As you know if you’ve been anywhere near a TV, radio, newspaper, website, or single other human being in the last 24 hours, yesterday South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford confessed to an extramarital affair with a woman in Argentina. The Columbia, SC newspaper The State immediately published e-mails it had obtained months ago between Sanford and the woman, “Maria,” and… boy, are they steamy. But not in a dirty way, really. Kind of clumsy, but obviously heartfelt. Not to say that what he’s done is right, but this is no quickie with an intern; he’s clearly in love with this woman. Speaking only for myself, I’d be very happy to get e-mails like that from anybody who wasn’t under a court order to stay away from me.
One observer who wasn’t quite as impressed with Sanford’s wooing technique was MSNBC’s second-loudest mouth (and a distant second in his timeslot), Keith Olbermann:
If you watched all 7 minutes of that without getting paid for it, you’re probably eligible for some sort of medal.
Among those unimpressed in turn with Olbermann was this Daily Kos diarist:
Keith Olbermann, he who likes to give out the worst person in the world award, has just garnered the prize from me for the biggest piece of crap in the world…
Personally I don’t believe Sanford or his mistress should be spared even the tiniest bit of embarrassment for their actions. People need to live their consequences. That said, in this grown-up world of politics we have forgotten that there are four innocent lives, five actually, whose only transgression was that by choice or involuntarily they were involved with Mark Sanford. Have you no decency man?
As I listened to him sarcastically reading the e-mails written between Sanford and his mistress, correspondence I sure they both believed would stay private, I kept imagining Olbermann as that pervert in a dirty movie studio choking his chicken underneath his trenchcoat.
Yeeowtch! Well, it is kind of tough to imagine, oh, Edward R. Murrow taking such fiendish delight in, say, JFK’s mash notes to Marilyn. If the treatment of a disgraced Republican is beyond the pale even for a Daily Kos diarist, it might be time for Olbermann to take a step back.
Particularly considering Kreepy Keith’s own problems with embarrassing leaked e-mails!
A few years back, a woman calling herself KarmaBites1 filled up the gossip pages with tales of Olbermann’s rather, um, limp approach to dating. Page Six, 10/06/06:
A brown-haired beauty who claims she had an unsatisfying one-night stand with Keith Olbermann is getting her sweet revenge — she’s launched a blog to warn other women about the acerbic MSNBC commentator’s boorish bedroom habits.
The bitter babe, who calls herself KarmaBites1, says she doesn’t want others “to fall into the same trap… and I want him to feel some remorse for what he’s done…”
A 30-something office worker of Caribbean descent, KarmaBites1 said she struck up an e-mail friendship with Olbermann, whom she admired, and agreed to fly to New York to meet him last May. She says he came to her hotel room and opened a bottle of Merlot which he “spilled all over.” Then, when “sexual activity began [in] less than an hour,” Olbermann had difficulty. “I pretended he knew what he was doing,” the embittered blogger writes. “I adored the guy. I didn’t want him to think he was a dud in bed,” so she faked experiencing ecstasy.
Next, he piled on excuses as to why he had to leave. “He told me he’s an insomniac and that it’s hard for him not to sleep in his own bed. He also mentioned he hadn’t had ‘company’ in a while. [He said] he had an early meeting with the Yankees [and] he might be allergic to the pillows in the hotel bed.”
Six days later, she claims, Olbermann e-mailed her to tell her never to contact him again.
Nice! It’s interesting that he brought up the Yankees, considering he had just missed his at-bat.
The KarmaBites1 blog was called forthisreliefmuchthanks.blogspot.com. It was named for the Hamlet quote that she claimed was Olbermann’s farewell to her as he skittered off with his, er, rapier between his legs. And if that doesn’t sound like something Keith Olbermann would say as he awkwardly exited a bungled one-night stand, I don’t know what does.
Soon after, KarmaBites1 threatened to release 100 e-mails she claimed Olbermann had sent her, but apparently she never did. And Olbermann has never commented on any of it one way or another. She took down her blog the next July, or at least made it unavailable to the public, and it’s not archived at the Internet Wayback Machine:
We’re sorry, access to http://forthisreliefmuchthanks.blogspot.com has been blocked by the site owner via robots.txt.
Weird! Yet oddly familiar.
