Glenn Greenwald: "you simply don't sufficiently appreciate everything Obama's done for you"

[Better Believe It]

Obama's view of liberal criticisms
By Glenn Greenwald
September 17, 2010

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/09/17/obama


-------------------------------------------


President Obama criticizes the petulant left
by Stephen Stromberg
September 17, 2010

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/

So the attacks against liberals/progressives who have expressed any criticisms, doubts or reservations about President Obama's policies escalate .... in the mass media and on DU. That "big tent" appears to be shrinking and some more conservative and moderate elements would just as soon have us leave their tent if we don't "shape up" and follow the party line. Do the hard work, send money and STFU! BBI

EDITED BY ADMIN: COPYRIGHT

[ClarkUSA]

1. What bullshit. Read the FULL TRANSCRIPT before buying into Greenwald's PUMA propaganda:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9154915&mesg_id=9154915

[DirkGently]

8. Can you articulate the helpful parts of the "full transcript," please?

Read that post and saw only an "interpretation" offered. No actual words which seem to blunt what otherwise appears to be a fairly harsh and unsympathetic, not to mention inaccurate, view of the administration's liberal critics.

[ClarkUSA]

16. Why can't you read the transcript yourself via the link provided?

Here is the link to the text: http://www.acorn-online.com/joomla15/greenwich-post/news/local/70736-remarks-by-president-obama-at-last-nights-fundraiser-in-greenwich.html

<< No actual words which seem to blunt what otherwise appears to be a fairly harsh and unsympathetic, not to mention inaccurate, view of the administration's liberal critics. >>

I am a lifelong liberal activist who saw nothing that was inaccurate and nothing that mentioned "liberal critics". That's your spin. President Obama specifically pointed to some "Democrats", which includes PUMAs media attention whores like Jane Hamsher of FDL and her fans who attack him from the left 24/7 even though they supported DLC darling Hillary.

[DirkGently]

19. I think the burden is on you to support your analysis of "bullshit."

If you can't, it kind of makes the "bullshit" sound like horse hockey.

[ClarkUSA]

25. Read better. I did. Why don't you prove your assertion with a quote? nt

I'll sat it again:

I am a lifelong liberal activist who saw nothing that was inaccurate and nothing that mentioned "liberal critics". That's your spin. President Obama specifically pointed to some "Democrats". Don't deny there are PUMAs media attention whores like Jane Hamsher of FDL and her fans who attack him from the left 24/7 even though they supported DLC darling Hillary.

[DirkGently]

30. My assertion is simply that you've offered no substance for calling "bullshit."

[ClarkUSA]

33. I did, but you won't acknowledge it. This, by someone who refuses to back up his claims? lol!

:rofl:

[DirkGently]

37. You did not. You purport to have proved your point with a link. Why are you

unable (or unwilling) to simply state what it is in the "context" that contradicts the piece? Respectfully, that's not making an argument, but rather purporting to have proved a point without actually saying anything at all.

[ClarkUSA]

60. D'oh! I proved it by pointing out Pres. Obama never mentioned "liberals" at all in his comments.

Still waiting for that quote... you got nuthin, do you?

[GreenArrow]

137. So, are you suggesting that Democrats aren't liberal?

I realize there are some Democrats who are scarcely liberal, but I think it can equally be taken as a given that there are plenty more Democrats who would qualify themselves as liberals of one stripe or another. Obama certainly has plenty of enemies outside the party, but many of his critics are within the party. He was speaking about the latter at a Democratic fundraiser, to Democratic supporters, many if not most of whom, would also qualify themselves as liberals.

This "context" argument is essentially a distinction without a difference.

[ClarkUSA]

187. That's quite a stretch of imagination. I have been very clear in what I am "suggesting".

I am not interested in arguing semantics.

[GreenArrow]

189. "That's quite a stretch of imagination."

Well, you should try it sometime, you might learn something. Your literal interpretation of this issue falls far short of the mark, which if you were interested in arguing semantics -- the study of meaning -- would be pretty clear to you.

[ClarkUSA]

200. Yes, it is. I prefer the facts to perfidious parsing.

<< Well, you should try it sometime, you might learn something. >>

I'll leave the flights of false fancy to professional media whore shit-stirrers like Glenn Greenwald and his fans.

<< Your literal interpretation of this issue falls far short of the mark, which if you were interested in arguing semantics -- the study of meaning -- would be pretty clear to you. >>

Semantics is the realm of biased bullshitters. I prefer to state the facts and leave the pretentious posturing to others.

[aquart]

26. Ah, there it is. Hillary supporters are evil.

Why don't you have a nice purge so only the pure and good Democrats are left?

God forbid anyone find Obama imperfect.

[ClarkUSA]

35. Your strawman argument is unfortunate and divisive.

:hi:

[Peregrine Took]

46. You just said the same thing on the thread re: Wash Post article.

I get it. That is your standard little phrase to combat Obama criticism - READ THE FULL TRANSCRIPT!

[ClarkUSA]

62. The same applies when the same lies are spread.

Are you stalking me?

[LWolf]

54. I read the full transcript.

Sixteen paragraphs before the comments quoted in the OP, and 3 after.

A whole lot of how bad the situation was when he got to the WH. Which is true.

Some kind remarks about a few candidates.

A token acknowledgment that there are people who are still struggling.

A whole lot of patting himself on the back for his "accomplishments."

Like this one, in which he demonstrates why he will never receive a vote from me in his lifetime:

Having said that, after being in this job for two years I have never been more optimistic about America. I am optimistic partly because we did some really tough things that aren’t always popular but were the right things to do. We had initiated an education reform agenda that is shaking up the education system all across the country. And I've got a terrific Secretary of Education who's been able to get teachers, principals, students -- sometimes there's some contentiousness about it, but everybody focused on how are we going to lift up performance for all our kids so they can compete in a global economy.

Not that I'm not about "lifting up" my students, although they have to lift up their "performance" themselves. That is, after all their job. But the way that Obama and his pick Arne are going about it is to privatize and union-bust, which "lifts" nobody but those to gain from privatizing and union busting. That DOES result in "some contentiousness," but it is NOT "the right thing to do."

Calling "achievements" like that "productive" and "progressive" is like calling McCarthy a hero. Celebrating his administration's adoption and extension of neoliberal attacks on public education that Ronald Reagan would have been proud of is not exactly "reaching out" to work with the left.

I don't see anything in that speech that indicates to me that the OP is not accurate.

[ClarkUSA]

63. "he will never receive a vote from me in his lifetime"

You do realize that this is Democratic Underground, right?

"Democratic Underground is an online community for Democrats and other progressives. Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office."

