Letters to the Editor
Majorajam
Published Letters: 308 Editor's Choice: 12
-
@Glenn Greenwald
[Read the article: Keith Olbermann's reply and Obama's secret plan to protect the rule of law]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Glenn, I think you've made your point. If you're kidding yourself that this sort of thing is not damaging to Obama- and the longer you go on about it, the more attention is will continue to draw, first through progressive media and eventually to the MSM through such features as have appeared in Politico- you should disabuse yourself of that notion.
Obama is going to back the 'compromise' and support the terminally fated amendment to strip out immunity. You can make book on that. He has stated that support and by so doing would be committing political suicide to go back on it and support the filibuster ('Obama waffles, gives in to radical nutty netroot base'). He should never have come out in support of that bill, it reflects poorly on him and hurts this country. In addition, the political ramifications of fighting it would have been manageable and with considerable upside, not least for principle, precedent and rule of law. But now it is done and you have gone beyond 'not selling out your principles' like the wayward Olbermann and Kos diarists to actively working against them, (just because you can separate this criticism from decision and enthusiasm to support the candidate, doesn't mean others can. Those diaries and pieces you are deriding should have tipped you off to this. People need to believe, and to suppress dissonant cognitions along the way).
The grown-up thing to do here is to relate you actions to the ends you are working for. I'll leave it for you to decide whether this 10th some odd post slamming Obama, (with plenty of profile from one managing editor who not so secretly desires that he loses), is consistent with that.
-
@Glenn Greenwald
[Read the article: Keith Olbermann's reply and Obama's secret plan to protect the rule of law]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It's clear you don't see that pillorying in post after post after post people who, "seek to justify everything Obama does - even when they don't understand it -- by assuming that he's so wise and Good that he must have hidden, unknown justifications for doing it" is counterproductive. But I'm here to tell you, you can get a point across sternly and with empathy, or you can do it in such a way as to maximally humiliate the guilty parties. Which in your estimation is likely to have the greatest effect?
And seeing as you claim to be someone who wants to reconcile their support of the Democratic nominee (rather than, for example, a 3rd party trojan horse for John McCain) with positions you find to be disreputable. How about throwing a bone to people by pointing out how that's possible, with one nanogram of the vigor and energy you've put into trashing Keith Olberman and Kos Diarists? Tone matters. Repetition matters. Is it still possible to respect Barack Obama? Do you realize that some people are looking for that in their leaders- that this is inextricably tied to ultimate political activity (and, lest it be ignored, politicians are people too, in some cases with honorable sides and achievements)? You would have it that vast amounts of your readership are wrong by assuming that you are trashing Obama and Obama supporters- I personally find myself wondering which constituency has it wrong.
PS Yes, the '26 Keith Olbermans' is indeed a meaningful part of that quote, whatever came after it, even if it still is a wrongheaded argument. Yes, you were wrong for omitting it. Here again, you might consider the potential that your readership has it fundamentally right, rather than condescend to them that their feeble minds make the omission problematic and nothing more.
-
@Mona
[Read the article: Keith Olbermann's reply and Obama's secret plan to protect the rule of law]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It's a subtle point that I'm making. I am totally in agreement with Glenn's making an issue of this. Of pointing out Obama's clay feet on FISA and immunity. I am also in agreement with pointing out the contortions of the left media in justifying the legislation and Obama's support of it, simply because he decided to flip-flop and support the issue. But this is not year one of the Presidency, this is smack in the middle of a general election campaign. And while that doesn't justify those who would reverse themselves to justify Obama's reversing themselves, nor even not pointing that out and scolding the offenders, it does justify some semblance of restraint on the issue. Cover it, but without totally roasting the people who are ultimately, in a two party system, political allies. And maybe whatever it is, 10 straight strident hectoring posts on the issue is a little over the top, but that's just me.
As for the cognitive dissonance, it's just human nature. You can't get past it if you can't identify it, and once you've identified it, you'll see just about how prevalent it is. Once you've seen both, you'll realize that the solution to it is rarely if ever to try to break it. But don't take my word for it- Eugene O'Neil has the tour de force on the subject.
-
Scratch that
[Read the article: Keith Olbermann's reply and Obama's secret plan to protect the rule of law]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]RE cognitive dissonance, the solution, if there is such a thing, is indeed to break it, but not by brute force argumentation. It just doesn't work that way.
PS LWM is toking bong hits for Hillary if he thinks she would have gone a different way on FISA as the nominee (though he's correct in that she can't demonstrate otherwise under the circumstances- it would be seen as a message to her supporters not to support Obama), if that indeed is the argument he's making. There's simply no evidence for that given the nature of the issue, her voting record, insider status and mastery of the clear dark room tactics where this deal was inked by the Dem powers that be. Then again, her voters wouldn't feel as betrayed by it as Obama's have. Not his finest hour.