« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
More friendly fire: Greenwald Edition
Salon's Glen Greenwald, not content with attacking Obama with "extreme criticism" (his word) now is attack Keith Olbermann, for, get this, not attacking Obama enough!
What's much more notable is Olbermann's full-scale reversal on how heIs Greenwald going to be writing columns non-stop from now through November attacking Democrats because they don't fall lockstep with 100% of what Greenwald says? Keith is obviously being a little partisan, but so what? He's virtually the only partisan we have on our side.
talks about these measures now that Obama -- rather than George Bush --
supports them.
Greenwald is an important voice, and right more often than not. And you've made your point. But please, with all do respect, just give it a rest with the personal attacks.
Those who think that Barack Obama should not be criticized no matter
how wrong he is -- or those who justify anything that he does no matter
how craven and unjustifiable, including things that they viciously
criticized when done by Dick Cheney or Harry Reid -- are no different,
and no better, than those who treated George Bush with similar
uncritical reverence in 2003 and 2004.
Really? No different or no better? So being partisan (in an election season!) for your candidate who wants to end the war and global warming and national health care and sit down and talk to our enemies is <em>no different</em> than being partisan for a candidate who wants to torture people and start wars? That's exactly the asinine misplaced anger that led to many liberals beating up on Clinton in 1998 and on Gore in 2000. As if Democrats, however flawed, were in anyway comparable to the GOP which is bleeding the country dry. According to Greenwald's insane logic, being a car-carrrying member of the ACLU is no different than being a member of the Nazi party -- both are loyal to their cause, so they must be the same.
And let's all remember that this type of Leftier-than-Thou extremism, that seems to positively <em>delight</em> in smearing Democrats much mroe than Republicans actually, helped bring us Bush in 2000, when the then not-so-glamorous but still very much environmentalist Gore was disparaged as Tweedledee, practically a carbon copy of GWB. Thanks to stubborn, selfish "Naderism" then, we have illegal wiretapping and torture now.
Advertisement
Comments (40)
Darn, why is there no edit function! Excuse the html tags and typos.
June 26, 2008 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I stopped reading Greenwald when the primaries began.
In the beginning he basically ignored Obama and extolled the virtues of Edwards. Then shows more emotional adherence to Ron Paul and Huckabee.
He's one of the best investigative bloggers out there when coupled with his methods of backing up facts.
But aligning with a Presidential candidate can be a personal ideology and now he is giving impression that he is combining politics with his own personal endeavor.
June 26, 2008 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
"But aligning with a Presidential candidate can be a personal ideology and now he is giving the impression that he is combining politics with his own personal endeavor."
Project much?
June 26, 2008 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let me correct that...
Greenwald supported Kucinich first before any of the others.
June 26, 2008 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not anti-Kucinich, but who really wants to let Rome burn while we wait for America to "come around" and elect someone like Kucinich. It's evidence of not really caring about winning and more about ideological purity.
June 26, 2008 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I LOVE Kucinich.
I think Kucinich has been underrated as a senator for the longest time.
But Greenwald has an all or nothing approach to politics. Which may be one reason he can't understand Obama's language of inclusive politics.
IF Greenwald is the Constitutional lawyer he say he is, then he should break it down for me and explain all the nuances of the two amendments, the legislative process, the possibilities that could happen on the floor, and any political tactics that could be introduced by the opposition.
Such as it is, he's using fear the same as has been done before.
June 26, 2008 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kucinich isn't a Senator.
This reminds me of the scene in "Clueless" when Christian asks Cher if she likes Billie Holiday, and she says "I love him!"
But I'm just joking with you. I like Kucinich too. Everyone does.
Greenwald is a tool. He was the one who started this whole theme that this bill "destroys" the Fourth Amendment. He was lying, and counting on nobody noticing. The Fourth Amendment has so many "jealously and carefully drawn exceptions" that it would knock some of these netroots cry-babies on their asses if they actually bothered to review the case law interpreting it. Of course, if they are indigent or a minority, they may already know that our Fourth Amendment doesn't treat everyone equally.
First, wiretapping without a warrant a priori was already legal under FISA. Bush chose not to follow FISA after 9-11, even though the secret FISA Court turned down only five warrant applications, of over 18,000, since its inception. That was too burdensome for him, in light of his personality disorder which dictates that he resents the very notion that a President should have to share power with anyone, particularly the hated judiciary.
