Vague, Nameless Left Quickly Condemns Obama

by: Chris Bowers

Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 17:44


No More Mr. Nice Blog thinks "some" progressives are too quick to pass judgment on Obama:

Patience and Humility

are not qualities highly prized in the blogosphere; nore are they in great abundance there. Nevertheless, they are occasionally useful.

Some progressives are preparing to pass judgment on the Obama Administration before it ever takes office, based on the appointments he makes in the interim.

That that "some" progressives. How dare all "some" of you pass judgment on the Obama administration too quickly!

No more Mr. Nice Blog's chastisement of a vague, unnamed left that has already passed judgment on Obama was approvingly linked by both Whiskey Fire and Daily Kos. In search of who the article was actually referring to, I looked through the Whiskey Fire article for links to examples of this "some progressives" who are criticizing Obama unfairly and with great alacrity. It linked to one other blog post, this one by Rumproast, where the author expresses frustration over a comment made on another blog. (more in the extended entry)

Chris Bowers :: Vague, Nameless Left Quickly Condemns Obama
Here is the quote from Rumproast:

One of the reasons it may be in my best interest to check out from politics for a bit is so that I don't have to read comments like this for the next few months:

The link in question takes you to an article at Corrente, where the author, vastleft, writes the following in response to Glenn Greenwald's claim that "[W]e ought to wait to see what Obama does before forming conclusions about him and, certainly, before launching all sorts of criticisms at him." In response to this, vastleft writes:

I mostly agree with this, though "before launching all sorts of criticisms" can surely be used as a cudgel against those who criticize his President-elect phase appointments, statements (words matter!), and policy signals. Taking criticism off the table should be off the table, though the criticism should be of the founded variety, eh?

Form conclusions? Waaay too early.

So, the author of the article at Corrente actually agrees with Glenn Greenwald: it is too early for progressives to draw negative conclusions about Obama's governing style. The only point of departure for vastleft from Greenwald is that s/he is worried that haranguing unnamed people for criticizing Obama can potentially be used to silence all left-wing criticism of Obama.

Progressive criticism of Obama, when founded in specifics, should not be chastised for it's very existence by lumping it together with a vague, unnamed, hard-left strawman who has already dismissed Obama's post-election activities as indicative of seventeen stab wounds in the back of progressive America. This seems perfectly reasonable to me, as it is far too early to draw conclusions about Obama's governing style. At the same time, progressive criticism of Obama's post-election activities, when founded in specifics, should not be subject to generalized haranguing against criticizing Obama at all. Unfortunately, that is what No More Mr. Nice Blog, Glenn Greenwald, and Daily Kos all come very close to doing with their chastisements. Whiskey Fire and Rumproast did point to one specific, but it was a comment to vastleft's article at Corrente that actually disagreed with the vastleft's point. A single, lousy comment.

All of which should drive vastleft's point home: vague statements like "before launching all sorts of criticisms" are indeed being used as cudgels to mock and de-legitimize all progressive criticisms of Obama as the equivalent of a deluded PUMA rant in a single comment at Corrente. A single comment at Corrente started a near blogswarm about supposed swaths of progressive who are too quick to condemn Obama. The swarm ended up on the front page of Daily Kos.

I have a suggestion. Well, let's make that two suggestions. First, if you have a problem with what Obama has done since the election, make sure the criticism is grounded in specifics. In that regard, I stand by all of the progressive criticisms we have made of Obama here at Open Left as being so grounded.

Second, if you have a problem with people criticizing Obama, then ground that in specifics, too. Rather than throwing out vagaries, link to real people who are actually criticizing Obama from the left. Then, explain why those specific actual criticisms from those real people are in fact wrong. If that doesn't start happening more often in the progressive blogosphere, then we risk sliding into the same attempted silencing and / or de-legitimization of left-wing dissent through the application of caricatures and strawmen that we progressive bloggers have fought against for so long.

Tags: , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Vague, Nameless Left Quickly Condemns Obama | 69 comments
When Mr.Obama Starts Doing a Good Job (4.00 / 2)
I'll be the first to mention it. So far, its almost all Fs.

Here's a softball for the man: Stop going along with the daily crap Bernenkie and Paulson are serving up.

Whatever, I'm actually about convinced Obama is going to be a one term-er. He's got a few more weeks to get on the ball before the economic shit storm really settings in. That's his chance; otherwise he'll be owning all the horrible policies being put in place now, because he went along with them.

Where's that web form Mike Lux uses to let Obama know he's fucking up?

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

Worst. President. Ever. (0.00 / 0)
I agree, President Obama really sucks so far.  As far as I can tell, he hasn't used his office of the presidency for good even once!  It's almost as if he thinks he isn't the president or something.

And no, FYI, you won't be the first to mention it.