[LWolf]

70. I know exactly where I am, thanks.

I HAVE been here for 7.8 years.

I AM generally supportive of progressive ideals, if "progressive" is defined as "left-wing." This IS a self-defined "left-wing" message board. I DO support Democratic candidates for political office. Many of them. If I DON'T support them, I don't campaign against them on DU when they are running for political office. THAT would be breaking a rule.

Obama is not running for political office. I'm not required to support his actions in the WH when they are bad for the nation and bad for traditional Democrats.

I AM supporting Democrats on my ballot in the upcoming election. Not because it's a DU rule, but because they deserve the support.

Now that we've addressed your "concern" that I don't know where I am....

You DO know that you are not the DU police, right?

[ClarkUSA]

74. Really? Then you know you can't say that in 2011 when Obama starts campaigning for re-election.

And you know you can't say that during the whole of the 2012 election season or appear to advocate against President Obama in any way during that crucial time when Democrats are trying to win back the White House against a likely Palin/Romney ticket?

Because it is against DU rules not to support Democratic candidates for office. :)

"Democratic Underground is an online community for Democrats and other progressives. Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office."

[LWolf]

77. Yes, I know that.

I even knew it before the first time you quoted it. :eyes:

I also know this:

1. It's not 2011.
2. Obama has not kicked off a re-election campaign.
3. At no time, now or then, are you in charge of what I can say, or not say, here or anywhere else.

If it would give you a vicarious thrill to chase me around on DU in 2011 during Obama's re-election campaign, wearing your virtual trenchcoat, with your hidden camera and wire, hoping against hope to catch me violating that rule, so that you could jump out and yell, "AHA!" while dialing moderator 911, go for it. You are destined to be disappointed, but I wouldn't want to discourage your efforts.

Meanwhile, I'm not violating that rule, and I've known that rule longer than you, so why not find some other ax to grind?

[ClarkUSA]

79. Good. I look forward to President Obama's re-election campaign against Palin/Romney 2012.

Even if you won't be voting for our Democratic President Barack Obama "in his lifetime". :eyes:

It's a good thing there will be plenty of Democrats who will, eh?

[LWolf]

81. I look forward to supporting every left-of-center,

socialist-leaning, labor-loving, trust-busting, DLC/corporatist/fascist/"new" dem/3rd way-busting, anti-corporate, war-ending Democrat I can find to support this year and in all future elections.

[ClarkUSA]

84. President Obama is all of those things but I guess for some, the perfect is the enemy of the good.

:hi:

[LWolf]

87. The delusional are the enemy of the intelligent,

the lesser-evil is the enemy of the good, propaganda is the enemy of truth, cliches are the enemy of critical analysis, and the perfect doesn't exist on the earth or in politics.

[ClarkUSA]

88. Who is "delusional" here? Hmm? nt

[LWolf]

89. Those who think Reagan-like attitudes and agendas

are somehow left-of-center, for one.

Hmmm.

Not that I said anything about "here." :eyes:

[ClarkUSA]

90. I don't see anyone doing that here. Do you?

:shrug:

[LWolf]

100. Yes. I do, every time I come here. nt

[ClarkUSA]

103. Okay, one mo' time: Who is "delusional" here? Who "think Reagan-like attitudes and agendas"?

Hmmm?

[LWolf]

190. lol

The "Hmmm/" isn't clever or cute, and your attempts to prompt me into call-outs are futile.

[druidity33]

130. all i gotta say is...

he's a Yankees fan. You can't really expect depth or flexibility there. They just wanna be winners...

:shrug:





:)

[ClarkUSA]

133. lol! Bet you know what's my fav channel and what I'm watching right now, right?

:hi:

[druidity33]

138. yup, i do...

I'm in MA now, so i've adopted the Red Sox. I was born a Mets fan and root for them when i can, but im restricted to radio listening and the Sox are all i get out here...

We still got a series coming up ahead, but it looks like your team is headed to the Post season again...









you rat bastard.


:hi:

[ClarkUSA]

158. Aw, I feel sorry for ya.

Just kiddin'. :P

Couldn't you just watch the Yankees games on your computer? It's only $39.95 for the rest of the season, last I checked.

I'm an equal opportunity New York fan. I root for 'em all. Earlier in the season, I was hoping Mets would beat out the Phillies, but maybe next year. I guess we'll be on opposite sides when the Yankees take on the Red Sox next week.

I'll be thinking of you when we sweep. ;)

[druidity33]

166. stupid freaking Satellite dish...

they limit my bandwidth to 250MB for any 24 hour period. Highly frustrating. Really slow service and expensive too. But i CANNOT tolerate dialup... so i stick with the radio fro sports. Which i like. I usually stroll down to the firepit i've got in my woods and take the radio with me... in winter i can do leatherwork while i listen.

cheers and good night...

[Name removed]

139. Deleted message

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

[snagglepuss]

156. well said nt

[Hell Hath No Fury]

196. "President Obama is all of those things..."

:wow:

[coti]

125. That's not going to fly as a base motivator.

You're offering a choice to hundreds of DU posters between defending their legitimate concerns and integrity, and participating in an online discussion forum.

You can't hold DU hostage in order to generate more support for 2012. It won't work this time around- people are way too angry.

The REAL solution is for the President to shape the hell up in the next two years- to stop making stupid-ass deals with corrupted people, start using the bully pulpit more effectively, and grow a pair. Stop talking about idiotic stuff like cutting Social Security and stop holding out tax breaks for the rich as a bartering tool to enact further corporatist policies.

I'm not even talking about foreign policy- I have no real criticism of him in that area. I honestly think he's done the best he can with these two wars.

But, domestically, he's terrible. A few good policies, but especially on the really big, important things he has caved and often made things worse, time after time.

He needs to do it right. He needs to be the PRESIDENT and do what needs to be done to actually fix things.

[ClarkUSA]

131. Go tell it to DU admin if you have a problem with DU Rules.

And trust me, come 2012, the "base" will be motivated.

In 2008, Pres. Obama won by the largest margin of victory for a Democratic President since LBJ.

Come 2012, when the economy is better and Palin/Romney is the alternative, President Obama will win by an even bigger margin.

:)

[coti]

134. I'm telling it to you- the one holding DU hostage because you have trouble defending his policies.

If you don't want that response, don't do that.

As far the rest, I'd LOVE to see him pull himself together.

We'll see.

[ClarkUSA]

136. You "have trouble" with over-the-top baseless rhetoric. Stop "holding DU hostage" with it.

:rofl:

[derby378]

141. I'm sorry that you don't like how coti just pwn3d you...

...but from my vantage point, that's exactly what happened.

