Keith Olbermann's defense against those who called him on his FISA flip-flop was that John Dean is "worth 25 Greenwalds", and he, Olbermann, simply took Dean's word as gospel.

But in a new interview with progressive blog Firedoglake, Dean clarifies:

I said that when I read the bill, and talked to the folks at the ACLU who had been following it, that it was not clear. I raised it when appearing on Countdown with the hope that someone might figure it out. But that is the nature of this badly drafted bill that it is not clear what it does and does not do, and the drafters are not saying.

But even if the bill is unclear there is no question the Bush Administration is not going to do anything to the telecoms, so the question is whether a future DOJ could -- and here there is case law protecting the telecoms. But there may be language buried in the bill that protects them as well but it can only be found by reading the bill with a half dozen other laws which I have not yet done.

I made no declarative statements rather I only raised questions that jumped at me when reading the 114 page monster.

Salon's top progressive blogger Glen Greenwald reminds us that back on January 31st, Keith Olbermann had this to say about FISA and telecom immunity:

There is not a choice of protecting the telecoms from prosecution or protecting the people from terrorism, Sir. This is a choice of protecting the telecoms from prosecution or pretending to protect the people from terrorists. Sorry, Mr. Bush, the eavesdropping provisions of FISA have obviously had no impact on counter-terrorism, and there is no current or perceived terrorist threat the thwarting of which could hinge on an email or phone call that is going through Room 641 of AT&T in San Francisco.

Olbermann went on to call telecoms immunity "fascist", and compare the practice to Nazi Germany's policies.

But now that Barack Obama--Olbermann's candidate--has supported a compromise that all but grants telecomnunication companies imunity for having spied on Americans without a warrant, Keith Olbermann has suddenly praised the compromise, noting that Obama "didn't cower to the left". That's right. Taking Olbermann's January position would have been tantamount to "cowering".

That makes soo much sense, doesn't it?

Read Greenwald's piece.

June 22, 2008
The Public Editor, Clark Hoyt

Pantsuits and the Presidency

   <blockquote> [T]he reader who wanted a review of Times coverage, asked if a man could have gotten away with writing what Dowd wrote. [Editor Andrew] Rosenthal said that if the man had written everything Dowd had written over the years and established himself as a sardonic commentator on the sexes, “I’d say the answer is yes.”

   Of course, there is no such man, and I do not think another one could have used Dowd’s language. <B>Even she, I think, by assailing Clinton in gender-heavy terms in column after column, went over the top this election season.</b></blockquote>

...

HOYT: <blockquote>“I’ve been twisting gender stereotypes around for 24 years,” Dowd responded. She said nobody had objected to her use of similar images about men over seven presidential campaigns. She often refers to Barack Obama as “Obambi” and has said he has a “feminine” management style. But the relentless nature of her gender-laden assault on Clinton—<b>in 28 of 44 columns since Jan. 1—</b>left many readers with the strong feeling that an impermissible line had been crossed, even though, as Dowd noted, she is a columnist who is paid not to be objective.</blockquote>