Glenn Greenwald's Unhinged Attack on Obama and Democrats

[SeattleGirl]

Glenn Greenwald's Unhinged Attack on Obama and Democrats
Wednesday, September 01, 2010 | Posted by Spandan C. aka Deaniac83

I am beginning to find Glenn Greenwald's logic seriously twisted and angry with near-zero intellectual prowess. In a column he penned on Salon.com, Greenwald starts by taking on the Charles Krauthammers of the far right, but then in his usual fashion, turns right around and shovels a load of garbage on the Democrats. Richly, Greenwald thinks that Republican racism and xenophobia is "added to" by Democrats who remind minority voters who our friends are.

<snip>

But wait. This gets better. Greenwald thinks it's one of the "great failures" of the Obama presidency that the economy has "worsened" under Obama. He correctly points out that the breakdown is the fault of Bush and Republicans, but couldn't resist making that baseless claim that the economy is "progressively worsening" thanks to what Obama has done. Progressively worsening. You know, a worsening economy that:

* has stopped us from bleeding nearly a million jobs a month to now creating private sector jobs, albeit at a slow pace.
* resulted in GDP growth, the comeback of the American auto industry, and the solvency of the nation's financial sector.
* has given us the 13th straight month of manufacturing growth.

Link to entire piece: http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2010/09/glenn-greenwalds-unhinged-attack-on.html

Frankly, I'm getting more than a bit weary of Greenwald too.

[Jim Sagle]

1. DLC hogwash!!!!!!

:boring:

[SeattleGirl]

3. Really? Because this didn't come from the DLC, and not

everyone who has a problem with an over-critical person is DLC.

[HughMoran]

5. DLC?

Oh! DLC!

[Whisp]

109. Dog Lice Commission?

that bastard Obama!

:rofl:

[HughMoran]

110. Damned Liberal Commies

:rofl:

[HughMoran]

6. DLC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:toast:

[HughMoran]

86. Those Damned Liberal Commies!

:P

[saltpoint]

7. The DLC isn't much of a player in the perception of

a time and place and president, Jim.

The focus of the OP, IMO, was the level of perception Greenwald brings to events post-Dubya generally and as regards the economy especially.

I reject Greenwald's premise that the U.S. economy has worsened under Obama because of Obama. That's so far left it's deep Right and I think it blows.

[Jakes Progress]

31. Read the damned article instead of the precis.

[saltpoint]

35. Sorry. Read it. Feel the same.

If you like Glenn, he's all yours, JP.

[Jakes Progress]

91. Can you tell me what parts of the article

you disagree with or is it just a "feeling" sort of thing?

[saltpoint]

112. JP, if you like Glenn, as I indicated before, he's all yours.

A good number of us have read a good number of his work, and very frankly, I think he's a little brat.

He has failed to establish an economic connection between the election and service-to-date of this president against a claim that a downturn is owed to this president's tenure.

I'm afraid that's total bullshit, as I've suggested in other DU posts and which other posters here have refined.

You yourself can re-read the article if you think you need a second go at it. For me, once was plenty, and I think Glenn's posture, in addition to being factually disingenuous, is the work of an angry brat.

[jefferson_dem]

12. DLC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1(one)

Ooga Booga.

Boo!

[HughMoran]

14. DLZZZZZZZZ!

2!

[saltpoint]

15. O damn it all! I've been found out.

A thousand curses!

:hi:

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

26. You know, I spent the first 18 years of my life on a farm...

We never (ever) washed the hogs and I don't know anybody who did.

Wonder there that phrase came from...

[saltpoint]

2. If Greenwald had a box of tinker toys, he could, you

know, make stuff.

And it would be a more suitable enterprise for him than politics.

He's very stingy-spirited, Glenn is.

There are some people who want this president to fail. Increasingly, it does appear that Greenwald is one of them.

[SeattleGirl]

4. That's what I'm seeing too. n/t

[saltpoint]

11. Hi, SeattleGirl. I'm standing there with you on this all

the way.

Glenn is a smart guy but goddam, his subversions just smell awful bad. There must be something about Obama that deeply threatens Glenn for Glenn to go thru such contortions to speak against him again and again. Beats me what it is.

Anyway, I'll go halfs on a box of tinker toys to send to Greenwald.