Well, if you know where a humble blogger can find a copy of any of that stuff, or if you have contact info for KarmaBites1, I’d be glad to provide the same sort of intelligent, evenhanded analysis we just saw from Mr. Olbermann.
It’s the least I can do, Keith!
Update: Are Mary Carey, Rebecca Lobo, and Olbermann’s old social studies teacher available for comment? (Hat tip to commenter Iowahawk!)
Update: Intrepid journalist Keith Olbermann has blown the lid off yet another pill bottle! I mean conspiracy! He takes to the Daily Kos to tell his detractors: “Be forewarned: you may be part of a plan to make it look like I’m under siege by the Left.” Or people just might not like your behavior, Keith, even though it’s targeting somebody you don’t like. I know it sounds crazy.
Update: A past Olbermann response to criticism: “Kill yourself.” Gotta balance out the screeds of hatred coming from the right!
Related posts:
- Keith Olbermann Counts Down His Bailout Money There’s nobody you can trust more to tell you who...
- Keith Olbermann Presents an Appeal to Calm and Reason I’m not sure what I can add to this: (Whoops!...
- Shanna Moakler: Paragon of Morality On Tuesday, Miss California Carrie Prejean was allowed to keep...
- Captain America Not Welcome at This Tea Party So, is it just me or do some people have...
- We Get It, Gwyneth: America Stinks Gaunt GOOPmistress Gwyneth Paltrow is at it again! Remember a...
Last time I checked Keith was not the Governor of a State, he was not a “family-values” Christian, he has no wife and no children.
So what if he had a one night stand, so what if he was bad at it, so what if he is a bit sleazy in his personal life. There is simply no comparison between him and an elected married offical who has an affair. NONE. So while Keith was certainly over the top, he did have a reason to go there. Your slime post has no basis to exist at all.
So: Olbermann is a self-appointed moral arbiter, and has very loose morals himself. And these, somehow, are points in his favor. Hmm.
You’re playing!
I watch Keith Olbermann, but like with all political pundit commentators, I take him with a grain of salt.
Really that’s all people should do with any commentator. Fox, MSNBC, CNN, doesn’t matter.
You know, while Sanford’s actions are pretty much indefensible, I can see where Olbermann is coming from. Put yourself in his place. I mean, imagine you’re a pixiedi*k, you get veiny-faced on a daily basis on national TV (admittedly, only your mom and her poolboy are watching), and here’s an elected official, scootching the bootch WITH A HOTTIE. Not once, but long-term. The injustice of it all!
Hmmmm, first, the New York Post isn’t exactly a credible source, given that it’s owned by Murdoch and regularly twists and distorts stories. Given the history of Olbermann and Murdoch, it wouldn’t surprise me in the least to discover that they had concocted stories of a tryst between Olbermann and some woman with hopes of taking a shot at him for coverage of O’Reilly’s affair. I mean really, you’re talking about something that is completely undocumented here. Can’t you do better than that? Second, Olbermann has never been among the Christian fundamentalists blowhards telling everyone else about the sanctity of marriage and how to live their lives. The whole problem with Olbermann’s rant last night was thinking that somehow the letters were at all relevant to the issue of the governor’s hypocrisy or his abuse of his office. This is a pretty idiotic post.
And he’s never fought back when somebody says something about him that isn’t true? If he went on the Tonight Show and called out Ann Coulter for questioning his Ivy League credentials, would he really keep quiet about the Post making this up?
Can’t you?
True, he doesn’t use Christian fundamentalism as he’s telling people how to live their lives.
You sound upset.
Apples and oranges. Olbermann is not married, so even if he did have a tryst with this alleged woman, he wouldn’t be out of bounds morally. Suggesting that this is somehow equivalent to what Sanford did is itself a form of hypocrisy because it’s comparing two things that are entirely different. Nor do I see how Olbermann is telling anyone how to live their lives. There is nothing wrong with suggesting that people should practice what they preach, or that they should simply cease preaching certain things altogether. While Sanford would certainly still be in hot water had he not been among the “family values”/”sanctity of marriage” nutjobs for going AWOL and using taxpayer money to fund his affair, his affair wouldn’t be as big an issue as he wouldn’t have spent his political career as a scold trying to legislate other people’s personal lives. As for why Olbermann did not address these allegations but did in the case of his Ivy League credentials, why would he? As the old maxim goes, you can’t prove a negative. Were he to address these allegations, which themselves have no documentation, and in which there is no woman who has come forward publicly under her real name, he would only be giving steam to the story. Why even entertain the story? And more importantly, even if the story is true, given that Olbermann is single, holds no public office, and does not preach about waiting until marriage, why is it anyone else’s business?
