Some hopefully constructive prep for Olbermann's "Special Comment" on Monday (updated)

Dear Mr. Olbermann,

  I'm sure I don't need to tell you that, this Monday, you're going to be sailing into a storm with your intended Special Comment over your views on Barack Obama's stance on FISA.  While I disagree with the idea of defending him over this, I like your show enough to avoid doing a "You suck." diary over the matter.
  Instead, I'm going to try and find a way to be constructive about this by offering some advice.

Point #1: There's no "winning" this debate, so don't try.  Given the diaries and comments I've seen on this site the past few days, this is one of those issues where we all are, at best, going to have to agree to disagree.  So just do what you feel you need to do, and if you see comments like, "I'm never watching his show again." on one of the threads about Monday's Special Comment, just accept the animosity and move on.  I'm sure most of us will still tune into your show come Tuesday.

Point #2: Mr. Obama's stance on FISA seems to have triggered one of those pragmatism/idealism debates.  I don't know if you've ever seen the Michael Douglas movie "The American President", but they voiced this debate as (paraphrasing) "Do you fight the fights you can win, or do you fight the fights that need fighting?"
  Worst case scenario for Option #1: you fight to win, but have to deal with the guilt of knowing you've (at least temporarily) suspended your principles in order to have victory.
  Worst case scenario for Option #2: you fight for what you believe in, and then lose, allowing something very unpleasant to happen.
  As a rule, I choose Option #2, because Option #1 seems too Faustian for my tastes.  On the other hand, if your Well, You Stumped Me diary is any indication, you've chosen Option #1 in the hopes of avoiding Mr. Bush's third term.
  In the end, neither approach is perfect.  That's why, whenever I talk on Dailykos about things like supporting impeachment, I'm honest enough to admit to myself that my approach has a down-side (a possible President McCain, if things go horribly wrong).  I acknowledge and accept the consequences of taking my approach.  My advice is to do the same for yours.  It's not wise to pretend that either of these paths is perfect.

Point #3: Make sure you don't fall into the trap of selling defeat as victory.  Remember the Special Comment you did attacking the Democrats for caving on Iraq withdrawal?  That was triggered by Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi taking their defeat and selling it as a victory.  Frankly, it's the same crap that the Bush Administration, and some of its supporters, do, and you were right to call the Democrats out on it.  Make sure you don't fall into the same trap.  The FISA compromise is, at best, a compromise...not a victory.

Point #4: This one's a two-parter.  First, before you write the Special Comment, try spending a few minutes coming up with all the evidence you can that Mr. Obama, if elected President, will actually do what you hope he will.  I'm not saying he's evil, and I definitely believe he's preferable to Mr. McCain, but he hasn't inspired me with the same confidence about restoring the Constitution as I'd have if Russ Feingold was running for President.  And if you're going to get attacked by both the Right and the Left over this, it would be wise to convince yourself that Mr. Obama is worth this hassle.
  Second, when you've finished typing your Special Comment (assuming this is on a computer), do a FIND/REPLACE, turn every instance of "Obama" to "Bush", and read the Comment again to make sure you're not treating Mr. Obama the same way Mr. Bush's supporters have occasionally treated him.  I don't agree with Mr. Greenwald on everything he said, but I think he was spot-on, for example, with his warning about the potential for buying the "Obama has a secret plan" argument.

Point #5: You do this Special Comment, and you hereby relinquish any claim of "I can be detached." during election coverage.  Your "Stumped" diary was about what you felt is necessary to get a President Obama.  That in turn means that you're actually siding with one of the candidates, which destroys any chance of you coming across as impartial during election coverage.  And if I've figured this out, I guarantee that Mr. McCain's supporters in the media can figure this out.
  My advice: just be honest coming out of the gate.  During election coverage with Mr. Matthews, tell the viewers something like, "I'm going to wear my heart on my sleeve here, like I do in my Special Comments.  If that's a problem for you, I suggest you head on over to Fox.  They're more than happy to interrupt their 'Democrats will destroy us all' stories for a few hours of pretend-objectivity."

  I think that's about it.  I apologize if this diary comes across in a "no no, I'm really not trying to be mean even though I am" sort of way.

  Good weekend and good luck.  Monday night should be interesting.

  (note: if any Kossacks have any constructive criticism/advice to offer, feel free)

Update [2008-6-30 21:8:10 by Kevin Holsinger]: Not that anybody but me is reading this anymore, but I thought I'd note that the Special Comment was surprisingly detached (good thing), not really taking a hardline stance so much as being about Mr. Olbermann offering Mr. Obama choices on the matter.
  In an interesting coincidence, Mr. Olbermann actually used "The American President" in the Comment, though a different passage than the one I focused on.
  So overall, the Comment worked just fine for me.  Now let's see how the other Kossacks and whatnot react to it.