[SeattleGirl]

19. I've liked a lot of things that he has written, but this latest

bent he has had where Obama is concerned just puzzles me. Maybe, as you said, there might be something about Obama that he feels threatened by; I have no idea.

And yeah, I'll go halvsies with you on the tinker toys!

[saltpoint]

21. - - -

:thumbsup:

[HughMoran]

8. Agreed.

[Cha]

17. He just doesn't get any smarter in

the ways of the world and politics. Shame really.

Deaniac nails it..

"But wait. This gets better. Greenwald thinks it's one of the "great failures" of the Obama presidency that the economy has "worsened" under Obama. He correctly points out that the breakdown is the fault of Bush and Republicans, but couldn't resist making that baseless claim that the economy is "progressively worsening" thanks to what Obama has done. Progressively worsening. You know, a worsening economy that:..

* has stopped us from bleeding nearly a million jobs a month to now creating private sector jobs, albeit at a slow pace.
* resulted in GDP growth, the comeback of the American auto industry, and the solvency of the nation's financial sector.
* has given us the 13th straight month of manufacturing growth."

Just a professional lefty who's acting like he can phone it in and who really cares or holds him accountable? Certainly not those who enable him by throwing money in his coffer.

[saltpoint]

18. Hey Cha.

Good to see you.

I've never slammed Greenwald's brains -- he's got brains to spare. But wow, he is on a tirade against this President.

I'd pay some serious cash to see him debate Barack Obama, wouldn't you?

[trueblue2007]

97. Greenwald is a moron. the BAD economy is ALL BUSH'S FAULT

[jefferson_dem]

9. Starting to wonder if Greenwald is actually a troll.

Either that or just another garden-variety asshole.

[HughMoran]

13. Both?

:)

[scheming daemons]

10. To say the economy has "worsened" under Obama is an outright provable lie

We were losing 700,000 jobs per month when Bush left office. We're gaining about 75,000 jobs per month now.

The DOW was 7900 when Bush left office. It's 10300 now.

The GDP shrank by 6% Bush's last quarter in office. It grew by 1.6% this past quarter.



The economy is not asa good as it needs to be... but there's no objective measurement that would indicate it is worse.



Greenwald is a liar.

[saltpoint]

20. Excuse me, sir. There are to be no facts and evidence

cited in public discourse.

This is the era of FOX News and Sarah Palin's Twitter page. Facts and evidence are so yesterday.

As well, they poison the perception we want the public to have that Republicans are for the little people and that only Republicans can save us from brown people invading our way of life.

Kindly remove the logic, clarity, well-focused points, and all facts from your post.

Thank you.

= = = = =

:hi:

[EC]

16. I've never used the ignore function on this site until

recently and boy have I gone to town...there is so much negativity here lately and Greenwald is just like many on here are being...



CUTTING OFF THEIR NOSES TO SPITE THEIR FACES...


I'm really getting worried we'll all being living in permanent poverty and low paying jobs because there are so many Democrats so willing to just roll over because they don't get everything they want right away...If we screw up and repubs gain control again we'll be living the way Tom DeLay said should be the model for the U.S. - like in the Marianna's...no labor laws, no regulations on any industries, no building regulations, paying for all of our services(schools, fire, police etc. will all be private) with fees instead of taxes (which means they can be cut off just like electricity for non-payment and increased for late payment)See how much they'll complain then...


On edit: By the way I'm agreeing with you..sorry for the rant - I've just about had it with all these trolls lately or actual Dems that complain about everything...can't even read FDL anymore without seeing red...

[SeattleGirl]

22. I couldn't agree more, EC.

The "Dem's need to be taught a lesson" crowd just chaps my hide! And Greenwald is throwing fuel on that fire.

And I did understand that you weren't ranting at me. :)

[phleshdef]

23. Greenwald = The Professional Left embodied

[HughMoran]

24. You know something? You're absolutely right-on with that.

:thumbsup:

[SidDithers]

83. +1...nt

Sid

[Whisp]

111. Bingo!

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

25. I'm really liking thepeoplesview.net

Good stuff there -- No, this isn't a paid advertisement and I don't know the guy. I just like his writing.

[deaniac83]

47. Thank you.

What? You didn't get my check? Lol. Seriously, thank you for your kind words about my blog.