[ClarkUSA]

149. You seem to "have trouble" with baseless opinions. Stop "holding DU hostage" with them, okay?

:rofl:

[derby378]

150. Sorry, that's my line

Too bad for you...

[ClarkUSA]

154. Uh huh. Sure.

:rofl:

[ClarkUSA]

152. dupe

[Name removed]

164. Deleted message

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

[Capitalocracy]

92. When do those two things become mutually exclusive?

Just throwing that out there

[ClarkUSA]

104. Reading through this subthread should make the answer obvious. nt

[27inCali]

85. WELL< I'm voting for him

the only people this offends are the idiots who can't be pleased by anything he does anyways.

this is a desperate attack to draw attention away from Elizabeth Warren's new role in the Adminstration, which is a huge victory for all Progressives and the country but is horribly inconvenient for the story line Greenwald has been trying to push since day one/.

don't let facts get in the way of your ideology there...

[LWolf]

86. Help yourself.

I didn't suggest that you, or anyone else, shouldn't.

You'll have to wait awhile, since he's not on the ballot in this election, though.

I'll be pleased when he fires Duncan, acknowledges the harmfulness of his education policies, appoints an actual educator to the position of Secretary of Education, quits pandering to republicans and faux corporate democrats, rejects neoliberalism, and does his "tough" "shaking up" of the neoliberals and neoconservatives instead of traditional Democratic supporters.

[another saigon]

119. +10000

thank you!

[CrispyQ]

205. "...we did some really tough things that aren’t always popular but were the right things to do."

Like "looking forward" Mr. President? Letting war criminals walk free without even an investigation? Was that the right thing to do?

[Name removed]

128. Deleted message

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

[yurbud]

204. I don't see what in there contradicts the insult to the base, or an explanation of why

he pressured the progressive majority of congressional democrats to follow the lead of the corrupt Blue Dog, DLC minority instead of pressuring the minority (who were generally far more vulnerable politically and so needed his support far more).

[Fumesucker]

2. $30,000 per plate... I guess we know who Obama's base is now.. n/t

[PBS Poll-435]

4. Chinet?

[otohara]

6. Oh Brother

I'm glad there's rich Dems that can afford to shell out $30,000, cuz this member of the base can't afford to.

[Fumesucker]

11. $30,000 would keep me going for two years or more..

But it's clear who Obama was talking to and who he really cares about..

[Kolesar]

15. What's stopping you ?

Go!

[Fumesucker]

18. I don't have $30,000?

Or a job?

Or health insurance?

Or a car?

[Occulus]

109. 30K would pay all my debts, let me quit my job, pay rent for a year, AND go to a community college.

The fact that all my problems could be solved by people who consider $30K to be pocket change

AND THEY WON'T GIVE IT A THOUGHT

really chaps my ass.

[Better Believe It]

20. The diner was held at the home of Richard Richman. I like the name. How appropriate!

[QC]

24. It has a familiar ring, doesn't it?

[Occulus]

111. Please PLEASE say that was a joke.

Please?

[druidity33]

142. Nope. NOT a joke. That was the name in the article i read. nt.

[ClarkUSA]

21. What's wrong with it? If I had the money, I'd give to the Dems, too. I'm glad some do. nt

[Fumesucker]

36. I have no problem with Obama dining with his base..

The haves and the have mores..

[ClarkUSA]

71. Are you implying that President Obama is like Bush? Hmm?

:wtf:

[derby378]

143. Ooooooh, more intimidation!

Go ahead, keep it up...

[ClarkUSA]

155. Hmm, third reply to me in a row on this thread so far. Is this an attempt at "intimidation"?

:rofl:

[derby378]

159. I win...

...it's a shame you didn't think of that first.

[ClarkUSA]

161. So you admit that you are trying to harass and intimidate me? BTW, what did you "win"?

:shrug:

[derby378]

162. I'm sorry, did you just say something?

:shrug:

[bvar22]

51. Whats wrong?

Pay to Play.

[ClarkUSA]

72. Do you have any evidence for your claim? Provide it now if you do...

... then I suggest you go to law enforcement officials with your proof.

[Usrename]

108. Money talks, it's the LAW!

Haven't you heard? Bribery is just "freedom of speech."

You sound as if you've had your head in the sand for the last two years.

[ClarkUSA]

116. Really? Where? 'Bribery is just "freedom of speech."'? Name instances you are referring to.

<< You sound as if you've had your head in the sand for the last two years. >>

"You sound as if you've" been living in another country "for the last two years." Russia, perhaps? :shrug:

[Usrename]

146. My brother made this post at another board a while back:

A few choice excerpts from today's CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION ruling by SCOTUS:

While a single Bellotti footnote purported to leave the question open, 435 U. S., at 788, n. 26, this Court now concludes that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption. That speakers may have influence over or access to elected officials does not mean that those officials are corrupt. And the appearance of influence or access will not cause the electorate to lose faith in this democracy.

When Buckley identified a sufficiently important governmental interest in preventing corruption or the appearance of corruption, that interest was limited to quid pro quo corruption. See McConnell, supra, at 296–298 (opinion of KENNEDY, J.) (citing Buckley, supra, at 26–28, 30, 46–48); NCPAC, 470 U. S., at 497 (“The hallmark of corruption is the financial quid pro quo: dollars for political favors”); id., at 498. The fact that speakers may have influence over or access to elected officials does not mean that these officials are corrupt:

“Favoritism and influence are not . . . avoidable in representative politics. It is in the nature of an elected representative to favor certain policies, and, by necessary corollary, to favor the voters and contributors who support those policies. It is well understood that a substantial and legitimate reason, if not the only reason, to cast a vote for, or to make a contribution to, one candidate over another is that the candidate will respond by producing those political outcomes the supporter favors. Democracy is premised on responsiveness.”

The McConnell record was “over 100,000 pages” long, McConnell I, 251 F. Supp. 2d, at 209, yet it “does not have any direct examples of votes being exchanged for . . . expenditures,” id., at 560 (opinion of Kollar-Kotelly, J.). This confirms Buckley’s reasoning that independent expenditures do not lead to, or create the appearance of, quid pro quo corruption. In fact, there is only scant evidence that independent expenditures even ingratiate. See 251 F. Supp. 2d, at 555–557 (opinion of Kollar-Kotelly, J.). Ingratiation and access, in any event, are not corruption.

Emphasis added, of course.


These assholes are out of control.

[ClarkUSA]

160. President Obama publicly slammed that SCOTUS decision during the SOTU.

So much so that the wingnut Chief Justice Roberts pouted and threatened not to come to another SOTU:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/09/AR2010030903040.html

But corporations making unlimited donations is not the same as individuals giving limited amounts to be split between the DNC and the candidate of their choice. If I had the money, I'd do it. So would every single one of my political friends.