I agree with everything Chris says here except for the part about Open Left being completely grounded so far.  We've seen rumors taken as facts a few times, for example.  Now, to be fair, it is hard to be grounded when we don't really know where the ground is, I'll admit, and often rumors are floated as trial balloons, so we should push back, but with a tad more sanity.

I'm also not very happy about the "Fake Left", "Real Left" talk that gets thrown around here from time to time.  It is fair to say ad hominem attacks are always bad.  Though, I'm about to do it now.

Will, aren't you the one that constantly said Obama was running the "worst campaign ever"?  What does that say about your credibility?

[ Parent ]
For example? (0.00 / 0)
"We've seen rumors taken as facts a few times, for example."

Um, there aren't any actual examples in that sentence. Care to provide some?

[ Parent ]
Just vague, nameless examples :-) (0.00 / 0)
The first example that jumps to mind was a quick hit, not by a front pager.  The author was very concerned and highlighted a line from a newspaper report.  But the line was pure speculation from the author without even a pretense of inside source.  I don't remember the actual subject now, and can't find the link; sorry.

I'm not sure if a front pager has done this, exactly.  I couldn't find anything obvious over the first couple pages of recent posts, at least.

[ Parent ]
For what it is worth (4.00 / 1)
I distinctly remember reading that quick hit (it was about something the WSJ wrote), rolling my eyes, and moving on.  
[ Parent ]
I posted a quick hit (4.00 / 1)
Just recently. It was about a NYT article explaining that Obama would use his small-donor base to raise additional funds for the transition. Prior to that, a quick hit had been posted claiming he Obama was going to fund the transition with soft money donations, when in fact the funding source was not specified.

Looking at this all more broadly, it is fairly amazing that so much has been written on Obama's presidency when, in fact, he has said and done very, very little. Reading tea leaves is really frikkin hard when you only have half a leaf.


"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra

[ Parent ]
The Quick Hit You Were Thinking Of . . . (0.00 / 0)
You know, you can't link to a Quick Hit, or at least I couldn't figure out how to do it.  So, I copied the text from the quick hit below.  I too remembered it because I too thought its criticism of Obama was groundless.  The whole point was based on an unattributed quote from a current Bush Administration official on what Obama might do as published in the WSJ.  That is worthless as far as basing a judgment upon what Obama will actually do.  

Obama May Continue CIA Torture - with "Oversight"? (rayj) [delete quick hit]
Granted, this is from the Wall Street Journal, so take it with a grain of salt, but it sounds very plausible. Indeed, given that Obama almost never brought up torture during the primaries or general unless asked, this shouldn't be surprising. It's depressing nonetheless.

   As a candidate, Mr. Obama said the CIA's interrogation program should adhere to the same rules that apply to the military, which would prohibit the use of techniques such as waterboarding. He has also said the program should be investigated.

   Yet he more recently voted for a White House-backed law to expand eavesdropping powers for the National Security Agency. Mr. Obama said he opposed providing legal immunity to telecommunications companies that aided warrantless surveillance, but ultimately voted for the bill, which included an immunity provision.

   The new president could take a similar approach to revising the rules for CIA interrogations, said one current government official familiar with the transition. Upon review, Mr. Obama may decide he wants to keep the road open in certain cases for the CIA to use techniques not approved by the military, but with much greater oversight.

That's some really awesome changeiness there. Torture, but with oversight. Sigh.
Posted at Tue Nov 11, 2008 at 14:14

 
[ Parent ]
Totally legit for a quickhit (0.00 / 0)
Even if it's based on a less-than-stellar piece of journalism.

Obama is under enormous pressure from the CIA to give them some wiggle room and it's not inconceivable that Obama would go wobbly, given that this involves the "war on terror," which he's yet to renounce.

I mean, I've heard some terrible rumors...

Obama wants to expand the military by 92,000 troops
And would bomb inside Pakistan in the name of the war on terror
And he's backtracking on spying..

got the picture?

[ Parent ]
Agreed (4.00 / 2)
He's really doing terrible. I mean seriously, David Axelrod for Senior Adviser? He blew his entire presidency right there.  And staffing up with people like Mike Lux, John Podesta and Melody Barnes? Seriously. What's his problem!!!

/snark

I'm going to savor reading your comment on November 7th, 2012.  

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power

[ Parent ]
The go-easy on Obama (4.00 / 2)
crowd (which to my surprise Atrios and Kos have joined) is an embarrassment to the blogosphere and makes me wonder if the chatter about Obama coopting the sphere might have some validity.

The notion that we shouldn't engage in vigorous skepticism-driven criticism of establishment pols should be anathema to anyone who calls herself a blogger.