What an interesting opinion.
Your logic is truly breathtaking in its complete absence.
He gets paid a lot of money to do so every night.
Because he’s not one to let a slight go unanswered. He’s gone to the mattresses (pun intended) for a lot less than this.
This isn’t proving a negative. This is pointing out his silence on something a lot worse than other things he’s vigorously defended.
Because he’s a public figure, and he just poked through this guy’s closet when he’s got skeletons in his own.
Next rant, please?
Rebecca Lobo, Mary Carey and Mrs. Rice were not available for comment.
http://www.olbermannwatch.com/archives/2007/03/why_is_keith_ol.php
http://www.olbermannwatch.com/archives/2007/03/did_keith_olber.php
http://www.olbermannwatch.com/archives/2006/04/ko_hired_detect.php
ROFLOL @ Beige….scootching the bootch……
Otherwise, I don’t care what Olberman did or couldn’t do…..he’s not an elected official that left his job. Did the guv’s aides know where he was? Did the wife know? Did they ALL lie and knew he was getting his groove on?
The man left his job for a little slap and tickle. If you walked off YOUR job for a game of hide the sausage, and got busted by your boss in the middle of lying about it would you still have a job?
Ah, Simon, I am so glad to find someone on my side! The Huffpost (which I do adore) is full of people like Alec Baldwin and washed up ex-hippies who pat themselves on the back because at least during their indiscretions in life they never had any ideals to begin with. It is a mind-boggling trend of justification.
Did you forget about your analysis of John Edwards? Doesn’t he have kids that could be hurt by the disclosures? Deceiver should get a Deceiver for this one. I don’t see any difference in your treatment of Edwards and this situation.
Simon: “So: Olbermann is a self-appointed moral arbiter, and has very loose morals himself. And these, somehow, are points in his favor. Hmm.”
No, the Governor was the self-appointed moral arbiter but, of course, he couldn’t live up to the standards he holds everyone else too. I have never heard Olbermann preaching about sexuality except in the freedom sense (unlike the Palin’s) so what he does, even if it is immoral, is not hypocritical.
Simon: “If he went on the Tonight Show and called out Ann Coulter for questioning his Ivy League credentials…” He does have Ivy League credentials. If I had the same credentials & someone lied on national TV about it, I would certainly stand up for myself too. What does this have to do with anything?
“Suggesting that this is somehow equivalent to what Sanford did is itself a form of hypocrisy because it’s comparing two things that are entirely different.”
Simon: “Your logic is truly breathtaking in its complete absence.” Great comeback. You obviously had nothing intelligent to say so you resort to your normal behavior, insults.
And, Simon, he doesn’t get paid for telling people how to run their lives. That’s the job of Fox. He gives the liberal point of view and that is not telling people how to run their lives. As far as I know, he has never said “do as I say, not as I do”. He never claimed to be a Christian conservative nor has he told anyone else what they should be doing in their sex lives. The slight went unanswered because there is nothing there — not even a real name of the woman or any proof that it is true. Even if he is bad in bed and a terrible date, he has every right to be!! He also didn’t spend TAX PAYER money on his affair, which is illegal. I think he has every right to criticize illegal actions.
Very happy to see that Deceiver fans agree (except Simon). Shows that we all are thinkers and don’t go for the knee-jerk, anti-liberal bandwagon if it isn’t warranted.
Meh. There’s a difference between being politically stridant, and being morally stridant, and in general, Keith keeps his ranting to political matters, or socio-economic-factors that are strongly politically linked.
Regarding the anonymous woman with the blog, what would be the point in him calling her out? He called out Coulter because A) her attack on him was extremely public, B) it was something he could easily refute, and C) directly contradicted his own representation of himself, implying he was lying about something. Whereas this random blog A) was un-public enough that him denying the allegations would probably have gotten it more attention then it was getting on it’s own, B) would be hard to disprove, as it would be a case of he-says-she-says, and C) does not call into question his professional standing as it was entirely unrelated to his job.
