more of the first.

Sam Thielman: Okay.

David Bohrman: I think you’ll find that we will do a 9:00 pm program. We’ll fill out the day. By and large, it’ll be things that are on every day. Weekends are an interesting question. There may be some things that we decide to make more episodic. But, I think fundamentally as we begin you should think that we’re going to be adding programs across the week uniformly.

Sam Thielman: Cool. Thank you.

Jeanne Meyer: Do we have any other questions? Yes, we do. I think we have David Levine from Adweek.

David Levine: Yeah, hi. I’m just curious whether we can expect this to be the template, meaning folks who have large online followings already, folks who have followings outside of the sort of linear TV medium, is that who you’re looking at moving forward to fill out your sort of personality slate?

Joel Hyatt: David, it’s Joel, I would say there’s going to be on template. I think we’re going to do a lot of things. We, of course, love the fact that Cenk has this huge online following. And keep in mind that the DNA, the original roots of what Al and I started here at Current was to be a multi-platform network, one in which we could explore and bring innovation to the synergies between the platforms so that they could be additive to each other and not just duplicative of each other, and this is a great opportunity with The Young Turks to do just that.

And again, yes, you know, Keith Olbermann was a rating superstar, no question about that. He had a loyal following. Cenk has a loyal following. Do we like that as we launch those TV shows knowing they’re going to get off to a good start, absolutely. And so, there’s certainly something very appealing about that template, but we’re going to develop different kinds of shows and as Al said, you’re going to need to stay tuned.

I’d like to think though that the only template theme that we want to have is that each and every one of them be – build large followings for insightful, intelligent, courageous analysis from people whose opinions you’ll want to hear. That’s the template we’re looking at.

Man: (Unintelligible)…

Al Gore: And this is Al Gore, if I could briefly add to that. I endorse everything Joel just said, but Cenk is one of a kind. He has the most successful news and political commentary channel on YouTube and he has a record of experience and great success already in the television medium, so he is kind of one of a kind.

Cenk Uygur: And I just want to add, look, given that The Young Turks is the longest running live daily Web TV show, given that Current has, you know, web presence in television in its DNA, this was just a partnership waiting to happen. It makes all the sense in the world and I really appreciate what the Vice President and Joel just said as well.

David Levine: Can I ask, I’m sorry, a very quick follow-up? Do you have an expectation for how many viewers you think might, you know, make it over from YouTube to Current? Do you have a figure in mind for what you’re hoping for?

Cenk Uygur: Who was that directed to?

Joel Hyatt: We don’t have – any preconceived notion about that. We’re – we believe that Cenk is going to have a television show that’s going to enormously attracted to its existing following, and of course the TV platform adds the opportunity to bring many new viewers. So, we’re excited about the potential success of the program, but we don’t have any preconceived data points to provide to you.

Al Gore: He promised us that he would continue his annual 300% audience growth rate.

Cenk Uygur: I was going to go with a billion, but okay.

Coordinator: Please press star 1 if you would like to ask a question.

Jeanne Meyer: I think we have a question from Frazier Moore from the AP. Frazier?

Frazier Moore: I was just wondering why you chose to put the new show on at 7:00 instead of 9:00 after Keith Olbermann to let him lead into it? What’s the strategy there for programming the two shows?

Joel Hyatt: Well, again, as to what we’re doing at 9:00 you’ll have to stay tuned and there – this is more art than science. We’re very excited about what we’ve are already achieving as younger audience for news analysis and commentary than the other networks in our competitive set.

We believe that trend’s going to continue launching – with the launching of Cenk and The Young Turks, and we’re excited about that. We think the consequence of that is that Cenk’s going to bring a new audience leading into Countdown with Keith Olbermann, which you know again, is a big and important development for us, and I think that you know, look, Keith Olbermann’s going to keep that audience.

So, the audience that The Young Turks delivers to Keith we hope will be additive to the loyal following that Keith already has and will grow Keith’s audience, and is – you know, as we’ve alluded to we have a plan for that larger audience being handed off by Keith at 9 o’clock as well.

Frazier Moore: Thank you.

Cenk Uygur: And for my part, I love 7:00 pm because I’ll be the only progressive on television at that time slot.

Frazier Moore: Understood. Thanks.

Jeanne Meyer: We have a question from Matthew Flamm from Crain’s New York Business. Matthew?

Matthew Flamm: Hi, I just – I got on the call late, so I apologize if you’ve been asked this already, but do you expect to see this help you, you know, expand your distribution?

Joel Hyatt: Yes. Good question. Yes, we do. Again, as we build out a – what – we will in January have a full primetime lineup for a Presidential Election year. We will be the only independent news analysis network and we believe that that will serve as a very compelling case for additional distribution for Current.

We are today carried into about 60 million U.S. households, which is a great accomplishment for a small independent network; very few others have been able to do that in the years in which we’ve built that distribution platform.

That said, a primetime lineup with hit shows, which is what we’re going to have in place for the beginning of the Presidential Election year, we believe will result in increased distribution.

Matthew Flamm: And any timetable for that where you think you might start adding?

Joel Hyatt: No, none that we’re going to be predicting, no.

Matthew Flamm: Okay.