It might be--might be--different if Obama had run a progressive campaign--if, for example, he hadn't bacedk the bailout, stressed his support for expanding the war in Afghanistan-Pakistan, and flip-flopped of FISA. And forgive me for not being impressed by his "people-power" considering he had a smaller percentage of small donors than Bush in 2004.

Oh, but all that's history, so we're not supposed to talk about that, right?

[ Parent ]
huh? (4.00 / 2)
And forgive me for not being impressed by his "people-power" considering he had a smaller percentage of small donors than Bush in 2004.

Are you sure about this? As far as I can tell from opensecrets.org, 48% of Obama's total raised came from donors who gave less than $200, compared to 32% for Bush.

Plus, according to the same opensecrets.org link, Obama had ~330,000 donors who gave >$200; if you assume he had roughly 2 million total donors, that means that ~84% of his donors were small donors. I would be very surprised if Bush in 2004 came anywhere close to that.

What am I missing?

[ Parent ]
Nothing /nt (0.00 / 0)
[ Parent ]
Hmm (0.00 / 0)
Maybe the Washington Post is wrong here:

Lost in the attention given to Obama's Internet surge is that only a quarter of the $600 million he has raised has come from donors who made contributions of $200 or less, according to a review of his FEC reports. That is actually slightly less, as a percentage, than President Bush raised in small donations during his 2004 race, although Obama has pulled from a far larger number of donors. In 2004, the Bush campaign claimed more than 2 million donors, while the Obama campaign claims to have collected its total from more than 3.1 million individuals.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

[ Parent ]
Right on, Christ (nt) (0.00 / 0)

Start with BTD over at TalkLeft (0.00 / 0)
Whoo. He's been pretty nasty in the last few days criticizing Obama for anonymously cited crap in the WSJ
some bloviators (0.00 / 0)
are better left unread.  
[ Parent ]
The thing that pisses me off the most (4.00 / 10)
is that now is the time to be pushing Obama.  Now is the time that we should be throwing out our trial balloons for new policies, setting priorities, and coming up with ways to lobby the new administration.

All these people yelling at the left to 'wait and see' are missing the point.  Larry Summers, Bob Rubin, James Carville, the big three automakers, and everyone else who wants to kill the progressive left's agenda isn't sitting on their hands right now.  They are on their cellphones calling in favors.

We don't have the cellphone numbers of insiders.  The only mcrophone we have are these various grassroots methods.  If we aren't complaining and yelling and pushing, the other side gets a clear unchallenged voice, and we get bupkis.

And then, guess how Obama will govern.

Criticizing Obama from the left is a very different thing that spreading stupid Ayers rumors.  it is an effort to push him to the left.  And the farther from the left he gets criticized, and the louder that criticism is, the easier it will be for him to make a left-wing policy seem centrist.  What the hell is so hard to understand about this?

so good, it had to be repeated (0.00 / 0)
All these people yelling at the left to 'wait and see' are missing the point.  Larry Summers, Bob Rubin, James Carville, the big three automakers, and everyone else who wants to kill the progressive left's agenda isn't sitting on their hands right now.  They are on their cellphones calling in favors.


[ Parent ]
PEB? (4.00 / 1)
Post-election-blues?

Front page blogs I'd like to see more of:
* What is the Progressive way out of this financial disaster?
* Cabinet post predictions and suggestions
* Is Sarah Palin the demagogue the Republicans want and need?
* How far to the right can they go?
* Can Rush Limbaugh's show be punked?

For 2 years we've hoped for change...It's here!  Can we help to push the bad guys further over the cliff, and not try to level the playing field for them to push us back.

It's like wanting something you've dreamed of all your life, then you get it and all you do is find fault.  Maybe I'm a dummy but I don't understand the mindset. Anyone want a Saint John's Wart?

Hey, its like Ezra Klein's assignment desk feature (4.00 / 1)
I like all these suggestions, and would add one more: how about  the final results on Use It or Lose It 2008 and Searching for John McCain?  

Saxby Chambliss  
[ Parent ]
Good idea (4.00 / 1)
I should do a round-up of those campaigns. Personal Paid Media was a smashing success.
[ Parent ]
Talk to me Chris (0.00 / 0)
Talk to me.

Save Our Schools! March & National Call to Action, July 28-31, 2011 in Washington, DC: http://www.saveourschoolsmarch...
[ Parent ]
will do (n/t) (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
There is no change yet (4.00 / 2)
All we've got is a chance to fight for change.  It's better than what we had six months ago.  But the election was nothing but the end of the beginning of the fight.  The thing that's frustrating me with the sorts of criticisms cited by Chris above is that the people saying 'wait and see' seem to be thinking that the change has already come, and the progressive future is already here.

Now is the time to fight harder, not the time to back off.

