Olbermann Agonistes
By mw | Related entries in Barack, Civil Liberties, Congress, Constitution, Partisan Hacks, VideoI have expended more than a few words criticizing Keith Olbermann for his kid-glove (fawning? sycophant?) treatment of Barack Obama, particularly his coverage of Obama’s flip-flop on opposition to the very bad FISA compromise. Last night Olbermann reversed himself (sort of) and expressed some mild criticism of Obama’s position on FISA (sort of) in a “Special Comment“, so it is only fair to include it here.
But first, for context, a brief outline of the story so far:
- Barack Obama expresses strong opposition to the Bush FISA executive eavesdropping power expansion with the Telco Immunity provision.
- Keith Olbermann broadcasts a “Special Comment” calling the FISA bill with Telco Immunity fascist.
- Obama flip-flops announcing support for virtually identical FISA “compromise” with Telco Immunity.
- Olbermann and Jonathon Alter praise Obama for “not cowering to the left” on the FISA compromise.
- Glenn Greenwald calls out Olbermann on his hypocritical coverage of Obama.
- Keith Olbermann says he did not read Greenwald, but responds anyway.
- Greenwald does read Olbermann’s post and dismantles his response.
- Olberman says, “Lets change the subject.“
- Olbermann broadcasts this “Special Comment” on Monday saying “Senator Obama wants his cake and eat it too”:
Frankly, I found the Olbermann comment to be somewhat incoherent, as he felt compelled to wrap extensive verbal caveats while inserting two or three shots at Republicans for every mild criticism of the Obama flip-flop. That said, he explicitly calls for Obama to take the “second chance” to do the right thing and either – join the opposition planning to filibuster the bill -or- explicitly state that an Obama administration will pursue a criminal prosecution of the Bush administration and Telco companies for violations of the original FISA law.
Olbermann makes much of the fact that the bill – (both the versions that Obama opposes and supports) only provides immunity from civil prosecution. Greenwald maintains that the possibility of criminal prosecution under this bill to be a fantasy, and remains focused on the bigger issue of stopping the expansion of executive power. In any case, I fully expect Obama to embrace neither of Olbermann’s suggestions. Having already flip-flopped once on the issue, it just would not be politic for him to flop-flip back.
More importantly, Olbermann’s commentary and the Olbermann/Greenwald debate has helped keep a spotlight on this important issue and the impending vote. This has all been made possible because a few Senators like Feingold and Dodd (and unlike Obama) were willing to show real leadership on this issue and keep principle ahead of politics. They succeeded in delaying the the FISA vote until after the Independence Day holiday, allowing time for opposition to build. Stopping or modifying the bill still seems unlikely, but this is politics, and there is no telling what might happen. Who knows? Our elected representatives might even decide to defend and protect the Constitution.
This entry was posted on Tuesday, July 1st, 2008 and is filed under Barack, Civil Liberties, Congress, Constitution, Partisan Hacks, Video. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
July 1st, 2008 at 1:05 pm
The decision may have been a bad one, but politically speaking, it was a very savvy one on Obama’s behalf. It simultaneously paints him as a moderate who is willing to compromise (a big issue for voters in this election) and also allows himself to distance himself what what many conservative American’s perceive to be the ‘Dove Left.’ So he gets a boost among the moderate folks who think that America needs to “kick ass and take names,” even if they don’t really understand what that means.
Essentially, it moves him closer to the middle, and this is always what happens during elections. I understand that its newsworthy, but its neither surprising, nor that big of a deal. I think one would reasonably expect that if Obama is elected, Democrats would quickly and effectively move to bypass this most recent compromise without so much as a hint of opposition from Obama. In that sense, its shrewd strategic move – give away some policy points now that few American’s actually have any clue about, and position yourself to be able to control the agenda utterly unopposed shortly thereafter.
I know this is something you and I are both concerned about – the fear of any one party gaining such a huge swath of power. But in this rare case, I actually feel it just might be worth taking the risk. The Bush administration, in my mind at least, has simply trampled on the constitution for the last eight years, leaving many egregious areas of concern. I also believe that they’ve squandered a key opportunity to invest in energy and to modernize our economy to one that is capable of competing on the world stage.
We have a lot of very serious issues facing us, and like FDR, perhaps the best thing for it is bold and determined leadership from the left to lead the country in a new direction. And while I respect the heck out of John McCain, he has offered me precisely nothing that is going to help change things. His economic “policies” are a joke. They are essentially, “leave things the way they are.” His energy policy is, “lets open up offshore drilling,” which is just a placebo. His view on our military doesn’t fall in line with mine (nor does Obama’s), but at least Obama seems to understand that we cant adequately address our domestic issues and federal budget while bleeding red ink into unwinnable wars.