Jeanne Meyer: I think we have time for just a couple more questions. We have – Tommy Christopher, did you have another question you wanted to ask?

Tommy Christopher: Yeah, I had – well, there weren’t so many people raising their hand, so I do have a couple. As a original Young Turks Premium Member, I’m kind of curious if you’re going to – when you say The Young Turks are going to Current are you bringing the whole gang with you; J.R. and Dave and Ana, and will you be moving to the East Coast or staying on the West Coast?

Cenk Uygur: That’s a great question, Tommy. Yes, Ana, J.R., Jesus, will appear on air as they normally do on The Young Turks from time to time. You know, how I talk to my producers from time to time, Ana does, you know, some political and some pop culture stories for us. We’ll also be having the same crew of guest hosts, co-hosts, et cetera, that you normally see on The Young Turks; Wes Clark, Jr., Michael Shure, Richard Eskow, Jimmy Dore, Brian Unger.

All these guys have been great to us throughout The Young Turk’s history; Ben Mankiewicz. And we’ll also bring all the other progressives you’ve seen on my shows as guests, and they’re a great lineup and you know who they are. We are going to be a gathering place for progressives.

Tommy Christopher: And you’re staying on the West Coast?

David Bohrman: David, let me – Tommy, let me add in. One of the reasons Cenk’s going to be able to do that, and we didn’t mention it, the program will originate from Los Angeles. It’s where the home of The Turks is and it will be there – we do the program from L.A. live every day, so all of The Turk’s regulars will be there and at home and we won’t have to latch them all up electronically everyday to create the right environment and the right dynamic for The Turks.

Tommy Christopher: All right, and one more quick one, you currently do what, three or four hours of programming a day, are you going to continue to do that also, the (full size) Turks at night or is this going to be (edited) to one hour?

Cenk Uygur: No, we’re going to continue to do the two hours that we’re doing now online, so we will do the hour current television and then we will do the two hours of The Young Turks online.

Tommy Christopher: All right, thanks.

Cenk Uygur: And then, we will provide…

Joel Hyatt: And the…

Cenk Uygur: …members-only content, you know, as much as we can, which is how we do it today.

Tommy Christopher: Thank you.

Joel Hyatt: And the television broadcast will be live daily 7 o’clock Eastern and it will be rebroadcast at 10 o’clock Eastern.

Jeanne Meyer: I think we are a wrap, folks. Thank you so much joining us. If you have any questions I think you know who to reach out to.

Thank you for your time today.

Al Gore: Thanks, everyone.

Cenk Uygur: Thank you.

David Bohrman: Thanks.

Current TV co-founder Al Gore has said that Uygur and his collaborators “have exploded in popularity because of ‘The Young Turks” authentic and passionate voice.” Uygur himself adds that he’s excited to join the network, calling it “the perfect home” for his show and… What’s this? A subtle dig at a certain cable news network, perhaps?

We wanted to be in a place that is both independent and truly progressive, not owned and encumbered by a media conglomerate. Does it get any better for a progressive than working where Al Gore and Joel Hyatt are your bosses, and Keith Olbermann is your colleague? It’s an honor to be the lead-in program for Keith Olbermann. Add to that we will work with David Bohrman, who has been creating unique and great television programming for decades. His vision for Current is exactly in line with ours. When you bring all of these people together with ‘The Young Turks,’ watch out — we’re coming!

Uygur, you’ll recall, ruffled more than a few feathers over the summer when, after losing his spot on MSNBC’s evening lineup, he suggested to Olbermann that the network “trades honesty for access.”

His new show will be produced at a Los Angeles-based studio and is set to launch later this year.

Maher began by talking about Al Gore‘s new Climate Reality Project, and made fun of the idea that anyone inside the Republican party would ever connect the words “climate” and “reality.” He called out Rick Perry by name for his particular brand of denialism, and then suggested the media should refer to climate skeptics as “climate assholes.”

Maher described GOP voters as “a thick shell of super-hardened bullshit” where the only thing that get enter is Fox News and the only things to come out are “misspelled signs and babies.” He compared Republicans to domesticated animals.

“Trying to get today’s Republican to accept basic facts is like trying to get your dog to take a pill. You have to give them the truth wrapped in a piece of baloney, hold their snouts shut, and stroke their throats. And then, just when you think they’ve swallowed it, they spit it out.”

To Maher, the idea of a channel devoted to “reality” 24 hours a day is peculiar because “half the country doesn’t believe in reality.” And then, Maher introduced a “typical Republican voter” to the audience, a middle-class white man surrounded by a giant bubble. Olbermann was invited to join in the festivities. And by festivities, I mean “Maher and Olbermann shouting random factoids about the economy at a guy sitting in a bubble.”

First of all, the casual media observer may recall that Al Gore is technically Keith Olbermann’s boss, since he owns Current TV. So Olbermann’s inclusion in a New Rule inspired by a new project of Gore’s is odd, if nothing else.

But even more odd was the whole skit, which really didn’t liven up until Olbermann did a Foghorn Leghorn impression and a minute later when he randomly shouted, “Wrestling is fake!” I’m not sure if analyzing this bit should be the duty of media watchdogs or art critics. The whole thing felt insanely surreal.

Watch the video below, courtesy of HBO:

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: