As I wrote on an earlier thread, my (intelligent) conservative friend has long been trying to convince me that KO is just not a friend, just unhinged.

I've been convinced.

I think it can be argued that if he's caught the same hole in the bill that Dean has, his best course is actually to shut up and take the criticism and hope the Republicans don't see the loophole.

"Obviously Clinton kicked the left in the teeth by supporting the bill. But anybody who got as hot about this as I did would prefer to see a President Clinton dealing with Iraq, instead of seeing a Senator Clinton engender more "soft on terror" crap by casting a token vote against a bill that is going to pass since so many other Democrats caved anyway"

You're a centrist, and I'm a DFH of the first order. I am an unashamed leftist. But no one has eyes more open than you, and I am above all an empiricist,

I am grateful for all you do. And for your seemingly unending stamina.

Tomorrow you'll make me think again, and I'll be mad, but glad.

Speaking of KO and the Unity bash, part I, Larry Johnson is reporting over at NQ that Obama's  meeting with Hillary's fundraisers tonight bombed.  Much more understated, is Heidi Li's post and her promise of more tomorrow:

link

Yes, it's fun to believe that a safe, centrist campaign will be followed up by a flawless term in office doing nothing but the netroots' bidding, but please.  

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 [...]

Yes, Obamann, do tell why opining on snippets is idiotic.

(Obamann goes on to clarify something that may or may not be in the piece that he didn't read in its entirety) and then wags the bloviational integrity-restoring finger.

Did Mr. Greenwald note that [ ... nuances of Obamann's message that might be in the piece Obamann didn't fully read...] or did he leave that out?

Still time on the Doomsday Clock for Obamann to read Greenwald's piece in its entirety and see for himself. Tick tock, but alas ...

I do think Mr. Greenwald's suggestion of some kind of betrayal on my part is simplistic and childish

John Dean is the smartest person I've ever met.

It doesn't occur to Keith that that is what leadership is supposed to be about. Leading.

Clinton and Obama both let this happen.
But Obama is being handed the nomination, so I focus on him.

Democrats wouldn't be so prone to cave if they had leadership with some substance and conviction. We have leadership that possesses neither of these qualities.

Keith's assertion, in letting Obama off the hook, is that he sees a  "President Obama prosecuting the telecoms criminally".

If Obama spat in Olbermann's eye, Olbermann would thank him because his eye was a little dry anyway, and surely Obama in his omniscience must have been aware of this and responded to Olbermann's need as compassionately and expeditiously as possible.

Print out a copy of the bill, (114 page pdf), ask if they've read it yet, and if not present your copy.

Sorry, but that just doesn't scan. (I'd use a more profane expression, but it's against the rules.) The segments with which Olbermann built his cred with the left were almost completely derived from Greenwald's writing on Bush, FISA, and other topics. I distinctly remember reading Greenwald's blog on Salon during the day and then seeing Olbermann making the exact same arguments when he dealt with the topic that evening.

And Dean's argument about FISA is so foolish. As if the telecom legal departments aren't going to be going through the final legislation with a microscope. As if the telecoms aren't going to be petitioning Bush for a pardon if they're the least bit concerned about prosecution. And as if Bush isn't going to issue that pardon--he may do it even if they petition him or not.

When I watched Dean, my immediate impression was that he was half-heartedly trying to talk himself into the view that Obama was still one of the good guys on this. Like he didn't want to accept that Obama was either a pusillanimous coward or an aspiring tyrant who wanted this authority for himself.

It's not that I don't think ay president might not do the same; it's the insistence that Obama will somehow do what people want him to do here!!

What's making me laugh is that he reveals that the limits of his self-vaunted intelligence are not as infinite as he wants people to think, and he reinforces and makes worse the already-terrible case he made for Obama coming out in support of a bill that improves on the Protect America Act in the same way that pretty much anything beats a sharp stick in the eye.

They worship.  They adore.  They say "we love you keith".  They have KO quotes in their signatures.  Its disgusting.

They do it to Obama too.  One even wrote "Keith is right, we need to just fully trust Obama that he'll do the right thing in office...."

Media Matters says: News outlets including CNN cited a study of several major media outlets by a UCLA political scientist and a University of Missouri-Columbia economist purporting to "show a strong liberal bias." But the study employed a measure of "bias" so problematic that its findings are next to useless, and the authors -- both former fellows at conservative think tanks cited in the study to illustrate liberal bias -- seem unaware of the substantial scholarly work that exists on the topic.

I distinctly remember reading Greenwald's blog on Salon during the day and then seeing Olbermann making the exact same arguments when he dealt with the topic that evening.

I wonder how that translates my otherwise weak retirement investments... 5 cents on the dollar?