July 1st, 2008 at 1:07 pm
More to the point of your post – I guess Im curious why you care so much about Olbermann? The guy is just a left-wing hack. But he’s perfectly counter-balanced by Bill O’Reilly on Fox. It doesn’t make much sense to complain about either of them, I think everyone reading this board is perfectly well aware of the levels they’ll stoop to in order to spin things in their partys favor.
July 1st, 2008 at 1:19 pm
Middle,
I understand what you are saying, but I have yet to see any president willing to limit their own power (as Olbermann points out in his special comment – Washington was probably the last). Whether Bush or Obama, LBJ or Nixon, the ego of the executive is always willing to push constitutional limits because they think they are the sole arbiters of what is best for the American people. Problem being, our Constitution and the founder’s philosophical framework of our government is based on rule of law and limiting the power of the executive. Any presidential presumption of power that starts and ends with “Trust me.”, – regardless of party or circumstance – is a very very bad idea.
July 1st, 2008 at 1:23 pm
Middle,
I guess it’s because I watch MSNBC and I don’t watch FOX. Nothing more. Agreed they are two sides of the same coin.
July 1st, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Lol, election cycle voting and pandering is like pre-season baseball. People make way too big of a deal of it, nothing is really what it seems, and once its over, things go back to being the way they really are.
Regretfully, every Presidential hopefully is essentially asking us to do just that, to trust them. So I don;t know if thats a valid rational. I do have hope with Obama that given the fact that he has essentially devoted his life to constitutional law, that he does have deep and abiding respect for the document. Obviously he see’s things different than a constructionist would, since he isn’t among that group. But he’s also said that he firmly believes that people have a right to own a weapon and wouldn’t try and take that away. He devotes a lot of words to the subject in his books, talking about how guns play a vital role in linking together generations of American families though hunting for example. Yes, he does favor regulation, but I dont think he’d take 2nd amendment rights that far.
But I also think that we as Americans have been crapped on by the Bush administrations wanton abuse of our privacy rights as well as our habeas rights. Given my choice between who I’d trust to lead us back to the constitution, I’d take Obama. Again, while his vote for the FISA compromise showed a lack of backbone, it was almost a political MUST. I mean, can you imagine that 527 ads the right would’ve put out had he voted against it?
“When John McCain and the Republicans tried to work with the Democrats in congress to pass a revised FISA bill, Obama refused to work across the aisle. Obama hates you if you aren’t a hippie liberal.”
“Obama voted to make it easier for the terrorists to eat your children.”
Blah, blah, blah. He had to vote for that bill. So I suppose while I’d like to have seen him vote against it, I can completely and totally understand why he didn’t. Why do one of the few things that could cause legitimate damage to your nearly unfettered run to the White House where you can easily revoke that bill, when you don’t have to?
The problem of course with calling out Obama for his pandering, only forces me to highlight the fact that McCain has been a world-class panderer himself this election cycle. And one lesson that I’ve learned is that politicians will say and do things they wouldn’t otherwise do during an election cycle. But they will always govern the same way they have in the past.
Just because McCain has pandered to evangelicals, oil interests, and numerous others, doesn’t mean he isn’t likely to thumb his nose at them once elected. And just because Obama has betrayed some of his stances in his run, doesn’t mean he’ll continue to do so once in the White House. And frankly, if FISA is a big deal, that should probably leave you still banking on Obama based on what he’s said pre-election.
July 1st, 2008 at 1:48 pm
Middle,
I guess it’s because I watch MSNBC and I don’t watch FOX. Nothing more. Agreed they are two sides of the same coin.
——————————
I watch both stations. I learned a long time ago that while neither side speaks the truth, you can generally learn a lot more by listening to both sides and then learning for yourself what the facts actually are. Thats not me trying to lecture you or anything, obviously you know way more about politics than I do, just saying.
I guess I also want to say that as someone who shares a similar set of values as you, it disappoints me somewhat that you tend to write so frequently about things that I’d consider drivel. I mean, there was the back from France post that really didn’t seem to say much of anything other than to highlight that politicians do indeed pander. And now this. I guess I just dont feel like either post adds much of anything to the readerships ability to make better informed political decisions. Obviously thats not all of what writing is about, but I keep hoping to find myself challenged to think critically about important subjects and to find real analysis – be it policy oriented or strategy oriented. Generally speaking, for as much as bloggers and their readers love to complain about how the MSM never reports on the issues, blogs haven’t done a great job of filling that void either.
This one though certainly does have a lot of quality content, and I love that I’m able to get that from people who can see both sides of an issue and break it down sensibly.
July 1st, 2008 at 4:38 pm
Olbermann Agonistes…
. Stopping or modifying the bill still seems unlikely, but this is politics, and… who knows? Our elected representatives might even decide to defend and protect the Constitution. It could happen.
X-posted at Donklephant.
…
July 10th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
[...] am not going to belabor this. We have beat this to death at Donklephant in previous posts here, here and here. Just one point – When smart people on the right, left, and academia agree that this is a [...]