[Usrename]

178. Obama has a way of saying one thing and doing another.

I guess that's the pragmatism some find so endearing.

[ClarkUSA]

188. If you are referring to instances where Congress obstructed him, then you're just spinning. nt

[Usrename]

198. You say potato..

What you call spinning, others call reality.

What you call pragmatism, other call bait-and-switch.

[another saigon]

121. the HAVES AND THE HAVE MORES

bush's peeps

[Techn0Girl]

167. Smells like Victory... still tastes like expensive chicken breast though.

[GreenArrow]

203. well, it's clearly not liberals

since he was only addressing "Democrats."

[PBS Poll-435]

3. Let Greenwald into your house and the next thing you know...

How do you know the fairy isn't a crazy glue sniffer? "Building model airplanes" says the little fairy; well, we're not buying it. He sneaks into your house once, that's all it takes. The next thing you know, there's money missing off the dresser, and your daughter's knocked up. I seen it a hundred times

[Fumesucker]

5. I didn't know that Greenwald is a politician..

Not to mention that he's gay, so if your daughter's knocked up it's not Greenwald.

[PBS Poll-435]

7. Was an attempt at humor

It is Saturday, after all.


Seen Tommy Boy (1995)?

[Fumesucker]

9. Mr Dumbass..

:rofl:

Yep, I have..

[PBS Poll-435]

10. Ok. We will shake hands on that one...

:D

[Uzybone]

12. the hack strikes again

[HughMoran]

14. Cut-and-paste Dem bashing?

[NorthCarolina]

118. The hack?

:rofl: You just keep telling yourself that. :rofl:

[girl gone mad]

126. "A nation cannot prosper long when it only favors the prosperous" : President Obama 01/20/09

Whoa. That dude sure changed his tune fast.

[ClarkUSA]

135. "That dude sure changed his tune fast." How? I'm poor and I don't agree with you.

I am glad he's out there raising money from generous Democrats who have the money to give for Democratic candidates because I and most of the Democrats I know sure as hell can't afford to help that much other than give our time organizing GOTV for OFA.

:shrug:

[girl gone mad]

148. I'll give you just one example.

In the last 2 years, the Federal Reserve printed $1.3 Trillion dollars which was used exclusively to buy up toxic assets from the banks. You know, all of those ticking time bombs the banks had on their books from making bad bets on the housing market.. the things they couldn't get enough of a few years ago, when they were creating massive demand for new mortgages, which caused the market to adopt ultra-low lending standards and created artificially high prices, just so a few Wall Street investment bankers could make mega bonuses by leveraging these POS securities to the hilt?

Anyhow, while the Fed was literally creating $1,300,000,000,000 out of thin air to save rich banker ass from the frying pan they sat themselves down in and turned on to high, Obama was assembling a commission with the very specific agenda of conning Americans out of their Social Security savings, citing dire deficit woes because of a shortfall that's tentatively projected to occur decades from now.

Use your brain here. On the one hand, the government is quite handily printing money to bail out a small group of very wealthy people. There is no gnashing of teeth over increased deficits, and no associated calls for austerity on the part of rich bondholders and counterparties. Not one person from the administration has complained about this spending. Has the creation of this money caused any real negative consequence (aside from the further entrenchment of corrupt, parasitic banking interests) to our economy? On the other hand, we consistently hear from the administration that citizens will need to make sacrifices to "save" Social Security, and that we can't afford more stimulus programs, and that it isn't the government's function spend money to provide jobs because government spending has terrible market consequences.

It certainly looks for all the world as if our government is quick to use its powerful monetary tools for the sake of rescuing Wall Street. But when the other 99% of the country seeks real help, they suddenly feign fiscal constraint.

[dionysus]

145. now raising money for the party is bad. who knew?

:shrug:

[derby378]

147. Depends on whom you're raising it from...

The $30,000-a-plate crowd wasn't exactly Obama's strategy during his campaign.

[katandmoon]

13. K&R

[Kolesar]

17. Greenwald could author the "Fucked Premises" blog ... eom

[Fumesucker]

22. Strange how no one here thought Greenwald's premises were "fucked"..

When Dubya was in office..

I guess he just got all irrational after Obama assumed office.

[ClarkUSA]

23. That's because he didn't act like a PUMA then. nt

[Fumesucker]

31. It takes two to be divided..

[maryf]

208. +1

:thumbsup:

[DirkGently]

42. What's the point of this "PUMA" name-calling in most of your posts?

What do you believe you are arguing when you say that? Seems to lack substance.

[ClarkUSA]

65. The same "point" as saying WH or POTUS or any other anagram.

:)

[DirkGently]

95. Can't defend your name-calling? Why do it then? Surely you don't think it's convincing anyone.

[ClarkUSA]

105. An aptly descriptive anagram is "name-calling"?? Since when? Because you say so?

:shrug:

[Edweird]

194. "Anagram" You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

[ClarkUSA]

201. Abbreviation, acronym... A rose by any other name...

:)

[DirkGently]

210. So, then, you don't have an answer as what you think your name-calling accomplishes. Got it.

[DirkGently]

28. Still waiting for a critique that isn't just name-calling. Interesting.

[ClarkUSA]

32. Still waiting for any proof that Pres. Obama mentioned "liberal critics". Interesting.

[DirkGently]

39. I'll agree he attacked "Democrats," if you think that's important. How does that

make the piece in the OP "bullshit?"

[ClarkUSA]

66. No, he pointed out humorously that some "Democrats" are unrealistic, which is 100% true.

Greenwalds' strawman outrage argument is total bullshit because he spends most of it making up lies about President Obama, such as this nugget of pure tripe, where he channels some childish rant that bears no semblance to reality:

"it's your fault: for being some sort of naive, fringe-leftist idiot who thought he would eliminate the Pentagon and bring about world peace in 18 months, and/or because you simply don't sufficiently appreciate everything he's done for you because you're congenitally dissatisfied."

[DirkGently]

97. But you're making the same argument Greenwald is criticizing. Just don't understand it?

[notadmblnd]

173. That quote is not about Obama.

From your post: "is total bullshit because he spends most of it making up lies about President Obama, such as this nugget of pure tripe"

It's a slam against the same the "retarded progressives" that you are attempting to slam here. So how is it a lie?

[Luminous Animal]

43. Both the public option and tougher derivatives regulation are important issues for the left wing of

the Democratic party. As Obama said, we know who we are.

[ClarkUSA]

67. So what? He wasn't denying that in his speech. nt

[Luminous Animal]

91. The left wing of the Democratic Party are liberal Democrats.

The right wing of the Democratic Party are conservative Democrats.

