Olbermann, Maddow Paint Palin's Faith as Extreme

Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow took swings at Sarah Palin's faith Monday night as the No. 1 story of Olbermann's countdown, implying that her faith is a form of extremism.

Olbermann started off by showing clips of Palin appearing at her former church, the Wasilla Church of God. He criticized the church's programs to pray for homosexuals. "You'll be encouraged by the power of God's love and His desire to transform the lives of those impacted by homosexuality," an insert in the bulletin of the Wasilla Bible Church once said. He also attacked the subject of Palin's prayers, including for the success of a pipeline.

Olbermann then commented on a report that a former pastor at her previous church and a fellow parishioner have said that "worshippers not only they believe in the rapture, and that the Governor Palin has spoken of Alaska of being a refuge for that supposed lifting up of those true-believers, but also they speak in tongues, in other words in words or sounds neither they nor anybody else understands, kind of like FOX News." Olbermann, while stumbling on his words, asked guest Rachel Maddow "should we be terrified?"

Maddow says that while a lot of people's religious beliefs from the outside seem "alarming," Palin needs to be asked if she thinks God is directing her public policy, and does Palin believe in the separation of church and state. Maddow says we (as a nation) are not excited about "extremism."

Criticizing prayer, Olbermann ask "Some of these things addressed to her deity ---Doesn't he/she [referring to God] have better things to do?" Maddow retorts, "Wouldn't God be better at it?" (that is, wouldn't crews be furiously working if Palin prayed for the success of a pipeline).

This is tough for people with Olbermann and Maddow's mindset to understand. But here it goes.

1. Prayer is intensely personal, and the Bible encourages people to be specific in prayer. People pray for healing, they pray for wisdom, they pray for success in activities, in travel and in other matters. It's not a matter for us to decide if Palin's (or any one else for that matter) prayer is appropriate. She was following a sound biblical practice of being specific in her prayer.

2. Presidents have long believed God is directing their public policy in the past. In this area, Maddow should read more of the writings of Lincoln.

3. The question of whether God has better things to do just demonstrates a basic lack of understating of the faith of billions of Christians, who believe that God desires a personal relationship with everyone. When asked how to pray, Jesus responded with what we call The Lord's Prayer, part of which we ask God for "our daily bread" -- a fundamental desire for our personal salvation: the need of bread to survive. God has no better thing to do than to provide us with what we need to survive.

4. Many Protestant Christians believe in the rapture. While there is a debate as to when the rapture might happen, and even if it might happen, the vast majority of Protestants do hold the belief that this will happen near the end times. It certainly is part of Protestant mainstream belief, something most would expect Palin to believe in.

5. Speaking in tongues means speaking in a way or in a language that is not normally understood by the speaker or the listeners. There are 30 million Pentecostals in the United States, and about 130 million in the world. (Ironically, more than the numbers of viewers at MSNBC, which total about 500,000 or so). Pentecostals and charismatic churches are the denominations most associated with the gift of speaking in tongues, as described in 1 Corinthians 14:2 (New Revised Standard Version):

For those who speak in a tongue do not speak to other people but to God; for nobody understands them, since they are speaking mysteries in the Spirit.

Beyond Pentecostal and charismatic churches, there are many Christians in other Protestant and Catholic denominations who believe the practice is a valid form of prayer. Some Pentecostal churches, including Assemblies of God, teach that speaking in tongues is evidence of baptism in the Holy Spirit, but it is not essential for salvation and eternal life. Some other Pentecostal denominations teach that speaking in tongues is experienced by everyone who has truly been saved. Other denominations do not put emphasis on the practice.

So, where is the extremism here? At least 10 percent of the American population believe in the gift of speaking in tongues. Many more believe that there will be a rapture. A vast majority of Americans (Christian, Jewish and Muslim) believe in the power of prayer. But few, less than a million, bother to watch Olbermann's show. So, Keith and Rachel, who represents the mainstream? The hundreds of millions of people of faith or the hundreds of thousands of MSNBC viewers?

