(From TWD)
It seems that Democracy Now is the only place where you can find serious, actual grown up, 1 on 1 banter that isn't about garnering ratings or entertainment points, but to informed their viewer on the most important news events and situations of our time.
Today, DN featured the settled discussion (for now) in a week long respectful back and forth debate between Glenn Greenwald and Lawrence Lessig on Elena Kagan's nomination.
Simply put, for those who didn't have a chance to see or hear about this discussion that took place on the invaluable Amy Goodwin's show, it was the "settling of the score" for these two renowned legal figures on the left after their back to back appearances on Rachel Maddow's Monday show. Even though both certainly left the show with the same sentiment on Kagan as they held before, but exhibited a level of decorum, as well as intelligent colloquy, severely missing in our usually terrible television discourse.
Here's the entire discussion, if you missed it:
This was certainly one moment where a straight one on one with both participants on simultaneously is the better format than a "one before the other", especially when the usual terrific Lessig was unfair in my view to call Greenwald's views on Kagan "abusrd" on Tuesday night.
And that for me spurred even more to me holding the same thought on Kagan that the Salon.com legal writer contains. The questions of Kagan's true beliefs just are still a major question mark. And an inquisitive feeling will still be with me even if she answers the possible tough questions from the likes of Whitehouse, Feingold, or Leahy when the times come for the Senate hearings.
Again, just alone on comparing her to the person she is replacing, the terrific John Paul Stevens and his steadfast liberal ways, Hagan moves the Court to the Right as of the moment in my mind.
But that is just my own perspective on the matter. What the main thesis of this thread though is watching how a 1 on 1 discussion should be in our media instead of the usual "clusteryouknowwhat" that you see on a daily, hourly basis.
"A citizen has to see evidence before putting someone on the court for 30 to 40 years years especially someone who could move the Court to the Right."
It is how I exactly feel about this nomination still. But at least this nomination gives us a paradigm of how political banter should be conducted instead of the regular shoutfest we are offered.
(From TWD, have a great night folks, thanks for any rec'ds, and thanks for even reading. )