Two followup notes

1) Keith Olbermann, in a Special Comment, responded to just about every Glenn Greenwald criticism from last week:

Bravo Keith. Thanks for finally saying what you should have from the beginning.

2) The Columbia Journalism Review is right on in its criticism of the press coverage of the tizzy between the Obama and McCain campaign caused by this interview of Retired Gen. Wesley Clark:

The lightning storm was set off when Clark said of McCain, “I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president.”

Yesterday, I noted that McCain’s military service doesn’t necessarily enhance his qualifications as President. And that’s the point Clark was trying to make. The Columbia Journalism Review agrees, but they take it a step further with this excellent criticism of the media:

This is the perfect embodiment of the press’s unbelievably destructive habit of assessing every piece of campaign rhetoric for its political acuity, rather than for its validity and accuracy. Clark’s comments may (or may not) have been impolitic. But that has no bearing on their validity or lack thereof—which is how the news media should be evaluating them.
It’s crucially important that we have a political debate in this country that’s at least sophisticated enough to be able to handle the following rather basic idea: Arguing that a person’s record of military service is not a qualification for the presidency does not constitute “attacking” their military credentials; nor can it be described as invoking their military service against them, or as denying their record of war heroism.

That’s not a very high bar for sophistication. But right now it’s one the press isn’t capable of clearing.

Read the whole thing here.