As to why she took the blog down, presumably either she knew it was a lie, or she decided herself not to pursue it for whatever reason.
You can say it as many times as you want, but even leaving morals out of it, there is a huge difference between an elected official disappearing for several days (an elected official who has, in the past, argued that legalising same-sex marriage would damage traditional marriage) to conduct and affair, one which he has (most likely, according to recent reports) used tax payer money to fund in part previously, and a single, television presenter having an unsuccessful one-night-stand.
Finally, whether you like him or not, Keith serves an important function in Cable news, which is to balance out the screeds of hatred coming from the right. Himself and O’Reilly are like Neo and Agent Smith, both existing to balance each other out.
If the governor in question was a Democrat, the attacks coming from Fox News would be equal to this, if not worse.
And then reading the first guy’s e-mails mockingly on the air, after making whatever deal he had to make to shut up the woman threatening to leak his own saucy e-mails. That seems like a fairly important detail.
I think maybe he’s overbalancing a bit. Has O’Reilly ever done something like this? I honestly don’t know.
If you’re talking about Sanford, as I said yesterday, he should resign.
Look, either his status as an elected official is important or it’s not. Can’t be both.
He sure isn’t doing it for free, bright eyes.
Ugh, so effing sick of people with no morals harping when someone with them screws up!!! I agree, it’s a problem what he did. I agree with Deceiver that hypocrisy should be called out. I agree that it’s incredibly frustrating that yet another polititian is talking out of both sides of their mouth. I’m not justifying any of it, but my gosh — I’d rather have some morals and make mistakes than just believe nothing is a mistake! The messenger getting shot down should not also shoot the message.
As for what Olberman did, it was over the top and anyone who’s watched him before with open eyes knows the hate behind it… however, I’ve heard other people read much, much smaller excerpts sarcastically (and without laughing at them) and it didn’t bug me as much.
“And, Simon, he doesn’t get paid for telling people how to run their lives. That’s the job of Fox. He gives the liberal point of view and that is not telling people how to run their lives.”
Yeah, because Liberals never try to butt into our lives. Just because they don’t often try to interfere in our BEDROOMS does not mean they don’t interfere in our lives.
How many Republicans have pushed anti-smoking legislation? How many Republicans have pushed for junk food taxes or tried to ban trans fat? How many Republicans passed laws to limit the access law-abiding citizens have to firearms? How many Republicans have passed laws telling you what kind of car you have to drive, or what mileage it has to get? How many Republicans want to raise gas taxes so we can all be environmentally friendly while strangling our economy?
How many Republicans want to tell you what kind of medical insurance you can get, or if you have to pay for others’ against your will. How many Republicans advocate charity by force through welfare programs and social entitlements? How many Republicans want MORE of my hard earned money to fuel a government bureaucracy that, guess what, EXISTS TO TELL YOU WHAT TO DO WITH YOUR LIFE.
But Republicans don’t like gay marriage, so THEY are the ones who interfere in our lives right? Because that effects way more people than all the stuff I mentioned before.
Meh. So maybe reading the emails out was a little much. The fact that there is possibly some random woman out there he couldn’t get it up with, who claimed she had humiliating details about him, but failed to produce them doesn’t actually make that worse.
The fact that the information you have on this woman is so tenuous makes it look more like you have a personal issue with Olbermann then there’s actually something here to attack him on. Maybe, those ‘100 emails’ had been released, and he’d kicked up a huge fuss about them, then you’d have something to nail him on. As it is, aside from being a little vulgar, he hasn’t done more then lots of other news people who’ve read parts of the letters out, and some of them probably have far bigger skeletons in their cupboards.
What about the fact that lots of right-wingers who were up in arms about Clinton or Edwards are curiously silent? (What about the fact that Sanford himself argued that Clinton should have to resign over his affair?) Those could be some actual hypocrites, instead of this not-the-nicest-thing-in-the-world-but-not-particularly-hypocritical-unless-you’re-buying-into-an-entirely-anonymous-and-unsubstantiated-rumour?
And Scott F? Gay marriage has yet to kill anyone.
Duckgirlie has been digging a little too deep. She knows too much about the conspiracy. Pity. She was a lovely young woman.
Oh, and kids? “Meh” might not be as incisive as you intend.
“And Scott F? Gay marriage has yet to kill anyone.”
Yeah, neither has global warming.
Yawn, another cheating pol. Only thing that Sanford has over some of the other adultering politicians: at least he was forthright (when caught), and he didn’t trot out his long-suffering wife.
None of that excruciating “it depends upon what the meaning of the word is is” crap.
MAN. Looks like you Olbermann knob-polishers would be busy with the Daily Kos, or did you get banned for being too left-wing for them? You’re conveniently ignoring the fact that Deceiver and its posters have pretty much agreed that Sanford ought to resign. Ain’t nobody baking him cookies over here.
As for right-wing hatred, get back to us when Prop 8 protesters are done with beating up old ladies with signs and screwing on church altars. Scott F., as usual, is right on the money. Liberals are doing their level best to screw with every aspect of our lives, but conservatives who dare to express their beliefs legally, by voting, are hatemongers. You people are unbefrigginglievable.
Did the NYT and this idiot report about that rapist Clinton being in Argentina at the same time
http://thesuperficial.com/2009/06/bill_clinton_paid_10000_for_th.php?bfm_index=1#entrycontainer
You know, Beige,all of KO’s histrionics would likely cause hypertension which can lead to ED. Not to mention alchohol on top of everything else. A guy with an ag degree should know better.
Well gay marraige is legal in at least 3 states, right? Mark Sanford’s marraige looks like it’s in jeopardy. Coincidence?
duckgirlie
Did Sanford want Clinton to resign over the affair or lying under oath about the affair?
How much did his affair cost the taxpayers, btw? He probably got the most expensive BJ in the world.
Well, I personally think that Olbermann is pretty funny for the most part, but hey, that’s just me. I could really care less what he does in his personal life. Besides, did this woman not recognize a booty call? If not, then she’s not gettin’ any either. *lol*
As for cheating politicians – each side makes it out to be a huge scandal when someone on the opposite side has an affair. So it wasn’t unexpected that Olbermann (or any other of the liberal aspect of the media) would bash the crap outta him. But they shouldn’t be surprised when their dirty laundry comes out that the conservative media treats them exactly like they were treated. Perhaps all this stems from Clinton’s affair. And I didn’t care about it then either. I think it’s none of my concern. But I can see how it would warrant a mention here. If you’re going to harp on someone else’s decaying morals, make sure you have no skeletons with fuzzy cuffs in your own closet.
Pinandpuller, you’re on my “I’ma bake you a pie” list. HEE!
“Yeah, neither has global warming.”
ZING!!
“But Republicans don’t like gay marriage, so THEY are the ones who interfere in our lives right? ”
The Republicans are the only ones who think they have a right to shine their flashlights under our sheets at night over something that doesn’t affect anyone but the parties involved (unless someone is being forced or something, of course.) Some states even ban specific consensual sexual acts among married people. How do you prove that anyway?? And, recently, there have been many marriage advocates that obviously don’t believe in marriage either, such as Sanford.
And the Democrats are the ones who want to control every other aspect of your life. Welcome to America.
Beige
YAY!
“But Republicans don’t like gay marriage, so THEY are the ones who interfere in our lives right? ”
The Republicans are the only ones who think they have a right to shine their flashlights under our sheets at night over something that doesn’t affect anyone but the parties involved (unless someone is being forced or something, of course.) Some states even ban specific consensual sexual acts among married people. How do you prove that anyway?? And, recently, there have been many marriage advocates that obviously don’t believe in marriage either, such as Sanford.
-sez BB.
It wasn’t Republicans alone that carried Prop 8.
And if I come looking under your sheets I’d better use an LED flashlight with solar rechargeable batteries; or if they’re not rechargable I’d better take them to the correct recycling facility. And by God you had better not be using lambskin condoms because that’s cruel to animals.
Looking under sheets is more likely to turn up a Democrat anyway-so where’s the fun in that?
I just noticed the line you used about,”marraige advocates that obviously don’t believe in marraige either, such as Sandford.”
Really, what is a marraige advocate? Is it someone who gives referals? Is it a guy who comes on late-night tv asking,”Have you been hurt in a singles bar? I’m Henry J Wadsworth and I’m on YOUR side.”