So when Greenwald defends the original FISA, in his effort to portray this updated FISA as that which will end life as we know it, he sounds like an idiot or a liar (depending on how much you knew about the Fourth Amendment before reading his tripe). The original FISA was offensive to true libertarians because it endorsed the notion that it may, at times in our society, be necessary to secretly listen to the conversations of others. Greenwald, if he were intellectually consistent, would be arguing against FISA altogether.
What this is really about is losing. Liberals are tired of losing. We want to win. We want to win! We are sick of Bush laughing at us. We want to see that look on his face again that we have only seen once in his presidency: The look on his face the day after the 2006 midterms. We want to win, dammit! And we want them to lose! And we want to be able to say neener neener!! This is about pride, humiliation, frustation, bullying, and everything else you thought you got over in high school but didn't.
This need to win a battle, any battle, is what's going on here. That, plus the fact that people genuinely want the telecoms to pay. They are mad (but not mad enough to give up that AT&T iPhone) and want them to pay. What they don't understand is that this bill only immunizes telecoms civilly, and doesn't immunize Bush at all. Why has Bush never been held accountable? Because we have a rogue justice department that views itself as an arm of the White House (which it isn't supposed to be). Bush can be held accountable, but his Justice Department won't prosecute him or anyone else in his administration for anything. They are too busy putting Democrats like Don Siegelman in jail.
That is what so many fail to appreciate here: We have a rogue Justice Department that needs an exorcism. We must defeat McCain, if for no other reason than to clean house at Justice. Do we think someone like John Edwards would be a better AG than Mukasey? I do!
So let's stop bitching, stop crying, and get behind our candidate!!!
I realize much of this isn't a direct reply to your post. Sorry, got off on a tangent. And now I'm heading back into court... Adios!
June 26, 2008 7:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
*GASP*,
Rep. Kucinich.
June 26, 2008 8:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
But what a tangent it was. Thanks.
June 26, 2008 10:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wasn't it?
That was tight.
June 27, 2008 12:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks!
June 27, 2008 1:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
June 26, 2008 11:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
And he's absolutely right on this one as well.
June 26, 2008 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, Greenwald can't project onto his readers anything because as it's been noted he didn't even VOTE in the last presidential election.
June 26, 2008 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's just what I'm talking about.
We need real change that actually happens in the real world. Not just honorable opposition that loses every time, and not just complaining on blogs and in books.
June 26, 2008 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's not saying that it's wrong for Olberman to be partisan he's saying that he should support Obama for doing the exact stuff he's critized Bush for doing. Hard to see why you'd have a problem with that. If Obama adopts some of Bush's positions, shouldn't he be criticized for doing so?
June 26, 2008 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course, Obama should be criticized if he adopts Bush's failed policies. But he hasn't done so.
And I don't understand why you would become outraged at an imagined stance that you've created and never bring to the forefront all the many stances that McCain has aligned himself with.
Seems you sit back and let McCain slide but hold Obama up to a higher standard, Destor. Since you're such an all out Obama supporter now as you say kinda sorta.
June 26, 2008 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hang on, Quas -- I'm not voting for McCain or anything like that. I expect McCain to be identical to Bush. He's a Republican, after all.
I'm more concerned with Obama because I expect more form Obama and because I'm in the party he's supposed to represent.
The FISA "compromise" really does give Bush everything he's wanted on this issue. So it is a fair criticism to make.
But of course you're right the real Bush clone is John McSame. I'll criticize Obama when he does me wrong, and he did me wrong on this, but you'll never see me threatening to vote for McCain or anything like that.
June 27, 2008 8:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
I was sympathetic to your post until I read GG's actual writing today, which I find myself in complete agreement with. I am concerned there is so much blind allegiance going on that 'Barack knows better than we do, just trust him'. I will trust him as far as his actions warrant trust, and no further. Right now that's not very far.
I think everyone who is pooh-poohing Obama's caving in here needs to read Naomie Wolfe's The End of America. Obama staked his whole campaign on being different, and what he is showing now is "Same ol, Same ol You Can Believe In". Very sad.
June 26, 2008 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
So from the perspective of Wolf's projections...why even try?
