Olbermann is a lying, gutless coward and the biggest hack in the history of television.

I wouldn't be overly concerned about Oblermann. When a jackass brays and no one is watching or listening, does it make a sound?

For what it's worth, as someone who has written things about Judge Sotomayor that are either neutral (summarizing her opinions) or favorable (rebutting the charge of racism), I've had the chance to have several exchanges with Stuart about her.  My impression is that Stuart has had concerns, but that he has been focused on important points and quite thoughtful.

You are absolutely right, Stuart, to call Olberman out for his hyperbole.  Nonetheless, your suggestion that this 19 or 20 year-old's letter served as "evidence that she was predisposed to look for the worst" in Princeton is shameful.  As you well know from having attended, Princeton then in particular was dominated entirely by the privileged elite, with an active organization (CAP, of which Justice Alito was a member) dedicated overtly to limiting the admission  of women and minorities.  Advocating for greater representation of Latinos among students, faculty, and curriculum (where sorely lacking) hardly serves as "evidence" of anything but its goals.  Her extraordinary accomplishments also serve as "evidence" that she made the most of her opportunities there, and undercut your incredible suggestion significantly. 

Was Sam Alito's membership in CAP evidence he was "predisposed to look for the worst"  Princeton?  Did you write about it?

If a cable host makes outrages and malicious statements - but no one watching - did it really happen or do we even care?

I suspect  Olbermann is right.  In any event anyone who writes for that reactionary rag, National Journal, deserves eerything he or she gets.  And then some!

 It is good to reflect that Ogre Man's epitaph will read: "Too Dumb for ESPN."

As for the Princeton letter, it reveals not that Sotomayor objected to a school dominated by an elite who made it difficult for "outsiders" to penetrate, but that she was miffed that it was hard for her -and people she identified with- to become one of the dominant group. Thus, her documented rude demeanor on the bench exposes not an "empathy" for the pleaders but a reveling in the exercise of institutional power.

While I appreciate your frustration with the sports guy, I really do think the only person happy about this exchange today is Olbermann himself. At least somebody is paying attention to something he said. In my opinion, somewhat akin to Joan's earlier, the longer you go without watering these hothouse tomatoes, the sooner they'll dry up and blow away.

"dedicated overtly to limiting the admission  of women and minorities"

Nonsense. This is precisely the problem with racially-motivated argumentation: you can make these kind of broad, baseless claims, provide zero evidence, and then move on. 

What proof do you have that any aspect of this institution, organized and official or otherwise, actively tried to "limit admission of women and minorities"? The answer, of course, is none. We are just expected to accept your (and Sotomayor's) statement as truth because you say it, and we're supposed to believe everything we hear from/about non-white-males when the subject is discrimination.

You also might be interested to know that Alito is Italian-American (a group that was historically a victim of discrimination and racism, like Jewish-Americans, Irish-Americans, and on and on). He spoke openly of this during his confirmation hearings. 

Carl W Goss displays the essense of liberal reasoning.....

I disagree that she is truly a racist, but merely a proponent of her own race, which of course is strickly forbidden for white people to openly state. Lets not forget that Obamaton voted no to both Alito and Roberts, within the spirit of bipartisanship of course. Instead of Sottomayor I would rather see Obama testify why he tried to deny Bush his Presidential preorgative, but his ankle biting minions on the left Untermench will attack anyone who even questions his.  Its so amazing to ponder that Justice Scalia was confirmed 96-0 by the Senate, a vastly different era.

To "Anti Wilson"

Actually, AW, the record on CAP is clear. Concerned Alumni of Princeton was formed in 1972 following Princeton’s decision to admit women for the first time in 1969. CAP published a magazine, "Prospect," in which CAP founder Shelby Cullom Davis in 1973 harkened back to the days when a gathering of Princeton alumni consisted of "a body of men, relatively homogeneous in interests and backgrounds." Cullom Davis wrote: "I cannot envisage a similar happening in the future with an undergraduate student population of approximately 40% women and minorities, such as the Administration has proposed."

Another 1973 Prospect article bemoaned the fact that "the makeup of the Princeton student body has changed drastically for the worse" in recent years--Princeton had begun admitting women in 1969--and wondered aloud what might happen if the university adopted a "sex-blind" policy "removing limits on the number of women." In an unsuccessful effort to forestall this development, the executive committee of CAP published a statement in December 1973 that affirmed unequivocally, "Concerned Alumni of Princeton opposes adoption of a sex-blind admission policy."

There can be little question that Princeton in 1973 and 1974 was a bastion of privilege, can there? One would think that Ms. Sotomayor’s efforts are worthy of praise, just as the efforts of Thurgood Marshall to expand the rights of minorities were heroic, and not, I think, "evidence that he was predisposed to look for the worst" in America.

Stuart Taylor: Epic FAIL. Learn the facts before you go off on a ragegasm. Ok?

Didn't think it was possible for you to turn up the notch on teh stoopid...but you get the gold medal!

Once again, with bells on: An op-ed wirten by a student over 30 years ago to protest discrimination counts....legal writings by Alito 20 years ago don't...

As they say in princess bride...."you keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means..."

Has Olbermann ever had a legitimate debate with an opposing opinion in the history of his show?

Not that I've ever seen.

He's perfect for the shrinking left wing echo chamber.

Stuart, we get it. You love conservative, white guys. You consider them to the America's center. You think they should be in charge of everything.

Also, like most conservatives, you refuse to own your opinions and throw a tantrum when you are criticized.

  My impression is that Stuart has had concerns, but that he has been focused on important points and quite thoughtful.

