Glenn Greenwald takes issue with people cheerleading the President

From a diary at Daily Kos, a quote from Glen Greenwald (who is taking issue with people cheerleading the President):



It's clear from Goodman's followup question that she took his statement to mean the Obama administration is "against the public option."

Logical?

it's hard to tell without context or the actual footage.

of course I realize that taking things out of context is your forte, but I'm really not getting what you're trying to say here. Are you doing what Greenwald suggests - that there are people working for Obama trying to discredit anyone who reflects negatively on Obama, in this case trashing Amy Goodman for not being "logical"?

reading the entire transcript of watching the interview?

Also, the full context of the point is in the OP: Greenwald's full comment and Goodman's subsequent question.

Of course, your comment is typical of the bullshit from those pretending they're in some "Kewl" class because they're hooked on 24/7 negative crap.

a small part of a very long interview. Your response is the usual red herring.

The point being, it seems, that Amy Goodman is not "logical" and should be discredited. And by doing so you back up what Greenwald is saying - that there are forces within the Obama admin whose job it is to discredit anyone on the left who disagrees or questions the Obama administration.


Why don't you address that point instead of engaging in insults (another of your favorite "debating" tactics).

another of your favorite tactics -

repeat the previous post and say "what?"

perhaps she asked "what?" b/c she doesn't understand your comments. I know I don't.

Just seems like you came out of the gate all defensive and ready to attack ProSense for a post. One which I see as just a post of an interview... her only comment was that she thought perhaps Amy Goodman misspoke.

calm down... jeeeshhhh

myob

Then I'll go straight to it - the playing of Obama's remarks regarding single payer have never been logical. I have never understood the point the left has ever been trying to make with it.

Every time they attack Obama for not advocating single payer as if he made a campaign promise, and then play that very old tape, they discredit themselves. Amy Goodman is no different.

And if she wants to repeat gossip about the public option and pretend it's valid reporting, then it's fair to question her integrity and her common sense.

It isn't cheerleading to point out when the left is as manipulative as the right.

bunch whose attempt to insult our intelligence with their disingenuousness is getting them nowhere except from those who think they can use it against President Obama.

They have a long 8 years.

I'm going to enjoy every minute of it.

32% of the party describes themselves as liberals. You do understand that without that 32% the party doesn't win any elections.

He did more in 9 months to promote Liberal agenda than any president since LBJ.

Do you suggest that those 32% will not vote for him in 2012? Yea, right.

That Barack Obama is considered liberal.

I never suggested that, the poster was blaming the left for attacks on the President.

who try to twist things that are pretty trivial. Ask your average Demo in real life about the anonymously sourced report about Obama supposedly supporting trigger over opt out, and they will look at you like you're nuts.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I suspect he's going to start holding his breath soon.

Maybe Lord Privy Douchenozzle Sirota will join him and we'll be rid of them both.

I think that's what bugs you about him.

He's clearly a red herring, strawman kinda tool against President Obama and that makes him my enemy.

:spray:

Or funny....Not sure which.

You've proved the point. :rofl:

Better make her sign the loyalty oath.

Better get him to sign one too.

Ed Schultz, Glenn Greenwald ,Cornell West., The Progressive Caucus, Dennis Kucinich, and anyone anywhere that doesn't see "perfection' and anyone anywhere that questions the fake Public Option or anything else. All are enemies no matter how productive or loyal they have been. My god, some of the responses in this thread are ridiculous.Greenwald is 100% correct.

The irony of this thread is amazing.

Critical thinking is dying in America.

He had a more extensive talk with Moyers as an online exclusive and he's right.

While I am, on balance, pleased with Obama, and there's no doubt he's better than McCain, I have also been disappointed a number of times, about some very significant issues. Obama has not proven to be the "change" I voted for.

:dem:

-Laelth

they're both trying to get Palin elected in 2012.

or reality...

on opposite ends of the spectrum who love to throw red toxic meat to those who don't question their tactics.

Who is he?

but I was hoping for a proper perspective from some DUer's.