Liberal Democrats support single payer or, at least, the public option.
Liberal Democrats support tighter regulation on derivatives.
Liberal Democrats support anti-war efforts.

Thus, Obama, was mocking liberal Democrats or liberals.

[ClarkUSA]

106. I know. I've been one of them since I was 11 years old and canvassing in New York City after school

<< Liberal Democrats support single payer or, at least, the public option.
Liberal Democrats support tighter regulation on derivatives.
Liberal Democrats support anti-war efforts.

Thus, Obama, was mocking liberal Democrats or liberals.>>

No, he wasn't. He was referring to unrealistic "Democrats" or attention whore PUMAs like Jane Hamsher who allied with Grover Norquist on Fox News and invited teabaggers to help her to "Kill The Bill". :puke:

Most liberals weren't bitching 24/7 about single payer or the public option during the HCR legislative wrangling. Polls from that time period show a huge majority of self-described liberals strongly approving of President Obama. You know why??? Because we understand there wasn't the votes.

[Luminous Animal]

114. First of all, prove Hamsher is a PUMA. I can 100% assure you that once you do the research...

you will find that Hillary supporters believe the exact opposite, complaining that they were purged from FDL. So that is 1 for you on the side of truthiness.

Second, she is not the only liberal that has allied with Norquist around a specific issue. See here http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/left-right-coalition-calls-for-an-audit-of-the-federal-reserve-before-bernanke-is-reappointed-as-chair-78372177.html and here http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=33740. Wes Clark and Norquist are co-committee members of the Constitution Project see here http://www.constitutionproject.org/Memblist.asp?cid=303. So that is 2 for you on the side of truthiness.

And third, the teabagger that claimed she was working with Hamsher, retracted.

That makes 3 for 3 for truthiness.

[ClarkUSA]

123. Oh, puhleeze. She's been attacking Pres. Obama from the left since Day One.

<< I can 100% assure you that once you do the research... you will find that Hillary supporters believe the exact opposite, complaining that they were purged from FDL. >>

Prove it. If "Hillary supporters" were "purged" from FDL, it sure as hell wasn't because they were attacking President Obama from the left 24/7 because that is what FDL is all about. BTW, there is a big difference between "Hillary supporters" - most of whom support this President - and PUMAs like Jane Hamsher.

<< Second, she is not the only liberal that has allied with Norquist around a specific issue. See here http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/left-right-coal... and here http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=33740 . Wes Clark and Norquist are co-committee members of the Constitution Project see here http://www.constitutionproject.org/Memblist.asp?cid=303 >>

Apples and oranges. Wes Clark didn't show up sitting pretty next to a grinning Grover Norquist on Fox News urging teabaggers to join him to "Kill The Bill"> He also strongly supports President Obama's major initiatives and does not make a living out of attacking the POTUS.

<< And third, the teabagger that claimed she was working with Hamsher, retracted. >>

You wrongly assumed I was referring to this incident.

[Luminous Animal]

175. Show me where this happened. Give me the link.

1) Prove Jane is a PUMA. You made the accusation. It is up to you to prove it.

2) Show me where Jane & Grover were on Fox News together urging anyone, let alone teabaggers, to join an effort to "kill the bill."

3) Cough up your evidence that Jane was working with teabaggers.


Put up or shut up.

[ClarkUSA]

185. Google is your friend. Check the archives of DKos, DU, HuffPo, Fox News videos, and FDL. nt

As I recall, the video of Jane Hamsher and her "Kill the Bill" buddy Grover Norquist over at Fox News was quite a stomach churner. Be sure to take TUMS beforehand.

[Kolesar]

38. Greenwald's premises about Pelosi were fucked

And I let him know it on the Salon blog. Even got his righteous dander up a few times.

[ClarkUSA]

83. Yes, he was. Thank you for reminding us and for smacking him down about it.

:yourock:

[Luminous Animal]

176. What premises? And links to your dander getting.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

197. There's a lot of that going around here lately...

Just ask Jane Hamsher.

[notadmblnd]

27. If only the administration could be as harsh on republicans

with their words as they are with fellow democrats, then maybe, just maybe we all wouldn't be so disappointed? Instead they look like contortionists at Cirque de Solei- trying to play nice so republicans (which is never going to happen) will like them.

[ClarkUSA]

29. They have been "harsh" on Republicans. You haven't been paying attention.

You're pushing a false meme.

[DirkGently]

34. Why not acknowledge failings and propose Improvements, though, rather

than falsely asserting that "Democrats" are just disappointed in the lack of "world peace." Even if you feel unqualified support for the President yourself, surely you understand what a poor political choice it is to blast "Democrats" for supposedly being unrealistic? How would comments like that encourage support from any "Democrat?"

[ClarkUSA]

47. Why don't you write to President Obama and suggest how he can improve his campaign speeches?

<< Even if you feel unqualified support for the President yourself, surely you understand what a poor political choice it is to blast "Democrats" for supposedly being unrealistic? >>

No, I think it's a smart move to point out how "unrealistic" some "Democrats" can be.

<< How would comments like that encourage support from any "Democrat?" >>

Why would a truth that honest liberal supporters of this president recognize be a deterrent to their support?

[DirkGently]

52. If you support "honest" criticism of the President, can you provide an example?

[ClarkUSA]

59. Check the archives. Have you written your letter to the President yet?

:)

[DirkGently]

94. More substance-free sarcasm. This is why criticism of Obama gains traction. No intelligent reply.

[ClarkUSA]

107. More substance-free blah. This is why Greenwald's BS re: Obama doesn't gain traction. They are lies.

As I have proven throughout this thread, if you'd only admit the obvious.

[derby378]

144. Where?

:shrug:

[ClarkUSA]

168. I'm sorry, did you just say something?

:rofl:

[DirkGently]

213. Sure got some traction with you, looks like. :)

[notadmblnd]

45. Maybe in the last few weeks?

I really can't give all my attention to the administration, since I've taken on 3 jobs to make ends meet. However, these first two years, I have been paying attention and the administration has bent over backward to accomodate the right (allowing major bills to be watered down in an attempt to get along and draw republican support is just one example). And if you don't know that- you're blind!

on edit; So you're clear and another post is created bashing anyone that has criticisim of the administration. Just because I'm disappointed so far, it doesn't mean that I don't or won't support democrats.

[ClarkUSA]

57. No, he's been knocking them in nearly every speech. Don't believe the PUMA spin.

<< However, these first two years, I have been paying attention and the administration has bent over backward to accomodate the right (allowing major bills to be watered down in an attempt to get along and draw republican support is just one example).>>

Prove your claims, then show how any legislation can pass without compromise when one party does not have enough votes.

