While many (including Bill O’Reilly during the time the Dean/Olbermann discussion aired) were heralding the disagreement as a “civil war” on the left, it appears that Olbermann and Dean both intended to display the disagreement not as a war, but as an ongoing, enriching discussion.
Dean played the more moderate role to Olbermann’s more traditional left role (which culminated towards the end with Olbermann asking “How do you compromise with people who are absolutely irrational?”). Dean argued that, while he did not condone any sort of dialogue with “the Sarah Palins and Newt Gingriches of the world,” there were “legitimate” people, such as the families of 9/11 victims, who may feel uncomfortable and deserve to be listened to. Olbermann countered that, throughout history, Americans have needed an extra push towards tolerance, citing the civil rights struggles and various instances during which Americans were denied rights because of their religion. On that point, Dean was at his sternest, telling Olbermann that he found that “to compare the civil rights issue to the location of a building is inappropriate.”
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Want to add to this story? Let us know in comments
or send an email to the author at
jhudson at theatlantic dot com.
You can share ideas for stories on the Open Wire.
John Hudson



User Comments
Please type your comment and click Post. If you’re not already logged in you will be prompted to log in or register