Greenwald is a respected voice of the left.

on Thursday and I got unrecs. The number that the report explained got recs.

Just don't answer.

this self-righteous crap is bullshit. Sit on your high horse and let others discuss the matter.

this IS about getting something done--not just whining about life.

Amy Goodman is an EXCELLENT JOURNALIST. In this interview, like all of her interviews, what she does is ask very good questions, many of which other journalists don't ask.

There is absolutely no reason to say she's "whining about life", here or in any of her programs. So why are you saying this about her? I'll tell you why, it's because you feel this need to DEFEND A CERTAIN POLITICIAN AT ANY COSTS. Trash anyone, even if it makes no sense, to DEFEND THIS POLITICIAN.

Listen to that interview again, assuming you listened a first time. Tell us, was it at all fair to say she's "whining about life"? Is it at all fair to say she EVER "whines about life"?

If it's not at all fair, why are you doing it?

Obama won. Get over it.

Greenwald even had the audacity of saying we don't need to have troops in Afghanistan at all.

And Kucinich sees UFO's. Enough said.

when Democrats trash other Democrats.

when Democrats become as good at stifling dissent in their own ranks as the Repubs.

Check this out, also Glenn Greenwald:

Obama's Latest Use of 'Secrecy' to Shield Presidential Lawbreaking | CommonDreams.org
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/11/01-0

then come back and tell me you would *not* scream bloody murder if it was Bush saying he can do anything and he can't be sued in court on anything he deems a state secret.

As the replies in this thread prove with astonishing irony. Comedy gold, yet another Trashing o' the Democrats Thread.

and I can't see why you highlighted that question of Goodman's, which seemed unremarkable to me.

You ask if it's a logical question and it seems obvious to me. Greenwald just mentioned reports that Obama is privately against the public option and a natural question is why.

What's not logical about that?

CIA director or NSA advisor by exposing his support for Bush era rendition policies.

Ever since than, there is a bug up some's ass by certain posters about Greenwald.

She was on for years with little effect.

Bloggers ... like Glenn Greenwald and Andrew Sullivan (a lethal combo of left & right) is why Brennen didn't get the post.

One minute it's Howard Zinn, the next it's Helen Thomas, then the first thing you know it's Paul Krugman or David Sirota.

It's a good thing the Central Committee is always informing us on this matter, or we would always be confused!

to pass. I think he went with the idea of at least doing something than nothing.

under the table. Now he and congress continue to compromise REAL reform.

(regarding Greenwald's comments about cheerleaders)

I that yes, most of us agree that we need to think independently and question our elected officials...

however... the right is unified by not thinking independently nor exercising critical thought and will be a solid voice of opposition no matter what....

The tea-baggers and Obama haters have their talking points down - you can't reason with them, you can't confuse them with facts... they know what to say next.. they've been schooled.

The pols, think-tanks, pundits, etc. on the right have been very good at propaganda and messaging.

So how do we combat it? How do we break through the talking point, disciplined PR campaign from the right in this twitter, FB, text messaging society? How many people actually read a well thought out, investigative article in the NY Times anymore? How many attend lectures for the fun of it?

I think the left does need to work on PR and messaging. I don't know what the answer is - but I don't fault Rahm for trying to organize some support to have a unified message.

and a scape goat for the left for the President's policies that are unpopular.

If there is a report that there will be a trigger, Rahm gets blamed. If there is a report on Wall Street, Rahm gets blamed.

He's chief of staff, he doesn't make policy. He enforces it.

about his concern over the Tuesday meetings? I think I disagree with him there. I agree with what you said - Rahm enforces it... that's his role. He is supposed to attempt to unify the message.

And - I'm not really a huge Rahm Emmanuel fan - but I do think he is a good person for his role.

I usually like Greenwald's analysis on things.. but I don't agree with his assessment regarding "cheer-leading". I think it is important for the left to have some structured attempt at PR to combat the Right.