June 26, 2008 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
When did anyone say "Barack knows better than we do, just trust him"? Honestly, it's that kind of twisting of what's said, and twisting of the rhetoric that just isn't helpful at all. There are numerous reasons that so many people are putting their trust in Barack, but I haven't heard anyone say it's because he knows better than we do. If anything, it's that he knows better than McCain.
June 26, 2008 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I am concerned there is so much blind allegiance going on"
I'm not concerned, at all.
On my list of big problems in the world, it's not a priority, no.
Global warming, national health care, and Iraq are big priorities. And last but not least, getting the WH back.
June 26, 2008 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
so fucking myopic. Do you realize how silly you sound? What has he DONE that makes you think he'll do Iraq ANY different than Bush. Its SO tired.
He was against this shit FISA bill. Now that he's "learned more", he's for it. NO WAY he'll do that when he "learns more about Iraq". Will that be enough for you? When he tells us we have to stay there? Not dear Obama though.
Also, anyone considered the fact Obama just might not win? Anyone? Or is that simply impossible? It'll be great if the right wing pulls out a victory, and we'll have a crazed old man in there with powers Obama granted him.
June 26, 2008 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
"What has he DONE that makes you think he'll do Iraq ANY different than Bush."
He spoke against the war before it happened, and deserves credit for that. If Iraq had been a great success, it would have poisoned his political career permanently.
"NO WAY he'll do that when he "learns more about Iraq"."
Great, you are a mindreader who can predict the future.
"Also, anyone considered the fact Obama just might not win?"
Much more likely scenario with all the people bashing Obama because he doesn't toe the ideological line 100%.
I think you err in demanding absolute obedience from someone who has a long history of chafing against dogma and orthodoxy.
June 26, 2008 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lawlz. Thanks, observer.
June 26, 2008 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please remember, before you get too impressed with Greenwald, that he is an idealogue who spends more time crying than doing (if he was so worried about the Fourth Amendment, he should have been outraged long before this), and he is putting a spin on things that is not always grounded in fact.
And he detests Obama, just like they all do at Salon. He is not objective, so I don't know where he gets off critcizing Olbermann for a lack of objectivity.
June 26, 2008 7:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
"And he detests Obama, just like they all do at Salon. He is not objective, so I don't know where he gets off critcizing Olbermann for a lack of objectivity."
You might be right. Even the message boards were getting a little frightening.
June 26, 2008 11:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's positin that he will support the FISA bill, with immunity preserved, is Bush's policy
June 26, 2008 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
O...I musta missed the part where he said he would work on stripping out the immunity, possibly through Senator Dodd's amendment..
June 26, 2008 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
uh, that, or you're so naive you don't understand that he's simply speaking to people like you, that buy it so easy. What matters is this - did he say he was going to vote for it, even with immunity being part of it? I mean, you know, AFTER he said he wouldn't. Simple answer - yes. Yes, he does plan to vote for it, "for our protection". Hmm, where have I heard that justification before?
June 26, 2008 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
ummm...something your Dad said before the rubber broke?
June 26, 2008 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry...
My Troll-Zap is set on "Atomize".
June 26, 2008 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Classic.
June 27, 2008 1:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
del7,
I've read all of your comment in this thread. My conclusion is that, although you may be brilliant, you're coming at this issue in a very simple-minded way. Other comments try to tell you that there's no simple, up down choice in this bill. You don't speak to the complex reasoning Obama has put forth. You just keep repeating how simple this issue is, as in, he said he'd vote against it and now he's voting for it, as though he's changed his mind about the issues. He hasn't. He's against immunity. He's against letting the Administration of the hook. He's against illegal, unethical wiretapping. That hasn't changed. What's changed, according to Obama, is that this bill will quicken putting in place data collection tools for our spies, which seems, if it's true, an obviously reasonable position.
If you read the run-up to 9-11, the problem we had in detecting the Bin Laden plan and execution of it had most fundamentally to do with poor data collection and sharing between agencies. There is no basis for dismissing the threat against us by extremists. If I were one of them, I'd be continually dreaming of wreaking havoc in the US. That doesn't make me or Obama a Bushie. It makes us practical, reasonable.
Your failure to speak to the above issue means you're just not listening and taking into account the other side of this debate. You're just ranting about how wrong it is for him to change his mind. Consider his argument above. He's changing his mind for good reason, unlike the Decider. You can argue with his rationale, but there's no evidence that he's compromising his values; he's speaking to the issue of his values and his beliefs about immunity and the other big ticket items involved. He's just making the best of an very bad situation, which is what you have to do in the real world. It does no good to rant and turn everyone across the spectrum of beliefs against you except the twenty percent or so on the Left.
