Because there is not enough love on this blog: Olbermann really should set his sights, uh, lower. Karen’s initial post was a reasonable query and she got a response posted from the campaign within minutes. It wasn’t an accusation left to lie out and fester a la Mary Ann Akers’ Edwards “sympathy card” allegation; one would think responsiveness and willingness to admit error are traits Keith would want to reward among his cohorts in the MSM. The segment left me scratching my head.
That said, he’s usually much more on target and I imagine he’ll start shooting straight again soon enough.
UPDATE: I recognize there are far more serious topics to tackle, and that the allegation that this is some rather comforting navel-gazing on our part is not without merit. However, just looking over the past couple of days, what posts have received the most attention from you, our loyal adversaries/conversationalists? Are they the substantive, thoughtful mini-essays on Iraq (by Joe) or abortion rights (by Karen)? What of what we say appears, to judge by the amount of attention it receives, to be the most interesting and important to our readers?
Not that we should bend to the whims of the opinion marketplace entirely. As nominal hostess of the Swampland, what I love about what’s happening here (on both sides of the comment aisle) is that it encompasses both solid argument and more airy punditry, both snark and seriousness. If we err too much on one side or another on a given day or a given hour, I imagine it’s because — at least for my colleagues — Swampland is where we get to be more casual. It’s not a debate club, it’s a conversation. Sometimes conversations wander.
UPDATE THE SECOND: Yes, she got the bronze. Worse not worst. Sorry. Also I get the point that she corrected about “email harvesting” rather than fundraising, but can we also allow that, in campaign terms, the two are pretty closely related? Or don’t answer that, because surely we’ll move on to something more timely and relevant soon…