Letters to the Editor
GlennGreenwald
Published Letters: 2221 Editor's Choice: 18
-
Some NY Guy:
[Read the article: The most revealing three-minute YouTube clip ever]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]A trivial point, I know......but I'm particularly offended by Norah O'Donnell's coarse, vulgar laughter. She shounds like she's listening to an especially dirty comedian in an after-hours club after numerous cocktails rather than a discussion of a serious political scandal on a national public affairs program.
To be honest, I purposely avoided writing about my specific reaction to Norah O'Donnell's behavior becuase I would not have been able to exercise even minimal amounts of restraint, although when all is said and done, I think I was more repulsed by how emphatic, pompous, and proud the tone was in Gloria Borger's voice even though what was coming out her mouth (as always) were the most superficial and moronic Beltway cliches possible. What makes it all extra revolting is how impressed they are with their own insider wisdom, even though there is not a molecule of insight, originality, critical thought or value to any of it.
But yeah, the endless group giggling, led by Norah's cackling, really did just set the whole tone - like perfect background music framing a movie scene. When I went to press PLAY on the You Tube clip again this morning in order to review it before writing about it, I was really overcome with a sense of dread. I honestly felt like re-watching it was a genuine sacrifice.
For a variety of reasons, I almost never watch television news - I usually only see clips like this when someone links to it or e-mails me -- so sometimes I wonder if I am reacting more strongly as a result of a lower-than-normal immunity when I do see it. Either way, it is really extreme and toxic, and so clearly as big a part of our national problem as any other single cause.
-
Dan Neuman:
[Read the article: Follow-up to this morning's post re: Chris Matthews Show]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I suspect Cox was using that line you quoted to contrast with what Stengel said and to point out that what would actually happen is likely the complete opposite of what he said.
I read Cox's post again in light of your comments. This is what she said (emphasis added):
The panel on Sunday seemed to be taking the line that going after Karl would somehow make the Ds look petty and vengeful; I tend to think it makes them look like they are doing what they were elected to do*: provide oversight of a "comically [and at times criminally] mendacious" administration.
Her whole argument about why Democrats should proceed with the subpoena is about appearances, about how "it makes them look." She's contesting Stengel's political analysis about whether Democrats would look good or look bad if they do this. She is not -- at least not clearly -- arguing that Democrats should do it becuase it is the right thing to do, regardless of how they look politically. So her argument is really just the other side of the same cynical-political coin as Stengel's.
To be fair, I think she's proceeding delicately because she's publicly rebuking her boss. That's why I think what she did was more commendable than not. And that might make her more constrained in how she is objecting. But the post, most fairly read, criticizes Stengel for reading the political implications inaccurately, not for basing his view on what Democrats ought to do on political calculations.
-
"Typos"
[Read the article: Drudge and the Politico -- poisonously joined at the hip]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]GG: there is a glaring type in the third paragraph.
For anyone who hasn't heard me say this before: at least for me, editing your own writing, particularly immediately after you write it, is quite difficult, because your brain tends to see what you meant to write, and naturally tends to skip over typos.
As a result, I typically engage in stringent editing only once I post -- knowing that it is actually out there helps to really focus the brain in the search for mistakes. Thus, there is typically a 5 minute period or so, once the post is first up, where there are typos. If you are one of the first commenters, you should assume you've read the post during that rough period and that most (if not all) typos are being corrected.
After that short period of time, I appreciate - as always - any errors being brought to my attention.
-
Obama:
[Read the article: Drudge and the Politico -- poisonously joined at the hip]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]On the other hand, we have someone like Obama. Obama is a danger to all of them. He puts the politicians, the lobbyists and the beltway journalists at risk because he, like Dean before him, understands how best to change the rules of the game. He knows who's zooming who.
That, at least, is the promise -- the potential -- of Obama. And a lot of smart and insightful people I know are convinced that he's the genuine article. I think the jury is still out. But clearly the Beltway media already sees him as a threat, and I think a lot of this is about trying to bring him in line.
As Howard Dean found it, it is still very difficult to run against the Beltway establishment. And as Gore knows, it is harder still when the entire Beltway media hates you. It remains to be seen whether (a) they still exercise the power they have (or whether blogs and other offsets have diluted it) and (b) whether Obama will be moved by the use of that power against him.