Either Relevant or True » Let’s Hope They Agree to Disagree

Keith answers his detractors on the FISA reversal, specifically Glenn Greenwald;

I don’t know much about Mr. Greenwald and I didn’t read his full piece, but I do know that the snippet he’s taken out of the transcript of my conversation with Jon Alter last night makes it sound like I was saying defying the left was a good thing. I was actually contrasting it to not cowering to the Republicans, simply as a different thing. Same point, in essence, tonight with John Harwood. It certainly does underscore the degree to which the presumptive nominee trusts his own mind. Did Mr. Greenwald note that I asked if we shouldn’t worry that this Obamaian certainty could turn into something like President “My Way Or The Highway” Bush, or did he leave that out?

Mr. Greenwald follows up:

Despite his having packed his response with substance-free invective, I’m going to keep the reply as dispassionate as possible because I’m not interested in engaging in some personality-driven spat of the type that he seems to enjoy. What’s more, in the scheme of things, I don’t consider Keith Olbermann to be The Enemy or, comparatively speaking, even a particularly bad influence to be targeted. I wrote about his comments yesterday because they reflect a broader trend that I do think matters.

Since I strive to keep this blog free from contentious political discussions, I won’t editorialize here and ask you all to remain your usual, civil selves in comments.

Keith’s reply was a bit disgraceful and certainly disrespectful. Thanks for leaving out the worst things he said about Greenwald. I would encourage all to read both pieces (don’t skim ‘em) before offering a comment here.

I did agree with Greenwald’s original piece, but decided to let it slide, the “greater good” and all. But after reading Keith’s & Greenwald’s replies, I’m fully in the camp with many here of being deeply disappointed with Keith. He has embarrassed himself on this one, and should have let it go. Keith is very bright, but Greenwald is running rings around him intellectually. Since it seems past the point of Keith ‘letting it go” he should consider having Greenwald on Countdown for an in depth & thoughtful discussion.

Keith’s Topps articles are posted on Sports Collectors Digest:

http://www.sportscollectorsdigest.com/article/Olbermann%20Proofs%20part%20TWO/

I am not all that bothered by Obama’s position and therefore, by extension, not all that bothered by Keith’s.

Starting with Obama. It is inevitable that legislators will have to both get elected, and also compromise. The ‘political supplier problem’ as it is sometimes called is inevitable in a democracy. Even Churchill had to yield to it from time to time.

As for Keith, I have two thoughts. First is that he is correct in believing that civil immunity for private companies is less problematic for the constitution (and repulsive in general) than criminal immunity for government officials. I believe Obama thinks this as well and so might yield on that point. Second, this is KO we are talking about and he sometimes gets a one track mind. He has thrown himself in support of Obama and he therefore sees what Obama does in a better light than he would if he disliked the man. We all do that as humans and Keith tends to do it on his show as well. Some argue that broadcasters should not be that way, but Keith’s show is decidedly out of the norm in many ways and this is one of them. In some ways it makes his show more interesting and more real and as long as he does not allow it to go too far it works. So far he has been walking that edge acceptably, at least for me.

I feel like my dad and my favorite uncle are fighting.
(Huh…that felt a lot less Oedipal before I said it)
I’d like to see GG on Countdown, though. Not so they can throw down, just for conversation. And because when I read Greenwald, I have a lot of questions, and I’d like somebody smart to ask them for me.)
Signed,
Too Scarred By Divorce to Be A Pundette

I really hope he isn’t using this special comment to throw down the gauntlet to Greenwald. That would be a grave mistake. Greenwald is not Billo.

I’m also hoping he can find a way to say he was right or innocently mistaken about Obama’s stance on FISA, to find some graceful way of keeping himself from looking like a hypocrite.

Even so, if this SC is one, long, indignant explanation as to why he, Keith, is right, this will not be a good one.

Okay, I came across the original Salon article by Greenwald tonight on Common Dreams, so I read it and some of the comments posed there (mostly inane) and then came back here and followed up with the links to Keith’s KOS Diary response and then Greenwald’s Salon blog reaction to that.

And, I simply do not CARE. It has devolved into just another male pissing contest.

I do not mind if people who usually agree with me do not for one reason or another. I do not mind if people change their minds with changing circumstances or more knowledge as that is indicative of growth and openness.

However, I become concerned if a politician I am counting on and supporting seems to be changing an important position for what appear to be reasons of expediency instead of deep held commitment, and I do not expect a Savior of the Republic to white wash it with some lame laugh aloud story about how smart John Dean is.

Now, that I designated Keith as a Savior of the Republic in my heart and mind does not commit him to that title or my associated expectations at all. That was my bursting into tears reactions to his Rumsfeld Special Comment almost two years ago and what followed. It is on me. Any stray thoughts as to how someone’s apparently gigantic feet might be comprised of just a little bit of the clay of moral ambiguity will remain unspoken.

At the moment my Hero expectations on the FISA issue are resting on the shoulders of Feingold and Dodd, both of whom seem to have that most valued commodity of all - a strong moral compass.

JOVE, I have the same concerns about the upcoming Special Comment.

I keep reminding myself that the last time I was concerned about an announced in advance SC, it was all brilliant and my concerns were for naught.

However, if there is this gigantic CRIMINAL loophole in the current FISA bill, why in the world talk about it and alert the other side?

I also do not believe that a candidate who wants to do away with Red and Blue and have us all be Americans together will, as President, set in motion a criminal action against the Telecoms, creating division.

What is most important is that this practice of illegal spying on Americans be stopped and the country be rebuilt, especially economically. Much as I would love the pound of flesh from these companies, it might not be the best use of time, money, and energy when the Arctic ice sheet is melting and we are faced with the specter of invading Martian asparagus.

Thanks for the link Jove to the Dean comment. I wish Keith would take the high road on this. At this point it is not about two different opinions, it’s about his obsessive personality. There is no need for a Special Comment, except for his own ego stroke. I’m worried this Special Comment is going to come off like some dopey O’Reilly talking points memo. And for Keith to go lick his wounds at the Daily Kos, where his butt is kissed daily by scores of sycophants, is truly getting pathetic. Why can’t he take the high road?

Greenwald made valid and correct points who ZERO personal attacks, Keith admits to not knowing who Greenwald is (even though scores of others on the more intellectual blogs pointed out how Keith would report pretty much word for word (on FISA) what Greenwald wrote days earlier). Also admitting to not reading what Greenwald wrote in full and the name calling is just plain sad on Keith’s part. Very FOXnews-ish.

This FISA thing IS confusing. I wish Keith would think of the audience, the voters, rise above his friggin’ ego and perhaps devote a Countdown with a panel of Jon Turley, John Dean, Greenwald and Rachel Maddow. I think we all would get more out of that than a short Special Comment where he feels the need to slam Obama to save face, or at the very least, keep digging in deeper, (where nothing is really learned except for Keith’s ability to act like two-year old throwing a temper tantrum).

But again, his was the only program that had the “Obama is a tan Kerry” story. I am somewhat stunned that this story is not getting more coverage. I guess Phil Griffin was correct, “where else will they go?” kind of like what Markos said, “what choice do I have, I’m not going to vote for McCain,” which, in Greenwald’s reply, was his point as well, but it would be nice to question someone early this time (also Greenwald’s point).

(BTW, Keith gave a mean little shot to Ryne Sandberg, (former Cubbie), in the Kos comments. Isn’t Sandberg in the Hall of Fame? Thought so…very “Joe Morgan” of Keith, aaargh…)

GM, are you SURE you’re still a fan of Keith’s? Because you sure as hell don’t seem to have much of a high opinion of him anymore.

Mind you, I am not and never have been one of those people who believes that you can’t be a fan of someone without finding him faultless. I don’t find Keith faultless either, and I believe I have enumerated some of what I believe to be his shortcomings here myself (only to be pushed back on by those who heartily disagreed with me). So I think I have some moral authority with which to say this.

You seem to believe that Keith’s acting like a stubborn little boy Obama-worshiper here and is not using the brains God gave him, but is only reacting to having had his ego wounded by one of his “betters” (presumably Greenwald) by digging in his heels and insisting he’s right despite not having even done Greenwald the courtesy of having read what he wrote, and by planning a Special Comment to reiterate that he is right, and plugging it over in Daily Kos where supposedly no one will do anything but “lick his wounded ego” and make things worse. (If you really believe that, you haven’t read any of the Kossack comments on Tim Russert lately. Many of them are STILL saying to Keith, in essence, “We’re sorry, but the man was a hack, and we HAD to say so before his body was cold or THE WORLD WOULD HAVE ENDED.” So much for them being nothing but a bunch of KO butt-kissers.)

Now. Am I sure exactly what Keith’s driving at here, or what he will do tonight? No. But I do think he’s driven by more than mere blind Obama admiration. I also think he’s driven by more than blind John Dean admiration. (I think the Kossack who accused him of confusing Dean’s photographic memory with genius was mistaken. Maybe it was a bad example for KO to bring up as an attempt to describe why he thinks Dean is so brilliant.) However, that being said, I do think he shamed himself a bit by not even reading what Greenwald said before replying to it. Greenwald is a smart man who knows what he’s saying and he deserves to be heard out, even if his opinion strongly differs from Keith’s. He is not the enemy, and Keith only makes himself look bad by saying “I didn’t read what he said, but I think he’s full of it.” Then again, what Greenwald has been saying back about him hasn’t exactly been the soul of maturity in its phrasing, either.

So. What I am hoping is that before writing this Special Comment, Keith has read what Greenwald said–all of it–and considered again everything John Dean has said, and takes all that into account before he writes what he writes and says what he says. Until I see reason to believe he will do otherwise, I’m not going to worry about it. So far, he has not made the mistake of just using a Special Comment to defend a statement people are attacking him on, or to defend one he doesn’t have good grounds to defend, and to just essentially say “nanny-booboo” to his opponents. I see no reason to assume he will begin now.

I don’t know. Maybe I’m demonstrating too much faith in the man. But I’d rather give him the benefit of the doubt.

Orin, you make some good points.

I am holding my breath a bit on this Special Comment as my experience in life is that the moment you step away from the issues and instead start trying to justify or defend yourself to your critics, the hole gets a lot deeper and it is best to just shrug your shoulders and walk away.

Based on what has been in some of these online blogs and journal entries, this smacks of falling onto the ego side of the fence. I hope I am wrong.

I would hate for tonight’s Special Comment to appear in a few weeks on You Tube as a dance remix ala the ego fest known as WE’LL DO IT LIVE.

Oh, Keith. Well done.

If I were old enough to be your mother, or even as old as Madonna (who is not really all that much older than A-Rod, for goodness sake, about your age in fact), I would be bursting with maternal pride.

A solid, professional Special Comment, concentrating on the issues involved and their potential complexity.

I apologize for ever worrying about how you would handle this.

Glad to hear you say so, Rafismom. For I felt the same, but yet it’s hard for me to stay mad at our Mr. Olbermann(a man with prose stylings like that has a key to my heart in general.)

Orin, I think perhaps you are correct. I am not sure if I am as much of a fan anymore. I think I need a vacation from Keith Olbermann & Countdown. As for the Daily Kos, Orin, I apologize to you if you are a commenter/diarist over there. I know Houstonian is active over there, and when saying sycophants, I should have qualified that with “all ERT company” excluded. But for whatever reason I seem to agree with the less than 1% of those posting valid arguments disagreeing with Keith on this FISA/Obama story. Most of the well over 750 comments were very sycophantish in tone.

When Keith made the crack about Madonna’s age that is when I changed the channel. Having just seen Orin’s comment questioning my fandom this morning, Keith’s comment was a real turn off so last night I said, ‘I think I’m done for a little while.’ (BTW, I think Madonna is the same age as Keith, 49 (or did she just turn 50?). The ageism and (subtle and not so subtle sexism is getting tiresome, for me). (And yes, I’ve read his “explanation” on Kos…nice spin).

I read (in the single article I’ve ever read about A-Rod, (honest!), that he is very creative and interested in art, he goes to the art museums in the various cities he plays in. Also, according to him, spends long hours at the Met, and is a fan of Impressionism. Madonna is a creative & talented person, and on some level is a good performance artist, plus extremely successful financially. I don’t know, I think they may have much in common, besides sex ;) regardless of their respective ages. (Heck, they probably swap financial advice and paparazzi stories). Often times Keith makes these types of ageist cracks when there seems to be successful older women in the story. I guess it could be plain old jealousy, I suppose. Even though I’m not a big Madonna fan per se, I don’t think anyone can really deny her vast success, work ethic and talent. And for a man who is dating someone 26 years younger, (and who he himself has greatly helped in her career), Keith’s smarmy ageist comment was, like I said, tiresome. I’m sure he’ll start including “others” when making his “206” comments in the future, but for the past almost 3 three years his ageism comments have only targeted older successful women, and he did NOT use the “206” line, he just made snide “age” asides.

I finally got the chance to catch the SC online. I found it somewhat tedious and he pretty much said it already. He still missed the point Greenwald made. But that’s OK, Keith has a lot of other stories that are over-looked by the rest of the media. On this story, I do not mind being in the minority and having my fandom challenged. Absence makes the heart grow fonder…cue Madonna’s “Holiday” ;)

Have a nice summer all.

RSS feed for comments on this post.