Keith Olbermann, Glenn Greenwald Feud Over FISA

A war of words has broken out between two of the progressive blogosphere's most beloved figures: MSNBC's Keith Olbermann and blogger/author Glenn Greenwald of Salon.com.

In a post yesterday, Greenwald charged that Olbermann's "blind devotion to Barack Obama" had let him to excuse and defend Obama's support of the FISA 'compromise' legislation. Greenwald noted that Olbermann has previously condemned the idea of giving immunity to telecom companies that spied on Americans, calling it a "shameless, breathless, literally textbook example of Fascism" and comparing it to the actions of the Third Reich.

"But," Greenwald wrote, "[n]ow that Barack Obama supports a law that does the same thing -- and now that Obama justifies that support by claiming that this bill is necessary to keep us Safe from the Terrorists -- everything has changed."

Last night, Olbermann invited Newsweek's Jonathan Alter onto his show to discuss Obama's support for the FISA and telecom amnesty bill (video of the segment is here). There wasn't a syllable uttered about "immunizing corporate criminals" or "textbook examples of Fascism" or the Third Reich. There wasn't a word of rational criticism of the bill either. Instead, the two media stars jointly hailed Obama's bravery and strength -- as evidenced by his "standing up to the left" in order to support this important centrist FISA compromise. [...]

Grave warning on Olbermann's show that telecom amnesty and FISA revisions were hallmarks of Bush Fascism instantaneously transformed into a celebration that Obama, by supporting the same things, was leading a courageous, centrist crusade in defense of our Constitution.

There's much more -- you can read Greenwald's full post here. And Olbermann responded with a post last night on Daily Kos.

He explained his segment by citing former Nixon aide (and frequent Countdown guest) John Dean's argument that the FISA compromise "clearly did not preclude future criminal prosecution of the telecoms - it only stopped civil suits." (He added, "I think John Dean is worth 25 Glenn Greenwalds (maybe 26 Keith Olbermanns)."

More Olbermann:

Thus, as I phrased it on the air tonight, obviously Obama 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 Obama prosecuting the telecoms criminally, instead of seeing a Senator Obama engender more "soft on terror" crap by casting a token vote in favor of civil litigation that isn't going to pass since so many other Democrats caved anyway.

When Markos was on (Monday? Again, blurs) he made the simple but essential point that if this is Obama's rationale for this, maybe he should explain it. 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.

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 of my conversation with Jon Alter last night makes it sound like I was saying defying the left was a good thing. I was actually contrasting it to not cowering to the Republicans, simply as a different thing.

I do think Mr. Greenwald's suggestion of some kind of betrayal on my part is simplistic and childish. I'll take the Dean interpretation of this. If it isn't the Senator's game plan, he'll catch hell from me about it later.

Quick Poll

Who's right?

Glenn Greenwald

Keith Olbermann

Comments

[ohiomark]

Obama already has 10,000 press secretaries in the media. I guess Keith is the head of that group.

[4wehttam]

He needs every bit of help to fight of smears, rumors, lies, innuendo, FIXED Noise drivel and to fight off people like YOU.

[Redrover666]

That's right right, poor Obama is a victim.

You don't seem to mind when "smears, rumors, lies, innuendo, FIXED Noise drivel and to fight off people like YOU" involve McCain. Your ethics appear very flexible and selective.

[ohiomark]

Media is supposed to be objective. It's not their job to shill for a candidate.

We all know they do and MSNBC is the worst.

[Witchitalineman]

Right on.

[Probus]

Just like the entire Fixed Noise network is working for McBush.

[smokeystover39]

Instead of pounding the crap out of each other take a minute and go to CountDown at the MSNBC site and read Keith's Special Comment re FISA and Immunity for the Telecoms: Thursday 31 January 2008. The Special Comment is unambigious. NOW, go back to see what Barack said about filibustering ANY immunity for the telecoms. Barack didn't mince any words - NO IMMUNITY.

By maintaining that honorable stance Barack will not be throwing away the Presidency - even if the vote gives the Bu$h Crime Family the immunity for the telecoms Barack's NO vote will be equal to his NO position on the Vietraq war at a time when he was running for the Senate. He didn't get hurt then and he won't now, plus it will certainly stop the Rethuglicans from taunting him as a flip flopper.