Please try to slow down, calm down, and argue your case more responsivley to Obama's points.
June 27, 2008 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
<sarcasm>That's primary season thinking; the GE season has kicked-off. Obama didn't adopt Bush's position; Bush adopted Obama's position. So it's OK.</sarcasm>
June 26, 2008 8:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nonsense. Bush's policy was to violate the original FISA law. Bush would have even violated the new FISA bill. That's Bush's policy. Are you saying that Obama would violate any FISA law? That Obama's policy would be Bush's policy?
Obama's position is that you have to use courts to get warrants. That, by the way, was exactly Bush's publicly-stated position.
See the difference between position and policy?
June 27, 2008 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Friendly fire" my ass. You don't just fricking hope that a candidate will do the right thing while keeping your mouth shut lest you be accused of "friendly fire"; you put all possible pressure on the candidate to do the right thing.
There's an anecdote about FDR listening to a group trying to persuade him to adopt some progressive policy and replying, "You've convinced me that I want to do it. Now make me do it."
That is ALWAYS the proper strategy to take vis a vis politicians- ALL of them- and now you have it it right from the mouth of one of the master politicians or all time.
June 27, 2008 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
"You've convinced me that I want to do it. Now make me do it."
This is a sensible position and I agree.
But you have to pick your battles. Obama's positioning on this makes it almost impossible to flipflop again without bad consequences. Also, if the votes aren't there, I don't see any sense in him taking a bullet for a lost cause.
Last week, Obama did follow netroot's lead an opted out of public finance. The good government folks, mass media and GOP are still beating him up on it. Yet he did the right thing. A few days later he doesn't do what netroots' wants and they conveniently forget the public financing thing. There's no memory, no credit given where it's due. (The irony here is that the new hero Feingold was being attacked for voting to confirm Judge Roberts, which Obama opposed.) I even hear people on the Left dismissing Obma's opposition to the war. Such short memories. Why should pols listen to people who don't reward them when they do right?
Also, applying pressure is not the same as giving up and saying "fuck him" and "he's lost my vote" and "he's just like Bush". How many election cycles does the left need to go through where they can only muster a "at least he's better than Bush" or "he's better than McCain" before they realize that enthusiasm matters. I see some sort of masochistic tendency to beat up your own side harsher than the other side.
Watching the Left meltdown in 2000 with all the selfish, preening disdain for Gore was traumatic. I don't want to see it happen again. I feel like a Cassandra sometiems but I'm just warning people, keep your eye on the ball and keep focused. Keith Olberman and Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi, while flawed human beings all of them, are not what's wrong with America, period.
June 27, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
June 27, 2008 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lol.....so funny the blogs these days, especially the Dems, well I don't read Repuke sites.....
Anyhow, like Quasar said way, way up thread, there are double standards for the, in this case the best candidate running. Veracifier put a link of Cnn trying to help McCain distance himself from bush. The dude that did that story said "McCain agrees with Bush that there should be strong borders"...As if other candidates (Democrats) believe that our borders should be sympathetic and weak is the implication!...Lol the CNN syndrome....You know, call them a liberal station, they go out of their way to appear to be the opposite, basically they got punked....
In my opinion some of the pundits are attacking Olberman and Obama, just to say that see, I criticize everyone equally..you know get ahead of the curve kinda thing.
Fact) I disagree with Obama on Fisa!
I disagree with Obama on some of his, SOME of his stances in other areas also fact!
I wish he would be more agressive and not apologize for being human. I find it sad that fellow Democrats will attack him using his graciousness against him. I disagree with Olberman and have written him, especially on things like Barry Bonds when he for one moment a few years back followed the media and attacked him. He stopped doing that and I was glad. I think Olberman learns from his mistakes. I think he has done far more good than bad. He makes it bareable to watch news and not puke at least for me. I also happen to think that Keith understands whats at stake, and still works in that corporate news bubble. Is he jaded sure, probably. Its ok though, I love keith and as far as Obama goes, he wasn't my first candidate of choice, but even that candidate pissed me off too. Im sure Obama will again as well!
June 27, 2008 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment