sorry for the downvote sir, after watching this I recant.....showing the bitch's true colors will help to insure that we are not striken with her as the leader of the country, whatever that means anymore........

...realize this is an older story, I was looking for a clip of the Senior's recent on-air schizm, blubbering on camera for all nations to see, as he speaks of his progeny's sucess, yadda yadda, how he's "so proud".....THESE GUY ARE MORE DANGEROUS NOW THAN EVER!
Do not be naive sifters, this is public display of weakness
to most world leaders, and a real SNAFU of true colors by Herbert Walker Beast-Scary thing is, he's been in world politics long enough to know better...

this posted viddy is one of many examples of their insidious lack of dacor , not to mention, every time they open their mouths, a swarm of demonic wasps and flies pour out....

Peter Wallsten is a legally blind reporter, for the LA Times
abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2077873&page=1

...above link is the way it played out later.....

...I'm as conservative as they come, in many ways, which is why I think it proper to make a public spectacle of these guys, stocks are this sifter's suggestion, (not the insider-trading type) and now, more than ever, "Can we impeach this dangerous mthrfkr, and replace him with a Snowglobe, or a Cray....... SOMETHING????!!..

not comedy but 1 vote for seeing the true colors

I wonder if they were concerned about the "gimmick" getting stale. Big stars being showing their true colors...the switch might have been to try and keep it fresh.

Or there may be a timeline, like The Office. Maybe it was only meant for 2 seasons.

That's just sad on Olberman's part. Everyone knows these guys don't like each other, but I've never seen O'reilly come anywhere close to the sort of vengeful, glib, diatribe that Olbermann just pulled off. It's not part of O'reilly's mission statement to waste his time on "pissing contests", as another post put it. In the past, O'reilly has shown that he'll respond and usually invite the attacker to come on his show...but I've never seen him insult his audience's intelligence like Olbermann just did. ...over getting a piece of history incorrect (or saying Malmedy when he may have meant something else)? What's he on...like 250 broadcast hours a year? He's going to make mistakes. One of the things about O'reilly is that he'll actually admit when he's wrong (along with attacking Republicans and holding blatantly liberal views...yes, I've seen it with my own eyes. So while he's definitely conservative, he's also far from being a staunch republican--technically, he votes independent. Simply put, he's one of the most opinionated people you'll find, and if what he thinks isn't what the Republican party or the Bush administration thinks, he'll say so), so it would have been nice to see him admit a mistake...but it's possible he was talking of an event that really did happen but he was just calling it the wrong name, in which case I can see why he'd be less willing to admit a mistake, he does have a sizeable ego for sure.

But does it really matter? Does getting this one bit of history wrong mean there aren't dozens of other similar events just as convincing? Why does Olberman assume we won't ask ourselves this question? And is Olberman really trying to suggest O'reilly is a slanderer of US soldiers by nature? It's such a flimsy point picking apart a relatively (being the operative word) insignificant mistake while masked as news. Is he trying to steal Jon Stewart's thunder? At least The Daily Show doesn't pretend to be trustworthy news.

In a sense I'm glad because Olbermann let his true colors show enough that it's clear he can't be trusted to report news.