If you are a proponent of so called “gay marraige” then I guess that you don’t believe in marraige either. You have something in common with Gov Sanford-join his Tango class.
A gay male has the same rights as I do. I cannot marry another man.
Ask Martina Navritalova how equality is working out.
Simon, as I posted on another topic on this blog, I too believe the Gov. is in love. This has been going on for 8 years. Maybe not the sex part but the connection. This isn’t a convenient office romance or a sidwalk affair. Apparently his wife is “willing to forgive him”. (passive agressive) This will make for a very unhappy future for both of them and their kids.
What’s wrong with marriage is that around 50% of them end in divorce. In my very conservative state of Oklahoma, I believe the rate is higher. It has nothing to do with other people’s relationships. It has to do with the ONE relationship and the couples inability to commit or willingness to ride out the storms. My best guess is gay marriage will follow the same path once the couples start feeling the strains of commitment.
Happy Camper, what is passive-aggressive about Mrs. Sanford being willing to forgive her husband? He’s transgressed against her, and she wants to work things out. Why are you attacking her for that? And by the way, being in love is not a valid excuse for adultery, despite what millions of people think and assert.
So you’re saying…we should give up altogether on the concept? And turn to…what? The vaunted caveman method? That’ll be a great way to make our society more stable and to shore up people’s values.
Yes, the Republicans are all about personal freedoms. It’s just A TOTAL COINCIDENCE that all the personal freedoms they advocate are the ones with links to multi-million dollar lobby groups. Whereas the personal freedoms that won’t earn them any money to advocate for tend not to be on their radar.
As for ‘I can’t marry a male either’… Wow, I never thought I’d actually see someone use that argument seriously, so I’m going to assume you’re joking. And if you’re not, it doesn’t matter. When gay marriage is legal, they still won’t have any more rights then you. Then you’ll be able to marry a male as well. The fact that you don’t personally want to is pretty irrelevant.
Because all abortions are free…? And after your third one, you get a trip to Six Flags? WTF?
It’s a good thing Obama kept his promise to ban lobbyists. Oh, he didn’t?
Oh, those darn Republicans and their huge prayer-in-schools lobby. I just got ANOTHER fundraising call from Big Prayer. SHOO, you overfunded praying pests, I told them. SHOO!
“…scootching the bootch WITH A HOTTIE.”
If you’ve seen the pictures of her that have surfaced, she’s not the 20-something South American bombshell we were probably all hoping for. Not uggers, but hottie she ain’t.
http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/uploads/maria_belen_shapur_001.jpg
http://www.examiner.com/x-7311-Cultural-Trends-Examiner~y2009m6d26-Maria-Belen-Shapur-photo-Argentinean-mistress-of-Governor-Mark-Sanford-looks-like-his-wife-video
I know they look pretty different because of the brows and hair, so I’m assuming that the bottom pic is older or something.
duckgirlie
No, if they legalize gay marraige I still won’t be able to marry another man until they legalize polygamy.
I suppose that I can legally have an affair with another man or a woman though, as long as I don’t do it in South Carolina.
Wow, I need to make a to do list. What’s a nongender specific word for “honey”?
You forget, this is the political arena we’re talking about. A baggy-eyed Irish mobster once held the highest office in our land and was considered hot, despite the fact that had he been running a grocery store, he’d have been doing well to get winks from the old ladies squeezing the produce. Around thirty years later, we (well, some of us) elected a redneck gin-blossom with a penchant for rape and sexual harassment, despite the fact that he looked like a life-support system for a nose; he was “hot” because he played the sax and because he rode anything with hair.
The bar is lower, is what I’m saying here.
Beige,
Now that is halarious!!!
Some body needs to tell Mark Sanford to shut up. If my husband told me his mistress was his soulmate and that he’d give her up and try to fall back in love with me, he’d be picking pieces of himself off of the front driveway.
No, we shouldn’t give up on marriage. The 50% who rush to divorce court should work harder at their marriage, unless they are being abused. They should quit blaming other people for their problems and work them out. Ask anyone whose been married for a long time and they will tell you marriage survives because you learn to survive the hard times and grow stronger together. Getting married one week and divorced the next doesn’t give you time to learn to survive and become each others family.