Tom, I think you may be imputing way too much good faith. Did your thoughtful exchanges include a discussion of how Mr. Taylor was certain that the "exceptionally controversial" [!] Judge Sotomayor merely "masquerades as a moderate" -- a claim backed up by zero evidence? Did it include a discussion of the important point about how Mr. Taylor believes Sotomayor to be a racialist for her "wise Latina" speech. Please. This guy is the opposite of thoughtful. He's a hack.

 Ok, let's see... Olbermann is not objective, so he's not a journalist.  Olbermann is not charismatic, so he's not an actor.  His facts are wrong, so he's not diligent or truthful.  His observations are not clever or original, so you can't call him an expert on anything, nor a real thinker.  He has no real background or achievements (except maybe at ESPN, before he got fired), so he's not a good employee.  He's not rich, so he can't really buy his friends.  His ratings put him in last place behind every other network and anchor, even the new ones like Rachel Maddow... so he's not a winner. (His audience of about 600 are probably all socially awkward)  He's not even funny, so you can't call him a comedian.  What's left?

Buffoon... Clown (not even a good one)... Cautionary Tale... Loser.... LOSER.... I'll go with Loser (a lonely one)

Mr. Taylor,

Thank you, thank you, thank you for your response to Keith Olbermann's mischaracteriztion of your commentary.  As a regular viewer of his program, he often spends much of his hour on air disparaging people including writers as yourself and even ordinary citizens (who may make it into the news thanks to YouTube).  Few if any of the people he attacks ever respond to him by calling him out.  I commend you for what you have done here.  Please keep up the good work!

I don't take Olbermann seriously -- certainly no more seriously than I take Stuart Taylor, for whom I have no respect whatever. Stuart, I'd call you a partisan hack, but that really doesn't do you justice.

Taylor, you wingnut propaganda shill, you've hung yourself with your own owrds, but evidently you are too blind and stupid to realize it. Where is your eloquent defense of Sotamayor's 15-year judicial record? What a phony you are!

Olberdork and MSNBC are really a disgrace.  They management over there are obviously not really very smart.  Can they not see their ratings plummet?  Hey people, the election of the Messiah is over, now start covering this administration instead of whining about Rush, Bush and republicans.  Geezzzz.  Good work Stuart

So, you debate Keith Obermann by saying that she described Princeton as a "genocidal prison."

Wow.

In his response to Olbermann, Mr. Taylor continues to deepen the hole that he initially dug for himself. To quote his response: "Sotomayor's language ... made Princeton sound a bit like a genocidal dictatorship." It is precisely language like this that is attracting a great deal of justified criticism from MSNBC commentators these days. Taylor's assertion that Sotomayor's letter characterizes Princeton as a "genocial dictatorship" is an unwarranted distortion.  The words "genocide" and "dictatorship" are very strong words, and they should not be used lightly or casually - one means intentional mass murder, and the other a complete absence of personal freedom and rule of law. Taylor's very casual use of these strong words, and his relentless attack on a letter written 35 years ago by a group of undergraduate students who wanted to bring about change in their university's practices, is not worthy of respect. Olbermann was right to call him on his first post, and he should call him on this second post .

Bryan wrote,

The words "genocide" and "dictatorship" are very strong words, and they should not be used lightly or casually.

This in defense of someone who regularly labels his political opponents the "worst people in the world."  That made me giggle.

 Keith who?

You should never underestimate your enemy.  Even if you dislike Olbermann his ratings are good, so people ARE watching.  He is just the liberal form of a Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck or Bill O'Reilly.  While he is often just as wrong about issues, and just as biased... I give him some credit for at least being funny at times. 

In regards to the Sotomayor issue.  I believe most conservatives were geared up for a war regardless of who was nominated.  When Obama didnt simply just pick the most liberal justice available, and instead picked someone pristinely qualified with little to no idealogical sympathies, those same conservatives were presented with a major problem.  How do you attack someone who deserves the job without being held in contempt?  Well they found one line of a speech, went at it for a few days, saw the polling data wasnt good on their tactics and reversed.  Turns out they eventually read some actual court decisions and noticed she wasnt some idealogue and would be far less liberal than the justice she is replacing.

The game of politics in Washington is rather old and predictable.

Olberman, Hannity, O'Reily, Beck, they are all the same:  game show hosts, not journalists.  They have no devotion to the facts, and all frequently lie, distort reality, and then hypocritically come out against what they argued for a few shows later.  Pay no mind to any of these morons...read a newspaper

STUART TAYLOR:

Official Scribe For The Village.

The notion that Stuart Taylor is a hack conveys the terminal silliness of partisan politics in America. Nuts on the left and whackos on the right. Thank you Mr. Taylor, for your moderate, enlightened and perceptive judicial commentary.

I like Olbermann.  I have since his early days as a sports guy on CNN.  He speaks well, is funny and clever, but I long ago learned to take his "journalism" with a grain of salt.  Frankly, he comes at the news like a lawyer, not a journalism -- he has his preconceived viewpoint and then cherry picks the "facts" that back them up. 

Still...as long as one watches Olbermann and his spiritual brother, O'Reilly, for entertainment, I don't see any problem.

Just who is Keith Oberman anyway?  Why does anyone care what he has to say?  Wasn't he once a weather reporter or something?  Does he even have a qualified American education?  Anyone who advances hate and ridicule via the public airways surely can't be considered relevant.  Why don't we take up a collection for his needed intellectual endowment and offer to drive him to Jeremiah Wright's church.  He should feel right at home.