[ Parent ]
I'm finding myself annoyed, even infuriated by (4.00 / 3)
both those who are pushing for people to not criticize or second-guess Obama at all (I trust him! He won, you didn't, he knows better than you so STFU!), and those who are basically trying to discredit and destroy him before he's even had a chance to get started, as being inherently unfit to lead and yet another sockpuppet for the establishment. Between the Obamabot cultists, and the far-left "La Revolucion Ahora!" Trotskyites, it's hard to keep up with. I try to ignore them, but sometimes one can't.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton
[ Parent ]
You can't get too annoyed with most of that (4.00 / 1)
the focus should be keeping people productive and focused on reality.  And the reality is that we need to keep the pressure on the Democrats right now, not easing up.  

Even Obama has said that the change hasn't come yet.  We should neither just trust him, nor surrender to despair.  

[ Parent ]
Well, I'm annoyed to the extent (0.00 / 0)
that it's keeping me from commenting on Digby's blog, which I used to do quite a bit, because this crap appears to have taken over it of late. These people are trolls who are knowingly and deliberately trying to hijack her blog, and Democratic politics in general, by pretending to be somewhat sympathetic to Obama, when in fact they are clearly opposed to anyone to their right--which appears to be something like 99.5% of the country. It's not so much that their comments lack any validity, just that they don't have a place on a clearly pro-Democratic blog, albeit one with a fairly left-wing bent. Instead of doing this on their own blogs, they come over to Democratic blogs and try to hijack them. To me, that's trolling, and when it gets out of hand, it makes it impossible to constructively engage in a discussion on such sites.

I'm all for criticism of Obama and Dems when it's called for, and clearly it has been, e.g. FISA, or the capitulation on a bad bailout plan. But it's one thing to criticize, and another thing to demonize. You can do the former and still consider yourself a Democrat. But if you do nothing but the latter, you're just a troll trying to destroy, not improve. It's as if Nader and McKinney and their supporters tried to crash the DNC, claiming that it's a democracy and they have every right to do so. Um, no, they don't. I find that annoying.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
so, to summarize... (0.00 / 0)
...everyone to the left of you should STFU?  And everyone who isn't a Democrat should STFU?  Digby's blog is for Democrats and no one else?

Am I understanding you correctly?

[ Parent ]
No, just liars, exaggerators and people who put words in peoples' mouths should STFU (0.00 / 0)
Capisce? Or do you not understand the meaning of the word troll, or perhaps are a member of the Peoples' Front for the Glorification of Naderite and McKinneyite Bullshit? Or maybe one of the Special People who are patiently awaiting La Revolucion! when everything will be good and ponies will roam the earth again and all the bad people will just go away?

If you want to conflate people are to left left of me but whom I greatly respect, because they have the ability to show respect for and get along with people with whom they disagree, with the likes of the trolls who haunt Digby's site, who look down at anyone not as politically pure as them, then do it elsewhere. I don't tolerate bullshit. Especially when it's self-evident.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
Gotcha (0.00 / 0)
Okay, I think I have a pretty good read on you now.
[ Parent ]
Um, yeah (0.00 / 0)
That's exactly it. Never have I been so pegged than I have by you, here, tonight. I stand unmasked in naked shame. Now go enjoy your pony-straddling straw men.

Btw, you're a poor judge of character if you side with those concern trolls.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
I may have caused a misunderstanding (0.00 / 0)
I meant "gotcha" in the sense of "understood", not in the sense of "I got you."
[ Parent ]
I am not, never have been, and never will be (0.00 / 0)
against respectful, honest, substantive and aggressive debate. Quite the opposite, as I think that it's almost always a good thing. I was one of the people pushing hard to condemn Obama for his FISA vote, and couldn't believe the pushback that I and others got for it, like we were traitors to the cause or some such silliness. We need people representing the various wings of the party--and even outside the party--to weigh in, and not just all nod in agreement. This is healthy and necessary and good.

What I AM against is disrespectful, dishonest, insubstantive and nasty debate, wherever it comes from, but especially from people outside the party, in Democratic-oriented blogs. Such "debate" is unhelpful, and often harmful. And that's what I've been seeing on Digby lately, a bunch of people far to the left of the party--which is fine--consistently insulting and disrespecting people whom they disagree with--which is not fine. That's literally it. I'm not against forceful debate and disagreement, just stupid, mean-spirited and dishonest debate and ad hom attacks, which is not debate at all, but trolling.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
You're right. There have been both extremes. (4.00 / 1)
I thought it interesting to see the Corrente site mentioned here.  That site has been a hotbed of anti-Obama sentiment since the primaries.  Although many of the posters there, including vastleft, no doubt sincerely think of themselves as critics from the left, the principals there also tolerated and encouraged posters spewing all of the right-wing memes that were used against Obama, such as Bill Ayers, a generalized critique of Chicago that somehow combined Ayers, the Daley machine and its toleration of former Black Panthers in Congress, the "he can't win" theme.  I was accused of being an "Obot troll" there for being dismissive of the theme that the "disenfranchisement of Florida and Michigan" was a crime against democracy as bad as any ever seen.  Obama was blamed there for every misogynistic remark ever made by his most starry-eyed trying to counter this, They lacked any sense of proportion, in my opinion.  It was at that time that I started to giving that site a miss and spending more time here.  