LA Times, Olbermann, Maddow''s Sexist Reaction to Palin

Keith Olbermann's first word of note in his comment tonight concerning Sarah Palin was that she was a beauty pageant queen. Rachel Maddow chimes in that "John McCain's mate - Cindy McCain - and his running mate - Sarah Palin - are beauty pageant ladies, which may tell us something that we didn't know before about what John McCain likes in women."

Would they make the same comments about a liberal who backs Obama? This is where the double-standard in today's media is so troublesome. Can you imagine the howls from MSNBC if Rush Limbaugh had said something like this about Michelle Obama?

On the other hand, in her defense, Maddow talks about how from what we know about the ethics investigation concerning Palin's firing of a state official in Alaska does not seem to be something that will be politicized because of the events surrounding the case.

Also, is there any more evidence of MSNBC's lack of professionalism when someone put up the graphic: "How many houses does Palin bring to the Republicans?" under the Breaking News banner?

The Los Angeles Times didn't do much better. Its headline on a feature story about the sitting governor read: "Palin a gun-toting former beauty queen known for ambition and grit."

The question is, would the paper run a headline about a male governor just named as a vice presidential candidate in the same way? Would the paper write a headline about a liberal office-holder running for national office in such a snide manner? I don't think so. On Aug. 24, the Joe Biden sidebar in the Los Angeles Times was headlined "In his home state, Biden is a regular Joe."

Putin Take Notes From Olbermann, Maddow

Are Vladimir Putin and Keith Olbermann on the same page?

Putin said in an interview with CNN on Thursday that "The suspicion would arise that someone in the United States created this conflict on purpose to stir up the situation and to create an advantage for one of the candidates in the competitive race for the presidency in the United States. ... They needed a small victorious war."



Olbermann on Aug. 12 offered his thoughts on why he believes the McCain camp needs a war to help win this fall. In this clip, Rachel Maddow says McCain "sees war as the answer to everything":

Reaction to Hillary's Speech Mixed

It seems that the media is giving mixed reviews to Hillary Clinton's speech last night in Denver. The party's faithful is on board, but others are not so sure.

The California Yankee, for instance, says:

Hillary gave a good speech, but it needed to be a great speech. It was a concession speech, perhaps the speech Hillary should have given in June.

Hillary's speech should have been the equivalent of a nomination speech. I didn't hear that. What I heard was a heartfelt thank you to Hillary's "sisterhood of the traveling pantsuits." There was no Obama-like oratorical knock them dead explanation of why Obama has to be president.

More important, Hillary didn't offer a rebuttal to defuse her devastating critique of Obama's lack of experience.

One blogger didn't see much other than "it's all about me":

The reasons that Hillary gave for supporting Obama were all ways of saying that Obama is a Democrat. She managed to say some nice “words” about Obama in her speech (she was proud to support him), but subsequently she immediately launched into a litany of the many important issues for which she’d fought and sang out with a paean to all the people who had placed their faith in her.

In the end, it came down to being all about her.

On the other hand, here's a news flash. Hold on to you hats. Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews and Rachel Maddow loved it. Olbermann once again goes just a wee bit over the top (He couldn''t have written it better himself!):



Here is Clinton's speech. It's about 27 minutes long.



CNN talked to a DNC delegate who is a Hillary supporter immediately after Clinton's speech. In an emotional response to a question about who she is going to vote for, she could not give her support to Obama.



If someone like her was not convinced after seeing Hillary speak live, who did Hillary touch last night? Did anyone on the fence change their mind? Will the 18 million people who voted and campaigned for Hillary over the past 12 months switch gears and join the Obama camp? We won't know the answer to that until November.

Disunity in Denver for MSNBC

And now, lets look at the network that keeps on giving. Over at MSNBC, it sounds like some people have are having problems with the new regime. Now that Keith Olbermann has become the unofficial Director of Content and decides who gets face time, David Shuster felt free to take a whack at Joe Scarborough.



