you just called a guy who ran an obama campaign office in texas, who gave hundreds of dollars and a couple thousand volunteer hours to the campaign, who travelled in the fucking obama motorcade, a troll.
that was pretty douche-tastic of you, and demonstrates clearly that people use the "troll" slur as an excuse to dimiss legitimate criticism of our candidate.
i have tried to be patient and wait this out, but obviously nothing is being done to revoke the priviledges of users who have pledged to help tear down the presumptive democratic nominee. normally i would oppose censoring, but in this case there is no other purpose than to continue to divide the party and deliver an election win to mcshame.
i did watch MTP, and FTN, and many many other shows leading up to the war. the only shows that were consistently critical or questioning of the administration's lies were moyers and donahue (before he was cancelled, of course). sure, russert had his moments, but over and over and over he had those folks on his show and allowed them to lie (mostly) unchallenged. believe me, i am not saying everything he did was bad. what i'm saying is that someone of russert's influence and reach has a special responsibility to practise responsible journalism. i think he did in some cases, but in many more i really think he (and the rest of the MSM, mind you) failed us badly.
frankly, since he died i've been thinking about this.
by all accounts from friends and co-workers, he was a kind man with a huge heart. that may indeed be true. but it's also true that he failed us during the leadup to the war (yes, the rest of the MSM failed us as well).
i refrained from commenting on any russert diary in the past week because i was uncomfortable raising the exact points you made in this diary. on that front, you have more courage than i do.
but really, i just do not know when it would be appropriate to critique his journalistic record.
i am trying to think of a similar situation, and the only ones i can come up with are nixon and reagan. when they died, they were canonised by the right (and again, by many in the FAIL media), but you read posts all over the lefty blogs screaming against whitewashing their legacies. i guess i am puzzled by the reaction to your diary because you're basically calling bullshit on the canonisation, just as the lefty blogs called bullshit on reagan's canonisation.
and yea, i know there's a huge difference between journalists and politicians, but those are the only other two situations i can think of that are even remotely similar.
if we didn't wait for reagan's body to get cold before discussing his myriad failures, well, is it really that tacky to do the same to russert?
especially when the information to vote against the war was clearly out in the public domain. remember bob graham, anyone? he called the war right from the start and urged his fellow dems to vote against it because of the intelligence.