"IF" Barack is going to lose the Presidency it will be precisely because he allowed himself to become just another political hack who will say anything to get elected.

People LOVE this guy because he has been willing to tell the establishment - screw you - we're going to do what is right. "YES, WE CAN!"

Well, lets see what KO says on Monday.

[bayman]

KO's got a Special Comment on Monday in re FISA. Should be interesting.

[Ramirez]

He'll be supporting immunity for the telecoms.

[Merg]

He'll be covering his tracks....more likely.

[Rjmartinelli]

I expect he will likely be reiterating his position, which he has already detailed on his blog.

You would likely know this if you had taken the time to read it.

[NewRiver]

But of course he will. He was all over how the bill was crap in the past and now that he's on Barry's payroll, he's got to spin his way out of it. Besides, it won't be anything other than another rant from the Edward R. Murrow wannabe...perhaps he should take a week off and come up with a new singoff for his nightly in the bag for Obama suckup show.

Good night and good luck? Who's KO crapping anyway? Well, besides much of the HuffPo crowd and the handful of his viewers.

[4wehttam]

Obviously you can't get enough of his show, since you know soooooo much about it. Hypocrite.

[janedarcy]

Pass the Koolaid, Keith...

[noamjunior]

WHY -because he thinks that Obama shouldn't throw away the presidency to take a stand on an issue that he CANT WIN as a lone US senator?
That makes no sense to me

[heal57]

One can not look at everything from a left liber viewpoint. Presidents don't get elected that way. Moderation......please; he's not President yet.


Independent for Obama '08
Joy Hussein M.

[MariaHopeful]

Keith I know and respect. Who is Glenn Greenwald again?

[noamjunior]

Greenwald is a respected writer and commentator, who happens to be wrong on this particular issue.

[MariaHopeful]

OK, I'll repeat: Glen who?! Keith I have your back!

[Merg]

He is not wrong. Potential Presidents of the US must NEVER, NEVER, NEVER vote against the Constitution. Except through the proscribed amendment process.

[janedarcy]

Ever heard of Salon?...try reading something besides Huffington Post...or are you too afraid they might say something negative, or even objective about BO?

[3Gs]

Salon is a far inferior rag when compared to the Huff. which is why I skip Salon. Sadly, they are all we have in the face of Fox and the like.

[Probus]

After having read what Greenwald wrote even though I agree that Obama should vote against this bill I felt like he was personally attacking Olbermann which I think he has no right to do.

[SlappHappy]

Why shouldn't he? Olbermann does it all the frickin' time. Open your eyes!

[fvscvte]

Greenwald is a true progressive who doesn't drink Obama kool-aid !

[Mekarri]

I was originally a Hillary supporter and but as things got ugly, I became Obama supporter. I don't understand why everyone is so up in arms about Obama having to to something that we don't like or even agree with to get elected. He has got to become President before he can make in change, can anyone understand that. We need to start acting like adults and not like children. We need to keep our eye on the big picture. The question is would you rather have mcbush for President?

[Merg]

It's simple really. You just don't abandon the Constitution, even if you think it might help you win and election (which it won't) If the Press was doing it's job, instead of spotting Pelosi and Rahm Emanuel spin. voters would realize what it REALLY is they are losing with this vote. THAT should be the job of the Obama campaign, not turning tail and running because those nasty Repugs might call him names.

[nick1936]

Yes but it takes courage to stand up for what is right and on FISA Obama failed the test this doesn't mean that I won't vote for him but it lessens his standing in my belief . he constantly jumped on Hillary for doing what was politically right against standing up for the right but now we see he is just another poll so it comes down now a choice between to evil es McCain or Obama hold your noses folks

[Deaninphilly]

Were you expecting anything different? I think many people are having buyers remorse. Hence all the justifications we now hear about, well he has to get elected doesn't he? Kind of goes against everything he touted in the primary.

[awcbuddy8]

Bill O'Reilly.

[RENREVARD]

KO is wrong on this one.I watched him try and try to justify BO defection of public funding.When KO and JA tryed to justify BO new stance on Fisa I laughed .What do you believe in was my thinking.

[noamjunior]

the public funding issue is a con smokescreen
MCCain is currently VIOLATING public financing laws

[ZekeBundren]

Do you want an intellectual lightweight who lives in the tank with telecoms, or do we want a rational thinker like Obama who might possibly restore some dignity to government?