[SeattleGirl]

48. 'Tis the author himself!

I really like what you wrote! :toast:

[deaniac83]

52. Thank you so much

For giving it voice here. Really appreciate it! :)

[SeattleGirl]

56. You are so welcome! n/t

[Born_A_Truman]

69. Thank you!

Loved your KOS diary as well.

[Number23]

77. So are you DLC as accused up thread??

Some people apparently think that is the greatest insult you can hurl at another individual. It's right down there with "rat f*cker," I think.

Why? I have absolutely, positively, resolutely no earthly idea.

[deaniac83]

98. No, I'm not DLC.

The reason the DLC is much despised is its political philosophy of favoring the political establishment over the grassroots, and trying to make the Democratic party more corporate friendly, because they think it's the only way Democrats can win. They tailor their policies accordingly - favoring deregulation (remember that Bill Clinton deregulated the airwaves and signed Graham-Leach-Blailey), for example. DLC, as an organization, though, is pretty much dead these days, and Obama administration has been ramping up regulation on corporations. But some hurl charges that the Obama administration is a corporatist one, and any defense thereof is also corporatist.

So in a nutshell, calling someone DLC is basically calling them a corporate shill in these contexts. It's used to challenge someone's progressive - or even Democratic - bona fides. I have learned not to pay much attention those charges. I'm a progressive, and that means I believe in making progress - not blocking it because I think it wasn't "enough" progress.

[DrSteveB]

27. I wish I knew the name and last name of the author

Unfortunately, he/she goes by a nickname for some reason.

[deaniac83]

50. On The People's View

My first name is in each of the articles. My full name is on the About page of the blog http://thepeoplesview.net

[depakid]

28. I trust Glen Greenwald far more than anyone in this administration

based on the record.

[SeattleGirl]

30. And what is Greenwald's record regarding improving the

country vs. Obama and his administration?

[Jakes Progress]

32. Besides trying to help Obama from his errors

you must know that Obama ran for president. We helped get him elected. Remember.

You can make fun of the people who tell you the truth, but it is still the truth.

[SeattleGirl]

37. There's no need to talk down to me.

And why do some people think that truth is only spoken when it's negative against Obama?

[Jakes Progress]

92. You weren't being talked down to.

You asked a silly question so got a silly reply. You posted a comment that a television columnist is comparable to the President of the United States and all of his powers when it comes to doing good for the country. Really now.

As for your question, you need to be more specific. What people? Where does someone say that only negative stuff is true? Point me to the place where that is done. Surely you haven't made the logical flaw of thinking that just because someone says that a negative statement is true that they are also saying that no positive statements are true or that all negative statements are true. So you must have a post that says that only negative statements are true.

[depakid]

54. He's been very helpful about pointing out opportunities to restore accountability

under the rule of law to pre-Bush norms. Among other things.

Not his nor others' fault that the administration isn't interested.

[SeattleGirl]

57. Second verse, same as the first. n/t

[depakid]

71. It's interesting that those sorts of principles don't matter to some Obama followers

because its proven Krugman to have correct yet again....

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/11/opinion/11krugman.html

[SeattleGirl]

72. Principles matter a lot to this Obama supporter.

Bitching, pissing and moaning, however, do not.

But, carry on.

[depakid]

74. The facts on the record -acts and omissions- are what they are (as are constitutional duties)

That anyone would call pointing out the record on these matters to be "birching, pissing, moaning," etc. is very telling indeed.

As mentioned, Krugman's observations back in 2008 were correct.

As proven day after day on this very board.

[JTFrog]

75. When you take every side of every issue over the course of days, weeks, months or years,

you're bound to get it right once in a while. That's Krugman's MO.

And around here he can go from pedestal to under the bus in under 60 seconds flat.

Just sayin... :shrug:

[depakid]

80. That's Krugman's MO?

Having read his material from the 1990's on, seems to me that he calls it like he sees it- and has a solid track record of calling it right.

The pieces in the Great Unraveling for instance are nothing short of prescient.

Agreed on the bus to pedestal pattern around here though.

[HughMoran]

84. He calls it as he sees it

Yep - and he looks at a problem from different angles from time to time - this gets him thrown under the bus (in this "you're either wit us or agin us" environment :eyes: )

[saltpoint]

33. He's the champion of a very, very small gathering of

acolytes.

