Wasn't anybody troubled by the idea that the recent head of the Democratic Party subbed for Keith for a couple of days last week? I like and respect Howard Dean, but is this really appropriate?

How would we react if Michael Steele subbed for O'Reilly?

Shorter version of Murdoch's threat:

If Olbermann doesn't stop telling the truth (about O'Reilly), Fox is going to start (telling the truth about GE).

Today the trolls are taking a siesta, and we disciples scratch our heads...

Here is the source of my confusion, Glenn -- you wrote in a comment above (emphasis mine):

I wrote on Saturday: "now we have an example of GE's forcibly silencing the top-rated commentator on MSNBC [Olbermann] -- ordering him not to hold Fox News accountable any longer -- because, in return, News Corp. has agreed to silence its own commentators from criticizing GE."

I wrote yesterday: "GE's decree to silence Olbermann is only the most recent incident of GE's interference with the journalism decisions of NBC and MSNBC" and That is the reason that O'Reilly's name has not passed Olbermann's lips since June 1 -- because GE, petrified of further reporting by Fox of its corporate activities, has barred Olbermann from doing so.

Keith Olbermann wrote today: "I honor Mr. Greenwald's insight into the coverage of GE/NewsCorp talks, and have found nothing materially factually inaccurate about it."

And I'm with you. Really. All 3 are indeed internally consistent.

But.

Yesterday, Keith said (emphasis mine):

Mr. Stelter asked me at least twice last week if there was such a deal, and I told him on and off the record there was not, and I told him I rather obviously would have to be a party to such a deal, and I told him that not only wasn't I, but I had not even been asked to be by my bosses.

I guess I can harmonize that with what came before, but it requires some damned fancy footwork. It requires distinguishing between "decree" and "forcibly silencing" on the one hand and "deal" on the other -- that is, that we conclude that the first two happened but the third didn't. It requires distinguishing between being "ordered" not to do something and being "asked to by my bosses" not to do it.

If those are the distinctions that Keith is making, I understand, but I am also disappointed. I'm not used to seeing so many split hairs around his work, and I'm not used to seeing your sword in its scabbard around such tactics.

On the other hand, I can imagine a fun pas de deux here: You help embarrass GE/NBC so much that Keith is dragged, kicking and screaming, back to his original, unmuzzled approach -- by the very people who tried to shut him up in the first place.

It would still be sad that they fear the truth more than they fear Murdoch. But it would make sense to me, at least.

Would be fun to do with this bit of unambiguous hypocrisy what you did with Limbaugh's Nazi dilution and hold the feet of Steyn, Tarranto, etc. to the fire. But we know what would happen -- the Israel Exception to the Logical Consistency Requirement, unlike IOKIYAR, can be uttered without fear of ridicule or reprisal.

Glenn, I think yours has become the most important voice in the blogosphere. But because I read many of the same sources you do, usually I find that I am in the choir of the pre-converted.

Not today. I have been twisted in knots about the health care debate, and feeling conflicted about the pragmatic/idealistic tradeoffs. You cut through all the fog and clutter, and helped crystallize my own views. For me, today's post may have been the most important you have written.

I actually made a similar point long ago (link @ sig) about the Bush Administration: it is dangerous to assume that what looks (to us) like failure is so viewed by those responsible for it. WE saw Iraq as a failure; Cheney and Halliburton and Blackwater did not. You make a convincing case that the trading away of the public option is not a bug, but a feature for the Obama White House. The new "liberal" duplicity could well cost more lives than the old neocon duplicity did.

Thank you.

It is awful stuff, of course. But maybe I have a case of outrage fatigue, because it just doesn't sound dramatically worse than the stuff Yoo blessed in the accursed memos.

That could cut two ways, I guess -- if this report causes people to recoil in horror, it shouldn't be hard to get to real justice for the most guilty. But I fear the opposite, as evidenced by some commenters here -- that those who yawned at head slams and sleep deprivation and stress positions will yawn at everything short of vivisection (and maybe even that).

Oh, but America couldn't possibly be so anxious to elevate a permanent, hereditary ruling class, and David Gergen told us just last week why (on another talking head-fest, AC360):

GERGEN: I think one of the other aspects of this is very fundamental to who we are as a people. There are a lot of sociologists and historians will tell you we as American people are just different. We're an outliers measured in many ways. Our value system is different. We don't think like Canadians. We don't accept government the way it is. We're not deferential to authority the way Canadians are or in Western Europe.

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2009/08/exceptional-proposal-by-digby-david.html

I guess that settles THAT.

dagnabbit.