<< And if you don't know that- you're blind! >>

Perhaps it is you who is "blind" to how legislation is passed in the U.S. Congress and to the fact that President Obama is not an emperor with absolute power to create federal law by decree.

[notadmblnd]

64. Show me one time in my posts that I singled out Obama?

I said the administration. And what do you call the Banking regulation bill if not watered down? What do you call the health care bill if not watered down? Backing down on another unemployment extention (and I'm not unemployed) when we should be hanging "more people should be pushed down" comments like the ass wipe on Faux News made, around their freaking necks. I won't even mention the refusal of investigating and prosecusting prior administration officeial because "we must look forward, not behind", for their past criminal actions, or the refusal to recind certain executive orders of the past administration. Oh no, none of those instances would indicate any bending over backwards to placate republicans. Yeah, and I'm the blind one.

I know the president doesn't have the power to pass legislation on his own, so don't even attempt to paint me as ignorant as to the machinations of passing legislation. That's an attempt of diverting the argument that's not going to work.

[ClarkUSA]

68. Never said you did.

<< And what do you call the Banking regulation bill if not watered down? What do you call the health care bill if not watered down? >>

What specific wording was "watered down"? Link to it, before and after.

[notadmblnd]

73. Here' read till your eyes are bloody

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:7aake_J5zG8J:www.usatoday.com/money/industries/banking/2010-06-25-financial-overhaul_N.htm+watered+down+banking+bill+before+after&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a


http://www.google.com/search?q=watered+down+health+reform+bill+before+after&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

[ClarkUSA]

75. First link is dead. 2nd link are all op-eds. Do you have any facts to back up your specific claim?

You said:

<< However, these first two years, I have been paying attention and the administration has bent over backward to accomodate the right (allowing major bills to be watered down in an attempt to get along and draw republican support is just one example). >>

I dispute that claim. All of the legislation passed with barely a Republican vote, and in many cases, none. Furthermore, what few compromises were made was what all Democratic leaders in Congress are supposed to do when they are trying to pass legislation.

[notadmblnd]

78. Pardon me? You're telling me you cant follow and read links that back up my argument?

And that they are not valid? You haven't provided anylinks for any of your argument. Are you saying (without doing any reading) that these are not valid sources? Do not be afraid of the google, do your own homework- it's not that hard. What sort of facts would you find acceptable? I suspect your answer would be none. Again, attempting to make me seem to others as ignorant, is just another attempt to deflect the argument. Again, not working.

I have to go to one of my three jobs now, so why don't you sit in front of your tv and become even more informed and more knowledgeable than you are now. I'll be home after midnight. If I'm not too tired, maybe we'll play together again:shrug:

[ClarkUSA]

80. I quoted the claim you made. You have yet to prove it. Don't blame me if you can't do it.

:shrug:

[notadmblnd]

174. As you told someone upthread- do your own homework

I provided a Google search with many many links you may follow to get started. Coming here with a blow hard attitude and attempting to bully others by belittling and slinging shit at them- is not going to persuade anyone to change their minds.

Didn't your grandma ever tell you that you can catch more bees with honey than you can with shit?

[ClarkUSA]

186. Your links are useless and none of them prove your claim, as you well know.

Try doing your homework before making completely baseless claims against the Obama administration in the future.

[Name removed]

206. Deleted message

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

[EFerrari]

50. It's the run up to an election. We have to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. n/t

[treestar]

102. What's harsh about it?

They can dish it out but not take it is the idea I'm getting here. Why can't they take it back from Obama when they give it to him?

[ProSense]

40. There is really a simple solution to this:

Take a look at what the President said, and then take a look at what Greenwald claims.

Think about it, and then do whatever the hell you want to do between now and election day.

It's fairly certain that the President is not going to view every word coming out of his mouth related to his accomplishments and his critics as an insult because someone decided to spin them as such. Don't think it's spin? Doesn't much matter (see the Gibbs' hoopla).

It's also very clear that Greenwald is going to continue to believe that the President is after him.

Anyone who doesn't like the President and believes he is not liberal enough and is after liberals is never going to be convinced that he's a progressive liberal lover.

Now, do whatever you feel like doing because the positions aren't going to change.

Support Democrats and vote Democratic in the 2010 election if you're so inclined.

Beyond the 2010 election, you can continue to support Democrats and the President, including his re-election or you can join with Greenwald and FDL to find and support your choice of a progressive candidate to run for President in 2012.

That is the reality and those are the choices. It's all up to you, and you have the ability, the freedom, the right to do whatever you want to do, regardless of what you think of the President and his choice of words.

I and the vast majority of the Democratic Party (and I say that with the utmost confidence) are sticking with Democrats and one of the most progressive and accomplished Presidents ever: President Obama.

[SidDithers]

41. Unrec...

Greenwald is a perpetually-outraged ass.

Sid

[saltpoint]

181. Agree.

Seconded.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

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

[DirkGently]

48. What specifically makes you feel that way? Where is he wrong, exactly?

[Toots]

49. Long live GITMO, the Greatest symbol of America today..

Pay no attention to me I am just irrational..

[DirkGently]

53. Indeed, why not acknowledge GITMO as a failing and vow to do better?

I think part of Greenwald's point is the President's comments (and a few here) didn't seem to acknowledge ANY legitimate criticism, which it makes the comments sound like an attempt to suggest there isn't any legitimate criticism of the administration coming from "Democrats." That's clearly unrealistic, and a poor political tactic as well. How many "Democrats" do we want to dismiss as unrealistic people stamping their feet for "world peace?"

[Toots]

55. Didn't Obama already make that vow?

:shrug: sort of the point here I believe..

[DirkGently]

96. Kind of empty with no action taken to keep it. Which is the point.

[ClarkUSA]

69. When you find the votes in Congress to do it, let Harry Reid know and he'll move it to a vote.

Quit blaming President Obama for determined Republican obstructionism on the Gitmo closing issue. President Obama doesn't have a magic wand that changes Republican and DLC Democrats' votes from nay to aye. :eyes:

[Toots]

191. Congress had nothing to do with opening it so why would they nees to have any say in closing it.

:shrug:

[ipaint]

56. People that can afford to bribe politicians with tens of thousands of dollars a piece

at a richy rich dinner could give a shit about a public option, real financial reform, the destruction of public education and ending the clusterfuck in Afghanistan.

Follow the money, really solving all of the above problems would put a devastating dent in most of their wall street portfolios including their health and defense industry investments, tax dodging foundations including the charter school funders, their non union corporations and their children's inheritance.

Not. Going. To. Happen.