Right before the election, I went back there and got involved in a more respectful way arguing with vastleft that for all the downsides of Obama, a vote for him was warranted.  That was not a majority position there, I don't think.  Some small amount of discussion that shed more light than heat occurred.  

That said, though, I've never been opposed to real criticism being made of Obama when he "trims" on issues like FISA.  There seems to be a movement afoot to equate all left criticism, both the "snark for snark's sake" that Corrente has elevated to an art form (and in fairness, they raise many valuable issues along with the chaff, notably single-payer) with various issue-based criticisms.

We need to push our issues such as a non-Wall-St. friendly bailout, ending the war in Iraq, health care, etc. and do so with a thick skin that doesn't pay too much attention to what others say.  It's not too early to do that, but it's probably wise not to loudly always be "reading the tea leaves" in the most negative light possible.


sTiVo's rule: Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove that THEY did it.

[ Parent ]
sTiVo, I'm glad you joined the discussion at Corrente on... (4.00 / 1)
... final pitches on why Obama-skeptic progressives might want to swallow their objections and vote for him.

I am discouraged, though, to see you propagating misinformation here:

the principals there also tolerated and encouraged posters spewing all of the right-wing memes that were used against Obama, such as Bill Ayers,

Please show examples of Corrente Senior Fellows encouraging any such thing. Even though we rarely cancel accounts or censor posts from guest contributors, some (I'm certain of one and believe there were others) regular posters/commenters were banned for flogging Ayers-related nonsense. We frequently pissed off another regular high-visibility, contributor by deleting and publicly criticizing content that smelled of rightwing smearmongering. And we were threatened with a lawsuit for hosting a post that criticized one of Larry Johnson's anti-Obama contemporaries.

Apparently, this is now what passes for "encouragement."  

[ Parent ]
Please, vastleft, don't lie (0.00 / 0)
Ex. 1
Senior Fellow Lambert bemoaning Larry Johnson's "banning" at dailykos after Mr. Johnson posted a racist screed in which he discouraged a Republican neighbor from supporting Obama by citing Rezko and "Obama's Kenyan ties and muslim relatives".  
[ Parent ]
Please, dmd76, don't troll n/t (4.00 / 1)
.
[ Parent ]
troll? (0.00 / 0)
You asked for examples. I provided them.  
[ Parent ]
and (0.00 / 0)
Ex. 2
Senior Fellow Lambert's post on Obama's consolidation of power after winning the primary, titled "Let's brush up on our German", wherein he insinuates it is akin to the Gleischaltung(sic). Shall I continue, or is a Nazi comparison sufficient evidence for sTiVo's claim?
[ Parent ]
I'll await sTiVo's response, and will leave you to troll along as you see fit n/t (0.00 / 0)
.
[ Parent ]
How reasonable of you (0.00 / 0)
You are unable to respond, so you accuse me of trolling.  Right on par with the level of discourse at Corrente.  
[ Parent ]
I accuse you of trolling, because you did it so incessantly (0.00 / 0)
You became, IIRC, the first person banned from our site for a long time (the Ayers-baiters joined you in that distinction), and you've trolled the same lame arguments all around the internet for the past several months, such as shaming me for my fellow blogger's citation of a German phrase.

You have earned, in my eyes, the right to flog the same red-herring arguments over and over without me getting in your way. Play on....

[ Parent ]
A German phrase? (0.00 / 0)
How innocent! A simple German phrase! You really are too much. That German phrase, which your Senior Fellow buddy so innocently cited, is the "Nazi term for the process by which the Nazi regime successively established a system of totalitarian control over the individual, and tight coordination over all aspects of society and commerce."  You asked for examples of Corrente Senior Fellows who "encouraged posters spewing all of the right-wing memes that were used against Obama", and I gave an example of a Corrente Senior Fellow comparing Obama's campaign to the Nazis. I will continue to flog that same example whenever I see you and your innocent fellow blogger are treated as polite company anywhere on the web. You are hacks who think nothing of defending human offal like Larry Johnson and nonchalantly comparing the Obama campaign to the Nazis.  
[ Parent ]
Just like that, except (4.00 / 1)
...I didn't get anything that I've dreamed of all my life, or even something that I've dreamed of since 2000.

I've been dreaming of the restoration of the Constitution and checks and balances; universal health care; the end of radical neoliberalism;  the end of two-party, lesser-of-two-evils politics; the U.S. joining the community of civilized nations -- things like that.