He does have writing ability, yes, but his bitterness against Obama and the Democrats keeps breaking through like that alien bursting out of Signorney Weaver's belly.

He persuades people who already are as bitter and disconnected as he is, but significantly, no one else.

[HughMoran]

39. Glenn and Glen, sittin' in a tree

[slay]

61. +1

i doubt the people who post in GD:P WAY more than i doubt glenn greenwald. Glenn is smart - the fact that he's getting attacked here at DU means he must be hitting some nerves. good for him.

[Jakes Progress]

29. Severe dyslexia or "III caaaannnt heeaaar yyooouuuu" syndrome.

I suggest that people read the Salon article rather than the badly slanted interpretation on PPV.

Granted that it can hurt to have the bitter truth tossed out for all to see, but Greenwald has defined the crux of the problem for Democrats.

That crisis presented a huge opportunity for Obama and the Democrats to bring about real change in Washington -- the central promise of his campaign -- by capitalizing on (and becoming the voice of) populist anger and using it to wrestle away control from Wall Street and other financial and corporate elites who control Washington. Had they done so, they would have been champions of populist rage rather than its prime targets.

A year and a half of wait-and-see and republican-footsies has not turned out to be change.

People who want the president re-elected and a Democratic congress need to be willing to listen to what is wrong. It's not the progressives that are the problem. You can't keep crowing about how good things are and be credible. You can quite accurately blame the republicans. You can show exactly where they have held the people hostage to provide succor to the rich. But you can't win by saying over and over "We've created a million jobs" when every person looking for a job (that's about 10%) and all of their families know that we are short ten million jobs. That just pisses people off. They know the economy stinks. When you keep saying no-it-doesn't, you become the enemy. So show that you care by admitting how bad it is. Tell why it's that way and who made it that way. Then tell what you are going to do about it besides give more money to rich people and corporations and hope they trickle it down.

[SeattleGirl]

36. I don't believe the author of the piece I posted was plugging

his ears or screaming that no, everything is just hunky dory, peachy keeno. The author's point is that Greenwald goes overboard. There are a lot of people around these parts who pounce on anything positive about Obama and/or the direction of the country, and do their own bit of screaming: "No!!! Obama has made everything worse! Whaaaaaaaa!" In fact, he has made many things better, and is working on improving still others. Is the country perfect? No, but then, it never has been. But I think he's made some headway in undoing some of the horrendous damage that Bush did. And the fact of creating jobs is just that: a fact. Have enough been created that everyone who wants a job has one? No, of course not, and the author didn't make that claim.

His point, as well as mine, is that there is some over-the-top bashing of Obama and the Democrats. There are people who just flat out don't want to see, or admit, that he's done some positive things. I'm sick of it, so I will counter them when I have the chance. As I said, everything is not hunky dory, peachy keeno. But if you think nothing has changed, you haven't been looking around.

[Jakes Progress]

90. Not the point you made in the OP

You wanted to use Greenwald's article as proof of his craziness, but you didn't use his article. You used a crazy, over-the-top article about the article.

If you are going to bash Greenwald, you need to read Greenwald instead of his detractors. Read Greeenwald's piece and then tell me what parts you disagree with.

[ibegurpard]

45. yup

[yowzayowzayowza]

66. So we needed President Hulk Hogan to open up a can o'...

populist whoopazz on The good Senator from Hartford and a few others? Seriously?

[TomCADem]

34. Why The Surprise? Greenwald Is Not A Liberal. He Has Said So Himself In His Books...

...He is more of a civil liberterian who is distrustful of big government. He may support government benefits, but he distrusts government as an institution. He is very consistent in his views, yet folks always seem surprised that he attacks both Republicans and Democrats. This is why he also supported the Robertson Court's Citizens United decision and the recent anti-gun control case. Likewise with Jon Turley, another libertarian, who supported the impeachment of Bill Clinton.

[SeattleGirl]

38. Funny then, that so many self-described liberals seem to have

him on a pedestal.

[TomCADem]

40. Selective Hearing. Greenwald Has Never Claimed That He Is Or Was A Liberal...

...my take is that liberals became enamored of Greenwald and Turley during the Bush years. Heck, some folks cited Pat Buchanan with approval based on his stance against the Iraq war. But, that does not make them liberal.