I hope they keep insulting and demoralizing their fellow democrats on the left. Force folks to choose. Force people to see the real difference between compassionate pro-worker policies and the reagan democrat status quo. Please keep highlighting the increasing gulf between those democrats who see the mounting poverty and destitution in their lives and/or of their friends and neighbors compared to the gated community, everyone must have their own foundation democrats. Can we have another little joke about world peace in front of a crowd who's children will never ever have to put their hides on the line. And another public option yuk it up for all of those poorer democrats who can't afford their health insurance after more enormous increases in the new year.

Brilliant strategy.



Best thing that could happen.

[backscatter712]

58. Greenwald's really jumped the shark. This isn't helpful at all. n/t

[Techn0Girl]

165. Really - What's UP with Glenn anyway??

WTF ?

He went from being one of Obama's biggest supporters in the election to THIS in only 22 months?
Glenn must have changed somehow.

[ClarkUSA]

171. Salon.com and Greenwald was never "one of Obama's biggest supporters in the election"

Greenwald defended Hillary during the primaries and then was -- at best -- a limpid Obama supporter during the general election. He had to be due to his audience, because he could hardly advocate for McCain/Palin.

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

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

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

76. Greenwald sounds like one of those Rand Paul Democrats.

Fuck 'em.

[Better Believe It]

82. What points do you disagree with in his article and why?

An intelligently written and well thought out critique would be appreciated.

[Luminous Animal]

93. That will never happen. Ever.

[DirkGently]

98. Right. Instead, apparently Greenwald and all critics will just be called names until they "get it."

[Hello_Kitty]

153. The beatings will continue until morale improves. eom

[Techn0Girl]

163. Thank God I'm a masochist !

In this political climate it's a Must!

[NorthCarolina]

124. Good luck with that. It is hard to make an argument that intelligently

rebukes truth. The only responses you will see will be snark and condemnation. It's all they got.

[SidDithers]

99. Rand Paul Democrats...

those are the ones that pretend to be liberals, and post from-the-left criticism of Democrats in an effort to sow fear, unrest and dissent, right?

Sid

[treestar]

101. Weird thing about this article is that it presumes Obama is wrong just

because - it doesn't make any arguments. Maybe the left does have unrealistic expectations. That possibility is not even argued or considered.

It's too easy to judge that other people could have done things "better." Perfectionists are just pains in the butt - always complaining, never doing (because they can't get things perfect either, so they just don't risk it).

[Usrename]

112. That's true, From his first day in office when he closed Gimo...

...by keeping it open, we knew that this was Change that Matters.

[ClarkUSA]

169. When you find the votes in Congress to do it, let Harry Reid know and he'll move it to a vote.

Quit blaming President Obama for determined Republican obstructionism on the Gitmo closing issue. President Obama doesn't have a magic wand that changes Republican and DLC Democrats' votes from nay to aye. :eyes:

[Name removed]

179. Deleted message

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

[ClarkUSA]

180. "Congress won't pay to close Gitmo, says Boehner"/"Senate blocks transfer of Gitmo detainees"

You obviously don't know what's involved in closing Gitmo. It requires funding and only Congress can approve appropriation. Unless you can come up with the $80 million required, of course.

:sarcasm:

Read more to see how government works. Remember that despite being CIC, President Obama is not a dictator that controls Congress:

"Well, no they're not" going to close the prison the Ohio Republican said. "They keep saying they are... I wouldn't vote for this if you put a gun to my head," he said. "... I don't think the Congress will appropriate one dime to move those prisoners from Guantanamo to the United States."

http://www.politico.com/blogs/politicolive/0310/Boehner_on_Gitmo.html

WASHINGTON — In a rare, bipartisan defeat for President Barack Obama, the Senate voted overwhelmingly Wednesday to keep the prison at Guantanamo Bay open for the foreseeable future and forbid the transfer of any detainees to facilities in the United States.

Democrats lined up with Republicans in the 90-6 vote that came on the heels of a similar move a week ago in the House, underscoring widespread apprehension among Obama's congressional allies over voters' strong feelings about bringing detainees to the U.S. from the prison in Cuba.

<snip>

Obama wanted $80 million for closure

The administration asked for $80 million to close the facility. Obama promised repeatedly as a presidential candidate to shut down the prison, calling it a blot on the international image of the United States.

Even in voting to deny him the funds, Obama's Democratic allies insisted the president was fundamentally correct.

Like I said before, when you find the votes in Congress to do it, let Harry Reid know and he'll move it to a vote.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30826649

[treestar]

192. He is closing Gitmo

that's one thing there is no complaint about. Again, perfectionism, too easy to put onto others.

[ipaint]

115. Is there a grey area on claiming you have the executive authority to assassinate

Americans suspected of being a terrorist abroad. Really. No trial, no facing your accuser, no courts, no rights. Is calling that appalling and unconstitutional an example of having unrealistic expectations?

Regardless the issue this election will turn on is current joblessness and neither party has a clue.

We have 3 years and many insurance increases before the clusterfuck known has health care reform hits broke, stretched to the limit,impoverished Americans. I hope the administration is at least anticipating the massive enrollment in medicaid by the tens of millions additional new poor.

[ClarkUSA]

184. So you're okay with a radical cleric who recruits for & plots terrorist attacks against the US?

I am not. Neither is President Obama. In matters of national security, one of the POTUS' and CIC's greatest responsibilities to his office is to protect the lives of Americans against all known external threats be may human or nation -- in case you didn't know.

"radical Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who is believed to have shifted from encouraging attacks on the United States to directly participating in them... he was linked to Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the Army psychiatrist accused of killing 13 people at Fort Hood, Tex., in November, and then to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian man charged with trying to blow up a Detroit-bound airliner on Dec. 25.

American counterterrorism officials say Mr. Awlaki is an operative of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, the affiliate of the terror network in Yemen and Saudi Arabia. They say they believe that he has become a recruiter for the terrorist network, feeding prospects into plots aimed at the United States and at Americans abroad, the officials said... It is extremely rare, if not unprecedented, for an American to be approved for targeted killing, officials said... But the director of national intelligence, Dennis C. Blair, told a House hearing in February that such a step was possible. “We take direct actions against terrorists in the intelligence community,” he said. “If we think that direct action will involve killing an American, we get specific permission to do that.”

<snip>

“The danger Awlaki poses to this country is no longer confined to words,” said an American official, who like other current and former officials interviewed for this article spoke of the classified counterterrorism measures on the condition of anonymity. “He’s gotten involved in plots.”

The official added: “The United States works, exactly as the American people expect, to overcome threats to their security, and this individual — through his own actions — has become one. Awlaki knows what he’s done, and he knows he won’t be met with handshakes and flowers. None of this should surprise anyone.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/world/middleeast/07yemen.html

What goes around comes around. Radical cleric Awlaki will be proof of that. And I, for one, won't shed a tear.