What exactly have you been dreaming of, that you are so satisfied already?  Just how much Saint John's Wort did you take?

[ Parent ]
What I notice is that many people are giving Obama very close to zero (4.00 / 4)
benefit of the doubt. 50 state strategy funding expiring, as planned by Howard Dean years ago? Obama is destroying the 50 state strategy! Obama picks Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff? Obama's administration is going to be abrasive, conservative, anti-immigrant, and anti-net neutrality! Obama picks Mike Lux as his progressive outreach director? Er...

These things are significant and deserve discussion. It's just the endless pessimism which gets to me. Based on Obama's entire campaign, he is progressive* and a strong supporter of the 50 state strategy -- and he is also extremely competent, has excellent judgement, and knows how to get things done. In many of these cases, he also has a hell of a lot more information available to him than we do. He and Rahm are from the same state delegation, and they reportedly talked nearly every day during the campaign. So Obama knows Rahm a lot better than we do, and given his excellent choices in personnel throughout the campaign, I'm inclined to trust him on this one. (Especially as the main job of the Chief of Staff is to get things done, rather than shape policy). As for the 50 state strategy, I'm predicting that once Obama takes over the DNC, either those organizers will be re-hired, or people who were heavily involved with Obama's ground game efforts in those local areas will be hired instead.

There's probably more examples of this, but those are the ones which came to mind immediately. I do recall some worrying and cries of "troubling!" over rumors and speculation from the media, but as I'm too lazy to go back and look for them, I'll leave that alone.

I wonder if Obama wouldn't be seeing a whole lot less distrust around these parts if he had done the right thing on FISA.

* If Obama's policies are what now count as centrist, the country has seen a pretty big shift leftwards.

Progressive outreach director? (4.00 / 1)
What a bullshit title!  That, in and of itself, implies that progressives are an 'out'-group that needs to be reached.  Or will he appoint a 'corporate blue dog outreach director' as well.  Oh wait, he already did - as his closest adviser.
[ Parent ]
start each day with a clean slate? (0.00 / 0)
I think giving people the benefit of the doubt is fine, before the facts start coming in.  After that, the facts should inform one's judgment. We already have facts about Obama, and many of them are, in fact, troubling.

I've been watching this back-and-forth closely since the Rahm Emmanuel selection, and I'm going to rush to another judgment:  many people do not want to have any pleasant illusions about Obama tarnished, and are trying to create a narrative where criticizing him is a sort of sin.

If you don't know where you are, you need to find out before you can navigate where you want to go. If I point out that we are now on the right highway but still heading in the wrong direction, does that mean I have a bad attitude? Or does it give you the information you need to turn the car around and get us where we want to go?

[ Parent ]
Constructive, reality-based, specific criticisms of Obama's (4.00 / 2)
actual words and actions (as opposed to what people guess will be his words and actions), backed up by evidence and logic, are certainly ok, even welcome--hell, he himself encouraged people to do this (although they'd still be ok and necessary even if he hadn't).

What I have a problem with is the sort of knee-jerk, prejudiced, non-evidence and reality-based, ranting (and actually far-left, as opposed to the mainstream left) vitriol that I've come across at some other progressive blogs, particularly in the comments section, such as TalkLeft, Digby and Greenwald. Anyone who's spent any amount of time in their comments sections knows exactly what I'm talking about.

Many of these people end up being banned, but they just reemerge as zombies with new UIDs and IP addresses. They are relentless, they are impervious to reason, they are utterly convinced of the intellectual and moral superiority of their beliefs, and they condescendingly and rudely dismiss anyone who disagrees with them.

They are a negative force in the progressive blogosphere (although they do perhaps serve the unintentionally useful purpose of forcing people who disagree with them to sharpen their thinking), and they are utterly uninterested in working within any viable progressive governing majority, which they view as a joke, in their minds an only slightly more left-leaning and prettied-up version of the same old imperial oligarchy that fools most of the left into believing that it's progressive. Their heros are Nader, McKinney and such, and they view even the most liberal Democrat as a sellout and a joke.

Apologies for ranting about this, but I've seen them ramp up their efforts since the election, which I expected, and view them as a potentially dangerous counter-progressive force in the blogosphere, and beyond (many of them are also activists), who are intent on engaging in an all or nothing, "the good is the enemy of the perfect", their way or no way, effort to derail the mainstream left, by underminding its credibility and morale.

Just sayin', watch out. They're not "criticizing" Obama and the new Dem majority. They're trying to destroy them, to, in their febrile imaginations, open the door for La Revolucion!