[SeattleGirl]

42. My hearing is just fine, thank you.

And thank you for addressing my actual question, which was about why so many liberals have him on a pedestal.

[HughMoran]

41. Glenn Greenwald - Libertarian

I thought leftists hated libertarians - who knew? :shrug:

[slay]

62. Some of us hate pro-corporate Dems more and can appreciate Glenn's logic. n/t

i said N/T can't you read?

[impik]

81. And yet, he became hero to the Left. And i use to think that our side is the smart one

[seaglass]

82. Hmm, I'd rather have someone who attacks both because of what they do (and Glenn certainly does

that) than the many DUers who "pragmatically" excuse Obama and other Democrats for the same things they excoriated Bush and Republicans for.

It's called principle over party and I am FOR it.

[DrSteveB]

93. I'm confused. Why are some here calling him "professional left" if he's not a liberal?

Let me get this straight. He is in the Left but is not a liberal? That's odd. Or do you disagree with those blasting him by saying that he is "professional left"?

[deaniac83]

43. I wrote it

Thank you for sharing it here. As for people having a DLC cow, recall that Obama won against the DLC crowd. And the accomplishments of this president and this Congress has not even been close to DLC. The dismissing of every argument against a knee-jerk rah-rah reaction to badmouth the President as "DLC" does not give anyone more credibility.

[brentspeak]

46. What accomplishments?

Taking the American people's hard-earned tax dollars and giving them to the same Wall Street ripoff artists and insurance CEO's who have bankrupted so many millions of Americans and their families? You mean those kind of "accomplishments"?

[SeattleGirl]

49. Oh, it's you.

[brentspeak]

53. I'm not a whole lot different than millions of other Democrats all over the nation

who are disgusted with being both robbed and had.

[HughMoran]

55. Couldn't disagree more.

[SeattleGirl]

58. And here comes the third verse. n/t

[HughMoran]

51. not to be taken seriously

:eyes:

[SeattleGirl]

59. I know. Just keeps singing the same old tune.

:silly:

[HughMoran]

60. off key

[jefferson_dem]

79. The "DLC" stuff is the stupidest canard...

And it just makes whoever uses it look silly.

I recall during the primaries, some were trying to say Obama was DLC (even though he never was) and Edwards was not (even though he was a long-time card carrying member).

[HughMoran]

85. Teh stupid,

it bruns :eyes:

The author who states above that Obama ran against the DLC was right on - those who don't realize this are no better than our opponents when they use that 'stupid canard' as you so aptly put it.

[bvar22]

100. Won against the DLC crowd???

Obama "distancing" himself from the DLC was good marketing, not a philosophical choice.


The DLC New Team

(Screen Capped from the DLC Website)

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=254886&kaid=86&subid=85


”I am a New Democrat!”---Barack Obama
http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=254931&kaid=85&subid=900184

The DLC, or whatever rebrand they are hiding under are alive and well, AND in control of the Obama Administration.

"The Devil's greatest achievement was convincing the World he didn't exist."

[zulchzulu]

44. Greenwald peaked with "Outfoxed" and has been silly ever since

Outfoxed was awesome (http://www.outfoxed.org/), but his later films have been a tad predictable... almost a parallel universe to wackazoid Alex Jones.

He's gotten lazy with the facts.

[jefferson_dem]

76. Different Greenwald.

That's Robert. This is Glenn.

[impik]

63. Gibbs was right.

[LittleBlue]

64. I read Greenwald's article, and he's dead on.

The economy has progressively worsened by measure of unemployment, which has increased to nearly double-digits.

Frankly, I'm getting tired of people excusing the abysmal economy.

[SeattleGirl]

65. Hmm, did you miss the part in the piece I posted about jobs

creation and other things?

Neither I or the author is claiming that everything is fine now. But just the fact that we aren't bleeding jobs like we were before says something to me.

And that something isn't "Nothing has changed."

Sorry you don't see it that way.