Here, Rachel Maddow hits McCain for playing the "POW Card" while appearing on Jay Leno. When asked by Leno about the houses gaffe, McCain mentioned his service. This is what he said on Leno last night:



Pat Buchanan, in response to Maddow, tries to make a point, but is pushed back by the adoring crowd nearby. (It's almost like being at a Big Ten football game at halftime). Here is the Maddow comment and reaction:



It is rather disturbing that someone might try to use a five-and-a-half-year stint at the Hanoi Hilton as a negative for her party's political opponent. In my book, McCain, and every other POW ever, gets huge praise for their sacrifice.

No, McCain did not give a good answer to his housing gaffe. He'd might have been better off saying that he had a "senior moment," or that he and his wife worked hard to get where they are, and that he wants to create an evironment where every American has the opportunity to succeed in life. McCain does try to put in a rebound during the Leno appearence to say that he wants to work on getting Americans into houses and keeping them in their homes.

But for Maddow to cry about McCain using the "POW Card" is as low as it gets. Does MSNBC really want to spin a former POW's service to our country as a negative? Don't you think that had Sen. Obama been a former POW that he would be using it as a central theme of his campaign as well? And, has Rachel Maddow ever spent a nanosecond in captivity in defense of our country? Does she knows what it's like to be separated from her family, tortured, and in doubt of whether she would survive such an ordeal? Her only qualification in this debate is that she is a favorite of MSNBC's new Director of Content.

Finally, here's this golden nugget. While Joe Scarborough, who really has had a tough 24 hours, talks about McCain's recent strength in the polls, Keith Olbermann, apparently thinking he is off the microphone, comments, "Jesus, Joe, why don't you get a shovel?"



Memo to Joe: Watch your back at MSNBC. Don't tick off the Director of Content, and start promoting the network/party line or you'll join Dan Abrams in some corner office in the basement.

Olbermann's Verdict: Maddow In, Abrams Out

Rachel Sklar originally wrote this post for the Huffington Post, but it was determined that it was not suitable for that site. So now Poynter is publishing it.

In it, Sklar dissects the removal of Dan Abrams from MSNBC's 9 p.m. slot and inserting Rachel Maddow's new show. The post does a critique of Keith Olbermann's role in all of this, and how his internal political strength at the network is growing.

That network anchors might not be best buddies isn't exactly groundbreaking, but putting all of this together suggests something lopsided at MSNBC. It's not particularly opaque, either; here's Jossip's headline, "Rachel Maddow's New Show: The Most Solid Evidence Yet That Keith Olbermann Runs MSNBC"; here is New York's Daily Intel: "With Appointment of Rachel Maddow to Prime-Time Host, Keith Olbermann Appears to Officially Run MSNBC." Maddow obviously was a rising star at MSNBC anyway, but this isn't about why she was hired, this is about who she replaced, and why -- and, behind the scenes, by whom.

Also, Rush Limbaugh got the coveted Silver the other night as Worser Person in the World for daring to make a comment:



All this back and forth aside, it's clear that Olbermann has not only become the face (and voice) of MSNBC, but he has indeed started to shape its editorial content. Is that good? well, ultimately viewers will decide. People who make a living through political commentary should, in fact, by the nature of the job be forceful. But Olbermann always dishes up a main course of attacks on conservatives, often getting personal. (Would he mock a liberal he disagreed with by bringing up a previous drug problem? I doubt it.) And is it wise for any network to allow the talent to make programming decisions?

It is clear that FOX has it voice, and MSNBC-Keith is developing its own. Whether it results in ratings and advertisment revenues remains to be seen. What's truly important is that viewers understand they are watching commentary. Occasionally, the line between opinion and straight news gets blurry. Newspapers have it easy. They have "news" pages and "editorial" pages. Television is different, and the mixing of the two is growing.