You can try, but it is impossible. The very ideology of the left prevents them from being herded. Someone on the left would enjoy sitting in a room for 2 hours debating the intricacy of a policy. Someone on the right would look to who is the loudest angriest person in the room and follow them.

"So how do we combat it? How do we break through the talking point, disciplined PR campaign from the right in this twitter, FB, text messaging society? How many people actually read a well thought out, investigative article in the NY Times anymore? How many attend lectures for the fun of it?"

One critical piece of combating it is to fully press the issues of the liberal wing of our party. The right is very good at moving the perceived center in their direction, even though their arguments are bat-shit crazy, it still works for them, and the media is only too happy to help. Also the Obama administration is terminally bipartisan-curious (my humorous term for how he keeps reaching out to republicans when there is no hope nor reason to), so it doesn't take much for everything to get yanked to the right by the wingnuts (see Van Jones, ACORN funding, how he keeps compromising to get Senator Snowe's healthcare vote, his positions on prosection of BFEE crimes, it goes on and on).

By establishing a solid left wing, and making the logical arguments that lead to true progressive reform, the entire debate shifts towards sanity, towards good policy instead of towards corporate servitude.

Obama could do a lot more of this himself, firmly establish the left policy positions, but that's not who he is, so it's up to us to do it. Otherwise, our reasoned, centrist, bipartisan-curious (a joke ok?) president gets pulled to the right of reason by the lunatics that nobody should be listening to (they should not be listened to because their policies are bad for this country).

The right wing constantly has its thumb on its side of the scales of justice. We need a strong, vibrant, non-compromising left to get things back into balance. And those of us on the left are trying to do this with little or no help from this administration, from the leadership in the Senate, and from some Obama supporters who seem to back his policies unconditionally.

This nation has been spinning out of control in a right-ward, corporatist spiral for 30 years. It's going to take everything we have to pull out of it, and that means standing up for the progressive reforms that have been kept off the table while our nation is being flushed clockwise (to the right) down the toilet.

Blah, blah, blah.

I stopped reading this guy a long time ago. Maybe he should run for presidency and save the world.

The right is always unified. We need something strong to combat them. If a progressive person does not believe in what the WH does, they don't have to show up to the meetings! And liberals want to criticize the President but when liberals criticize each other it is not okay? Hypocrisy. Someone here the other day said anyone critical of Dennis K. is working for the DLC. I like Dennis but even he is not above criticism. No one is. It is a "my person that I believe in is better then yours" argument all the time on DU and it makes me laugh. No one is above being criticized (including Obama) and no one has all the right answers 100% of the time. Sometimes I agree with a major progressive voice on something and sometimes I agree with Obama on something. The main thing is, we all work toward the same goals. Sometimes we take different tactics to get there. The RW in this country is truly evil and we forget that we are all against them in some way.

Are the blogs like DailyKos, that have in their statement of purpose the specific goal of electing more Democrats, fulfilling their core function when they support Democrats or causes?

People like Paul Krugman do not occupy government jobs and, while they have a political point of view that can be seen as left or right, are not beholden to any elected official. They can "call 'em as they see 'em." Glenn Greewald is not a publicly elected official, he can also "call 'em as he sees 'em." He serves his own avowed causes, as he always has. The unity or non-unity of the Democratic Party is not his concern and it never has been. He has aligned with the Democrats in so far as the Democrats were a vehicle for enacting ideas that Greenwald had and he is acting in good faith when he pursues his agenda. That agenda may include criticizing Democrats.

There are people who are issue-oriented. Their honest and stated concern is to advance an issue and a publicly elected official is a vehicle for that. There are Democrats who are loyal to certain elected officials and their stated purpose is to protect that elected from disunifying elements. These things are not the same. They never have been.

I fail to understand the bitterness when each side does what they publicly stated they would do. Greenwald has been a very valuable source of outrage against government policies he views as dangerous and unconstitutional. I fail to see where he ever mentioned he would give that up should a Democrat become President. I also don't understand why Greenwald thinks that blogs that explictly state they exist to support Democratic candidates are somehow "selling out" when that support has been explicit all along. Loyalty is an extremely strong component of politics. It is disingenuous to pretend that it is selling out when people continue to like officials they worked very hard to put into office.

