Glenn Greenwald takes issue with people cheerleading the President

[ProSense]

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

GLENN GREENWALD: Well, I think one of the most significant issues of the Obama administration has been what role progressives—the progressive infrastructure has played in applying pressure on the Obama administration. One of the very first things that the Obama administration did—and Rahm Emanuel has specialized in trying to control and silence the left; I mean, that’s how he built his power base—in the House of Representatives was, they created these weekly meetings called Unity ’09 and Common Purpose, where members of all of the allegedly progressive groups devoted to progressive causes meet every week on Tuesday, often with members of the White House communications team, including oftentimes Rahm Emanuel, and they coordinate their messaging. So, instead of being devoted to, for example, pressuring the administration on issues relating to labor or to choice or to gay issues or to war, instead they’re coordinating their messaging to insure that their real allegiance is to serve the interest and the agenda of the Obama administration. And it’s really enabled the Obama administration to annex large aspects of the progressive infrastructure and to remove what ought to be an important pressure point.

I think they’ve done the same with lots of progressive pundits, who aren’t necessarily attending these meetings, but who have voluntarily ceded their role in the progressive world and in progressive opinion making and activism. And you see this conflict more and more, I think. For example, the Huffington Post had an article critical of the Obama administration, reporting, for example, that they were working behind the scenes, in contrast to what Obama was saying, to sabotage the public option. And you saw in various places, on Daily Kos and others, suddenly declarations that the Huffington Post was suspect, and they were right wing, and they were the enemy, because anyone who reflects negatively on Obama has to be discredited. And I think you see that conflict, and I hope it will continue to grow, because it’s healthier than having progressives devote themselves to cheerleading for the President.

AMY GOODMAN: But explain why they’re against the public option, the Obama administration. The Obama administration, who—well, Obama was for single payer for years, and we have all the video that we keep playing of him endorsing it.

<...>

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

Logical?

[emulatorloo]

1. No. Not Logical. N/t

[paulk]

2. I think Goodman's statement can be taken either way

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"?

[ProSense]

5. "I realize that taking things out of context is your forte" Is there something stopping you

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.

[paulk]

6. it's your thread, you're the one trying to make a point by posting

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).

[ProSense]

7. "The point being, it seems, that Amy Goodman is not "logical" and should be discredited." What? n/t

[paulk]

34. LOL

another of your favorite tactics -

repeat the previous post and say "what?"

[OhioBlue]

45. what is up with the attack mode?

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

[paulk]

51. net nanny

myob

[sandnsea]

15. If you want to go to not "logical"

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.

[Cha]

41. The so called Left is a manipulative

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.

[AllentownJake]

44. You do understand that the left voted for President Obama

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

[impik]

56. Obama is a Liberal too

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.

[AllentownJake]

57. I'm glad we have moved so far right

That Barack Obama is considered liberal.

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

[beachmom]

64. Most of the "left" supports the President. It is just a tiny vocal minority

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.

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

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

[WeDidIt]

3. Lord High Douchenozzle Greenwald hates everythiong about Obama

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.

[brentspeak]

8. TheKStreetDLCWhoresDidIt

[dionysus]

76. deep and profound.

[Phx_Dem]

11. lol. He definitely is a douchenozzle!

[brentspeak]

18. He's a smart observer who sees through B.S.

I think that's what bugs you about him.

[vaberella]

53. I love reading that. n/t

[Cha]

4. I could give a fuck what he thinks..

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

[AllentownJake]

9. Holy shit

:spray:

[Armstead]

14. You are scary

Or funny....Not sure which.

[cherokeeprogressive]

16. Scary, but in a funny kind of way. n/t

[saracat]

20. Wow. And the point is proved!

[HughMoran]

28. Nice

You've proved the point. :rofl:

[AllentownJake]

10. I heard Michelle made fun of his jump shot yesterday

Better make her sign the loyalty oath.