[LittleBlue]

67. We lost a net of 10,000 jobs in August

I'm not really sure where these fishy claims came from, but they are bogus. We have lost millions of jobs over Obama's presidency.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSEAP10340020100901

[SeattleGirl]

68. It was worse under Dubya

From December 2007 to July 2009 – the last year of the Bush second term and the first six months of the Obama presidency, before his policies could affect the economy – private sector employment crashed from 115,574,000 jobs to 107,778,000 jobs. Employment continued to fall, however, for the next six months, reaching a low of 107,107,000 jobs in December of 2009. So, out of 8,467,000 private sector jobs lost in this dismal cycle, 7,796,000 of those jobs or 92 percent were lost on the Republicans’ watch or under the sway of their policies. Some 671,000 additional jobs were lost as the stimulus and other moves by the administration kicked in, but 630,000 jobs then came back in the following six months. The tally, to date: Mr. Obama can be held accountable for the net loss of 41,000 jobs (671,000 – 630,000), while the Republicans should be held responsible for the net losses of 7,796,000 jobs.

Link: http://www.blogforarizona.com/blog/2010/08/ezra-klein-who-to-blame-for-job-losses.html

[Born_A_Truman]

70. Fail!!

Obama administration: -41,000 jobs
Bush administration: -7,796,000 jobs

Yep. Worse under Obama, no doubt.

Figures prove it.

[SeattleGirl]

73. Oh now, are you trying to disabuse them of their talking points?

:rofl:

[Jim Sagle]

95. Great slogan: Obama, nowhere NEAR as bad as w.

And of course it's twue, it's twue!!!

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[DrSteveB]

101. Being better than W is not exactly a difficult task

Just my opinion.

[phleshdef]

102. The whole point was Greenwald says Obama has made the economy worse and thats a fucking lie.

Obama has not overseen the repair of the economy with a jobs recovery, but he has in fact undeniably stopped the bleeding that was going on when he walked into office. The economy was in a free fall when Obama became President, now its in a state of being weak, stale, yet stable. Greenwald completely LIED.

[vaberella]

78. What's his name again...."High Lord or Overlord Douchenozzel"

ugh...I praise you whoever came up with that.

[yurbud]

87. Greenwald was telling the truth while DLC opportunists were still saying amen to Bush's bullshit

[yurbud]

88. Which progressive columnists/pundits/whatever would you have us read instead?

That we may realize the error of our ways?

[Phx_Dem]

89. One of the "professional left" loonies. Gibbs was so right.

[Phx_Dem]

94. Unhinged is a perfect description of this professional leftie.

[Name removed]

96. Deleted message

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

[NJmaverick]

99. Not surprising, he became unhinged months ago

so it was only a matter of time.

[merkins]

103. FUD

Jane Hamsher wasn't enough eh? Lets toss Glenn under the bus too! Wheee ....

Fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD) is a tactic of rhetoric and fallacy used in sales, marketing, public relations, politics and propaganda. FUD is generally a strategic attempt to influence public perception by disseminating negative and dubious/false information designed to undermine the credibility of their beliefs. An individual firm, for example, might use FUD to invite unfavorable opinions and speculation about a competitor's product; to increase the general estimation of switching costs among current customers; or to maintain leverage over a current business partner who could potentially become a rival.

[HughMoran]

104. I get it now. Not worshiping Obama = good Progressive, not worshiping Greenwald = him under bus

:crazy:

[SeattleGirl]

105. I think you're onto something there, Hugh. n/t

[ibegurpard]

106. Greenwald's criticisms have been spot-on

n/t

[SeattleGirl]

107. Could you explain how they have been spot on?

There has been evidence presented that they are not so. What is your evidence that they are?

[HughMoran]

108. Yep

[DemocraticPilgrim]

113. The attacks are getting more unrealistic now. GOPs goal is to break the economy again and blame ...

Pres. Obama therefore electing their presidential candidate.

[Mimosa]

114. I see that too.

The teabaggers are gullible.

But Obama's people need to seize hold of the narrative, yet there seems a reluctance to do so. I don't mean the type of message discipline which some Obama fans do here on D.U.. Obama himself could be bolder. He has changed since he was a candidate. He seems chastened, somehow. I do not trust those around him, especially Rahm Emanuel or Robert Gibbs. But I could be wrong.

Here's a link to Greenwald's article.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/08/27/krauthammer/index.html


I don't perceive it as an attack on Obama. Greenwald is warning us about the divisive Republican strategy.