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

You're paranoid. (4.00 / 1)

[ Parent ]
And you're naive (0.00 / 0)
But I do appreciate your substantive defense of Bains, Byron & Co.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton
[ Parent ]
A clarification (0.00 / 0)
I alone, and not Steve M (sole proprietor of No More Mister Nice Blog), bear responsibility for that post.  I was guest-posting there while Steve was away.  Any criticism should be directed not at No More Mister Nice Blog but at myself.  

For more clarification, take a look through the comments to the post, which should make clear that I was not trying to 'silence progressive dissent'.  

As for naming names, well, it was dashed off in a hurry during a few spare moments after I had drunk a couple of glasses of Belgian-style ale; I figured readers would either know what I was talking about, or they wouldn't, and I didn't much care.  I do think the responses to it provide enough examples to demonstrate that the phenomenon I described is neither non-existent nor trivial ('almost all Fs', anyone?).  

OK, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt (0.00 / 0)
Just saying.

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  
[ Parent ]
How about this? (0.00 / 0)
In this thread you have an OpenLefter complain, even when told that people like Robert Reich were on Obama's transition team, that since Reich, well, doesn't blog HERE, he doesn't count.
Jeez, Chris... (0.00 / 0)
My Whiskey Fire post was more along the lines of a joke. Hence, uh, my use of a dancing clip art leprechaun. I was riffing on Tom Hilton's post at NMMNB, which is really kind of a gentle reminder not to get too carried away in a particular direction. Kos's very brief response to me was kind of in the spirit of my not-so-incredibly serious post, as well. As for Kevin K only responding to a single comment -- yes, but that is in the context of his longstanding and, um, contentious attitude towards Corrente which has, yes, occasionally gone just a tad overboard in its criticisms of the president elect over the past, well, year.

As for who exactly I was targeting in my post, well, I thought the acronym "PISSY" might have given it away, as would the term "Eeyore." Visit No Quarter and HillBuzz if you need further explanation, and can stomach the trip. The reason I don't link over to these sites should be obvious.

So your suggestions are well taken, but please consider that you may just be making at least as much out of something that isn't there as I am. I certainly have never said or would ever say that Obama should not be criticized from the left.  

Thers, while you're considering context.... (0.00 / 0)
... please consider the context that prevailed in the progressive blogosphere and forums during and since the primaries.

The prevailing rules were that no praise for Barack Obama was too excessive or unwarranted, and no praise or defense for Hillary Clinton could be tolerated. This became quite extreme on countless blogs, especially (but by no means exclusively) in the comments sections, where any and all skepticism of Obama was treated as an act of heresy and hate speech.

Note what happened when Obama-deferential A-listers such as Digby or John Amato evinced even the slightest skepticism about Obama or put in the slightest good word for HRC. The torches and pitchforks were deployed in a heartbeat. Digby was called the c-word, and Amato was crucified for suggesting that Hillary would have (as Joe Biden confided, as well) been a superior choice for VP.

Now that we have a president who ran a campaign expressly dedicated to the proposition that our problems are not caused by the excesses of the Right, but on the straw man called "bickering partisanship," some of us are concerned that the steaming fountain of STFU will continue to burn and drown out those who believe that "centrist" Democrats will perform best when their feet are held to the fire.

That would have certainly been necessary had Hillary or Edwards been the nominee/president-elect. The difference is that it wouldn't have been controversial to do so.

[ Parent ]
Thers, ignore vastleft (0.00 / 0)
whose concern for the "context that prevailed...during and since the primaries" only applied to the pro-Obama parts of the blogosphere. At corrente, most Obama supporters (except for Leah!) are cultists and are responsible for misogyny on the web (see: Digby's troll). Because he hasn't spoken out about rude blog comments and Chris Matthews' verbal diarrhea, Obama ultimately is at fault for misogyny everywhere. These brave corrente denizens worry that Obama may be a little too much like Hitler. Oh, and that nothing spook Larry Johnson and his spittle-flecked ravings were worth defending until one of his friends threatened to sue them. Bitter, little PUMAs, the lot of them.

McCain (and f*cking Nader!) asked for their votes, dontchaknow!

[ Parent ]
Thers, read as many of dmd76's masterworks around the web as you can (0.00 / 0)
If there are Trollie Awards, s/he has earned very special consideration.
[ Parent ]
please do (0.00 / 0)
I hound these corrente "Senior Fellows" whenever I have a chance. I make no apologies, as it is a point of pride that, for example, Lambert is known by some as the guy who thinks comparing the Obama campaign to the Nazis is a reasonable, progressive critique. Vastleft makes no effort whatsoever to respond to my "trolling", now or ever, because s/he has no response beyond calling me a troll. My characterization of vastleft, who thinks Obama is a "hopey self-help huckster", and corrente is accurate and, so far, undisputed.  
[ Parent ]
Going for (0.00 / 0)
the lifetime achievement award, dmd76?  
[ Parent ]
i'm a Sr. Fellow, dmd76. you got something to say to me? thanks, chris (0.00 / 0)
for an excellent and nuanced post. once again i'm reminded of how few people actually read what is written on blogs, follow links "all the way down," or make note of whom is writing exactly what. not to mention lumping everyone who's ever posted so much as a peep on a blog together with the Worst Monsters in the Blogosphere who've written highly unpopular posts from time to time, or occasionally moved into highly vitrolic polemic for the sake of shock value.

it's tough out there to be a blogger, i'm tellin ya. thanks again for standing up for the blogosphere's great strength: freedom of expression.  