That is the question.

[roncraw]

I believe Olbermann has a picture of Obama in his bedroom. He's nothing but a blowhard,to have any creditability a talking head has to be a least a little bit objective.

[nomobull]

huh and this is an argument for what

[noamjunior]

Almost TWO complete sentences. Wow - your English teacher would heave been impressed

[MariaHopeful]

Well don't you have one too? Or are you jealous?

[nonconformist2]

You have two choices:

Obama as centrist = President Obama

Obama as leftest = President McCain

In order to change this country, Obama must first WIN THE PRESIDENCY. This is a very difficult thing to do if he moves to the left and not to the center.

Whine all you want. But if you don't vote for Obama in November, then you are culpable for everything that McCain does to this country and the world as President. Including the 100 year war in Iraq and the war with Iran and Syria he is anxious to begin.

[thebeerdoctor]

A typical equivocating response=a spineless Democratic party. You either or scenario is ridiculous.

[noamjunior]

nice comment, Tarzan.
You no for FISA bill?

[Probus]

Well said.

[fvscvte]

or you go go for the TRUE progressive Ralph Nader, all you faux progresssives make me sick!

[j.gold]

Oh, stop "talking White"!

[Ramirez]

Obama as himself = President McCain

[aht772e]

when given a "rational explanation" for what appears to be a politically calculated move, KO took it. That is his right, and in as much as the one vote failed to change the outcome , i am willing to give both KO and Senator Obama the benefit of the doubt on this one, so far. Perhaps, immunity is less important than reconstructing the constitution. BUT if Obama becomes president, and this country becomes little more than Bushland with a D instead of an r, i will expect KO to burn Obama on his show, and I will fight the "corporate democrats" as just as evil.

I used to argue with my mother, in the '70s that the world wasn't really an east vs. west thing, but that it was simply an excuse to maintain a North over south thing. to some degree I believe that about dems v repubs. If Obama becomes part of the problem, instead of part of the solution, we need to be willing to bring him down too. But first, lets really find out.

[WKR]

Great observation. I seem to recall a lot of campaign promises made by Bill Clinton that somehow went by the wayside once he was elected - remember 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell?' Better that I know where Obama stands today than find out after he's in office. And by-the-way, trying to attract centrist democrats hopefully doesn't give away the candy store does it?

[S1m0n]

That's breathtakingly dishonest.

The law retroactively denying the victims of this criminal conspircy from seeking redress doesn't 'rule out' divine retribution, either, but no one's going to be seeing the clouds parting and the hand of God coming down to smite the sinners anyday soon.

There will be NO criminal prosecution in this case, and everyone knows it. Pretending that there will is just insulting to Olberman's audience.

[Ramirez]

Of course there won't be criminal prosecution. Who would 0bama convict? A CEO? And for what? Complying with a government request which the DOJ assured wss legal? Ain't gonna happen, and everyone of these pandering clowns knows it.

KO's position of the week is not intended for the high-information voter.

[noamjunior]

how would you know? - Ive seen numerous posts of yours and they all are - to put it nicely- devoid of information

[aht772e]

in fairness, this supreme court has made it clear that no one will ever be able to prove that they have "standing " in this case, that is that they were in fact an injured party as all info was deemed secret, national security. (how do you prove you were spied on, when facts about spying are unavailable to the litigants and courts as per SCOTUS.). So there were never going to be any lawsuits that reached the courts. Hopefully there will be criminal investigations and trials.

More importantly, what can be done to punish the people responsible and the companies that co- operated, and how can WE accomplish that. There are no knights in shining armor in a democracy, only the people. What are WE going to do to ensure that there is a price to be paid for what happenned.

[westcoastsc]

When are we going to stop using the terms right and left, conservative and liberal, red and blue states? Do we not realize that matters are usually far more complex than can be discussed with these polemics? They do us a disservice. Deng Xiao Peng, when speaking about economics, said "What does it matter if a cat is black or white, as long as it catches mice?" This is a statement about the need to be progressive. The simplistic metaphors of left and right do nothing to help this country. What about right and wrong, good better best, and bad worse worst? No one has explained to me satisfactorily the need for the FISA bill. This administration should not be given the trust of such a bill because of their past history of exploiting for their own benefit new rights and privileges and to use them against their political enemies. BAD.