I think everyone is a bit disingenuous here and sees what they want to see and experiences a bit of cognitive dissonance when circumstances don't play out they way they "gamed it" in their heads.

aspects of the Obama Administration. I read his columns quite often, and think he is a writer worth reading. What IRKS me about Glenn Greenwald is that he accuses anyone who supports the President on Issue X as a sycophant or a fan boy/girl. And his "example" from dailykos was not a good one, as the writer was just upset, put the poll together in haste, and could not edit it when she realized it wasn't exactly what she wanted to say.

I 100% agree with you that it is good that left wing or left leaning writers critize the WH and the Dem Congress as they see fit. But to attack those who disagree as being unserious FANS is hugely insulting and shall we say, not helpful.

Amy Goodman hates Democrats almost as much as she hates Republicans. To suggest that Obama is against the public option is a LIE, plain and simple. But I'm used to her doing that, which is why I stopped watching her show years ago.

"To suggest that Obama is against the public option is a LIE, plain and simple."

What makes you so sure about that? I tend to believe it's true, unfortunately. I think he likes to appear to side with the people while often acting to favor corporate interests behind the scenes.

For you to just come out and call doubting Obama's support of a public option a lie seems way over the top. For one thing, it could be an honest mistake, which is much different than a lie. It could also be the truth.

If you have irrefutable evidence of his support of the public option, let's have it. And please lay off the inflammatory "it's a lie" stuff when it's not necessary. Amy Goodman, whether you like her or not, has a lot of integrity, and I've never seen her as one to use dishonesty to advance her agenda.

Neither Amy Goodman nor Glenn Greenwald have changed. They were never Democrats. They are issues people.

Greenwald are always going to be critics. That is what they do. They are not Dem Party people. They have a certain cache to criticize looking into the tent. However, they can also be ignored by the people in the tent. (It does go both ways.) Neither is a "fit" for each other because neither was meant to be a fit for each other. That is using the Republican Party model were the outside groups ARE Party apparatus under different names.

Blogs have the right to organize under a Democratic Party umbrella. I do think it's then disingenuous to criticize them for being defenders of the Democratic Party. That makes no sense. I have severe disagreements with a lot of Dems, but keep them "within the Party" on the whole. I have never said I would do otherwise. These folks never said they would vary either.

I don't get the confusion of roles here. I really don't.

From the link provided in the OP:

LEFTY COSTER: I think Greenwald's analysis comes uncomfortably close to the mark. We at D-Kos like to pride ourselves on being a reality based community. It would be a shame to let our collective investment in getting a Democrat in the White House and a Democratic Majority in the Congress obscure that laudable goal.

That is only one comment. Lots of others would beg to differ. But that's dkos. LOTS of voices.

As per the poll at the end of the diary, which is remarkable given that the questions concerns criticism against their own website.

but this is the person who did a Skull and Bones program after Kerry got the nomination. She is the one who called Senator Kerrey (with an e) a war criminal to his face. And the same person who did an interview with Hugo Chavez THREE DAYS IN A ROW with no rebuttal.

I'm not saying she doesn't do some good work about human rights violations across the globe. But she is too radicalized for me to take her show seriously. Anything not on her agenda won't make her broadcast.

As to Glenn, both he and that DailyKos diarist were wrong. Huff Po IS left leaning; however they are sensationalistic and tabloidish. An entertaining read, I'll admit, but they write what they think will get them hits, not out of principle. Period.

her. I am pretty leftist so she is one of my favorites, I have even met her with Chomsky at her side. that being said I don't believe in "sacred cows: so i am not going to yell at you for not liking her just because i do. I WOULD be interested in hearing the show where she implied Kerry was a war criminal. I was never a huge fan of Kerry's but I never thought of him as a war criminal.

Unfortunately, there are those who oppose free speech on this political web site.
Some of them would have made good Nazi's.....