[treestar]

193. You've really oversimplified that

A lack of tolerance for the grey areas is something I associate with the right.

There are no trials on battlefields. That whole issue is strained to the last ability to try to eek some criticism out on the President doing something that just has to be done. It's dishonest.

[Usrename]

199. What fucking battlefield?

Why haven't any charges been filed?

The reason is because none of these cases can ever see a courtroom, that's why. If it were to happen then the whole house of cards will fall and people will see that we are not torturing people to stop a ticking time bomb, no body would have any problem with that, we are torturing people to make up lies. Pure and simple. We torture people to the point where they confess to any story we care to make up about them. Is that so difficult to follow?

[Name removed]

110. Deleted message

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

[PBS Poll-435]

113. That is just so sad

:cry:

[another saigon]

117. Thank God for Glenn

and Jane and Marcie and every other truth teller. Obama is mocking the very people that got him elected. What an Ass.

[NorthCarolina]

120. K&R. Keep speaking the truth Glenn, it drives the

conservatives batshit crazy.

[BzaDem]

122. As usual, Greenwald is making a straw man argument. Obama is talking about people who think his

LEGISLATIVE accomplishments aren't actually accomplishments (i.e. they are failures because they weren't liberal enough, or whatever).

He is not talking about (at least in the quoted passages) criticism on his executive policies. He clearly has a disagreement with many national-security-liberals on these policies. This isn't an issue of him not doing enough for these people -- it is an issue of moving in the wrong direction. It is a legitimate disagreement.

But it was not what Obama was talking about.

[girl gone mad]

127. No one is begrudging the President his accomplishments.

The question is whether those accomplishments will improve the lives of the people who elected him in any measurable, meaningful way.

On that test, he is unlikely to score well, because in order to claim these big legislative victories, the President compromised away virtually every potent element of reform at the Democrats' disposal.

[BzaDem]

140. I guess my point is that what you just wrote is not accurate in the slightest.

And to top it off, Greenwald isn't even claiming that. He is mainly angry at his EXECUTIVE decisions relating to national security. He is changing the subject.

[coti]

129. There's nothing unfair about this piece from Greenwald.

He's considering everything, and this is the reality.

K & R.

[Marr]

132. Topics like this are like flypaper for the Tiger Beat crowd, I swear.

They spark lots of lame, empty "rebuttals" that essentially amount to, "yeah, well-- Greenwald's ugly and he smells!".

[NorthCarolina]

157. I can't WAIT to see how our DLC friends will attempt to spin

the recommendations of Obama's Deficit Commission regarding Social Security into a Progressive meme. "Most progressive changes to Social Security in a generation"....I can almost hear it now.

[Better Believe It]

170. The CAP on SS taxes will be increased! In order to win that huge gain, a few concessions were made

The retirement age will be increased, Social Security will be "means tested", the cost of living formula will be changed in order to reduce future benefit increases, Social Security disability benefits will become much harder to qualify for in order to stop "waste, fraud and abuse", etc.,

Hey. We won! What are those "professional leftists" complaining about?

[Luminous Animal]

177. I used to get better arguments from Republicans. At least (some of them)...

were willing to engage in an ideological discussion.

[Techn0Girl]

151. Good on Glenn for Speaking Truth to Power and Good On YOU ....

for having the courage to report it.

[laughingliberal]

172. K & R nt

[rucky]

182. Obama could fix this pretty easily, if he chooses to.

It's perfectly fine for him to tout his achievements, but if people in his party aren't completely on board with it, arrogance is not the right response. He needs to examine why he's having so much trouble with the left. It really comes down to his failure to communicate how these pieces fit together. Where is this all leading? I know he's articulated a vision of America before, but he needs to do it again - this time, in context to his achievements.

[Lost4words]

183. K & R! I know why Obama is laughing, he has a job!

[OwnedByFerrets]

195. When I hear shit like this...

"Democrats, just congenitally, tend to get -- to see the glass as half empty (Laughter.) If we get an historic health-care bill passed -- oh, well, the public option wasn't there. If you get the financial reform bill passed -- then, well, I don't know about this particularly derivatives rule, I'm not sure that I'm satisfied with that. And gosh, we haven't yet brought about world peace and -- (laughter.) I thought that was going to happen quicker. (Laughter.) You know who you are. (Laughter.) We have had the most productive, progressive legislative session in at least a generation.", I want to just say FUCK YOU. You dont have a god-damned clue how hard it is out here to survive. WHat a fucking disappointment ALL our so-called representatives are.:puke:

[carolinayellowdog]

202. 60+ relentlessly aggressive posts from one DUer

in someone else's thread, what a bully!

[DirkGently]

211. One might speculate there's an element of ... defensiveness there? 8)

[Touchdown]

207. Swamps and bogs make everything rust and paint peel.

Just sayin'.

[glitch]

209. "petulant" now, someone's been hitting the thesaurus. Not that "whining" ever worked.

Ineffectual and always old, itself sounding somewhat... petulant.

Seriously, why make comments to divide the base before a close election?

And why on earth give fodder to the nasties at WAPO:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/
"President Obama criticizes the petulant left

President Obama isn't backing off his criticism of his progressive detractors. First, there was White House spokesman Robert Gibbs mocking the "professional left" for holding the White House to unmeetable standards. Then there was Vice President Joe Biden this week on Rachel Maddow informing progressives that they "better get energized." Maybe these surrogates weren't accurately reflecting the president's feelings about this vocal sliver of his base? Think again. Here's the president at a Thursday-night fundraiser:

Democrats, just congenitally, tend to get -- to see the glass as half empty (Laughter.) If we get an historic health-care bill passed -- oh, well, the public option wasn't there. If you get the financial reform bill passed -- then, well, I don't know about this particularly derivatives rule, I'm not sure that I'm satisfied with that. And gosh, we haven't yet brought about world peace and -- (laughter.) I thought that was going to happen quicker. (Laughter.) You know who you are. (Laughter.) We have had the most productive, progressive legislative session in at least a generation.

Funny. And true. And, because she apparently can't help being a caricature, about to make Jane Hamsher's head explode on MSNBC as I write this. Don't worry -- she'll be fine. She's gotten really good at reinflating it.

I'm a little proud of the president for continuing to stand up for himself. Here's a Democratic president shaking the left by its shoulders, begging it to recognize how good they have it. But, of course, since when did it work to tell your supporters that they're irrational? Look at what he's dealing with: In response to his latest remarks, we've already heard more fuming about the public option and how Obama is like Spiro Agnew. Incredible."

[DirkGently]

212. The criticism of the "petulant" left sounded kind of ... what's the word ...?