[ProSense]

12. Still having trouble dealing with reality, I see. n/t

[AllentownJake]

13. Joe Biden made a joke about a Teleprompter

Better get him to sign one too.

[saracat]

23. Lets see the list is growing. Helen Thomas, David Sirota, Rachel Maddow.

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.

[AllentownJake]

25. Yes

The irony of this thread is amazing.

[ej510]

40. There are alot of sheeple in the democratic party just like there are in the republican party.

Critical thinking is dying in America.

[cornermouse]

17. Greenwald's right.

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

[Laelth]

19. I take issue with the cheerleaders too.

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

[Doctor_J]

21. Glad to see Glenn G has found common ground with Glenn B

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

[jgraz]

29. And another one with no sense of irony

or reality...

[Cha]

43. Both glens

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

[Garam_Masala]

22. Why have I never heard of this Greewald dude?

Who is he?

[saracat]

24. Google is your friend.

[Garam_Masala]

26. Duh.....and I always go to google for help lol

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

[saracat]

27. Why do you need someone else to give you a perspective? His work is self evident.

Greenwald is a respected voice of the left.

[AllentownJake]

30. I suggested people read a 3 page economic report

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

[spooky3]

35. his book about hypocrites was excellent

[treestar]

74. If you don't want to answer

Just don't answer.

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

[PretzelWarrior]

31. other than create outrage, what has Amy Goodman substantively done for legislation?

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

[Enrique]

37. one of the most unfair things I've read in a while

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?

[majamay]

32. I applaud ProSense for trashing Kucinich and Greenwald a lot. Those two are starting to annoy me

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.

[paulk]

33. yes, it's always good

when Democrats trash other Democrats.

[moodforaday]

68. Even greater

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.

[Forkboy]

75. Who were you in your last DU incarnation?

[Bluenorthwest]

36. Of course he's spot on

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

[Enrique]

38. It's an excellent interview, I don't see what your issue is

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?

[AllentownJake]

39. Greenwald prevented John Brennan from becoming

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.

[beachmom]

66. Amy Goodman has no influence whatsoever on what Democrats do.

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.

[AllentownJake]

71. I believe the OP was attacking Greenwald

[QC]

77. It's hard to keep it straight who is the current Goldstein.

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!

[ProgressOnTheMove]

42. To be fair to Pres.Obama when he got to DC he saw for himself how impossible single payer would be..

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

[joeycola]

59. He started from a weak bargaining position by kicking single payer

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

[OhioBlue]

46. The catch-22 of the situation, I think

(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.

[AllentownJake]

47. Rahm Emmanuel is a Boogey-man

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.

[OhioBlue]

49. So, are you saying that you disagree with Greenwald

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.

[AllentownJake]

50. You can't herd the American left

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.

[dreamnightwind]

52. we must stop the out of balance right-ward spiral of this nation

"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.

[TomCADem]

48. Greenwald Obviously Has Spent No Time On DU

[impik]

54. Look at me: I'm a purist and i'm always right!

Blah, blah, blah.

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

[Jennicut]

58. I don't dislike Greenwald but I think his premise is ridiculous. Unifying the left is a bad thing?

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.

[TayTay]

60. What is the purpose of the blogs then?

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.

[beachmom]

63. The issue with Glenn Greenwald is not that he has disagreed and condemned some

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.

[dreamnightwind]

72. Suggesting Amy is lying is uncalled for

"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.

[TayTay]

73. Exactly the point

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.

[majamay]

61. Noteworthy: The Daily Kos diarist agrees with Greenwald

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.

[beachmom]

65. DailyKos has more critical diaries on Obama than fawning ones.

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

[majamay]

70. Lots of voices. 57% of which agree with Greenwald

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

[beachmom]

62. I don't like Amy Goodman. I guess that makes me the minority,

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.

[jonnyblitz]

67. If you are more of a moderate I can see why you wouldn't like

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.

[timzi]

69. K & R...Good Post

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