Insofar (0.00 / 0)
as you said nothing while other Senior Fellows were engaging in lazy, undemocratic attacks on Obama's supporters instead of criticizing Obama's politics (did Lambert and vastleft ever figure out exactly what slur to call us?), insofar as you said nothing when Lambert and Xenophon were speculating about the dark and dangerous similarities between Obama and one or more fascist dictators, you share in their shame. It's your name up on the corrente masthead, right next to theirs.

BTW, I hope you can come up with a better excuse for Lambert's Nazi comparison than vastleft's (Gleischaltung(sic): a simple German phrase!).

[ Parent ]
Sad (0.00 / 0)
Here's the link to which dmd76 refers; readers, exercise your judgment. Banned as a troll, poor dmd76 continues to troll elsewhere. Please don't feed him. We did, and it wasn't a pretty sight.

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  
[ Parent ]
ha! (0.00 / 0)
Three corrente Senior Fellows, out to defend their honor. Stuck pigs squeal, right Lambert? If screeching "troll" is the best response the combined forces of corrente's Senior Fellows can come up with, that PB2.0 of yours is going to be fantastic! You should stick to vastleft's "Gleischaltung[sic] is just a German phrase" defense, which at the very least is funny.

That I got banned for complaining when you compared Obama's campaign to the Nazis is something I'm proud of. I encourage you to keep reminding people of it.  

[ Parent ]
again, probably for no reason, i ask you "dmd76" what do you have to say (0.00 / 0)
to me?

or my posting?

is it so hard, as a reader of this blog, to understand: those who blog together are not "all the same?"

if you've got a complaint against my writing i'd like to see it. otherwise, you're just lazy.

tell me why you hate me, and not my other blogmates.

i'm listening.

[ Parent ]
Exercising my judgment... (0.00 / 0)
...and I think dmd76's characterization is exactly right.  Gleichschaltung is a word with very particular historical-political connotations; if you knew what those connotations are then you can't claim you weren't comparing the Obama campaign to the Nazis, and if you didn't know then you had no business using the word in the first place.  Words have meaning, after all.  
[ Parent ]
Those who don't learn from history... (0.00 / 0)
... are condemned to repeat it.

Tom:

When you see a quote like this (not from Corrente, BTW, but here):


The organizing and mobilization scholar in me is totally impressed. But the conflict theorist and skeptic of authority in me is totally horrified.

what do YOU think? Are you horrified at consolidation of power, like that poster?

Are you skeptical, like James Madison? I am.

If you are not, why aren't you?

And if you are, please suggest an appropriate historical parallel.

NOTE This comment does not feed any trolls.



I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  

[ Parent ]
ooooh (0.00 / 0)
Santayana's Aphorism on Repetitive Consequences (misquoted, but who's keeping track): the self-serving and ominous crutch of every would-be historian! You would have had a point, Lambert, if, for example, BHO had called for the establishment of a personal security force and the suspension of the Bill of Rights. Instead, he requested people stop donating to 527s and instituted a 50 state voter registration drive.

I appreciate your explanation how a scare quote in a blog post from someone on the internet  made you do it. But this is progress! Acknowledging that it was a Nazi comparison ("an appropriate historical parallel", in your mind) is the first step to recognizing how bat-shit insane your post was. You've finally, after six months, moved past denial. Congrats!

[ Parent ]
This really is quite an honor (0.00 / 0)
To have someone dedicated to following me around the internet to "shame" me for a post I didn't write.

Vastleft: pals around with Godwin's scofflaws!

I do hope you don't stray too far from the fainting couch, my ardent harasser!

You certainly have done an extraordinary job in rebutting Chris's premise that it's hard out there for an Obama critic.

As Glenn Greenwald noted, "anything that even gets close to a criticism of Obama would be reflexively interpreted and then rejected as such...." And he's not just talking about fixated trolls, he's describing the baseline for comments he (and most everyone else) receives as a progressive blogger.

[ Parent ]
oh boo hoo (0.00 / 0)
I'm glad the Senior Fellowship of Corrente is coming around to my point of view so quickly. I guess defending Lambert  proved too difficult (loved your "Gleichschaltung: just a German phrase" excuse). Your shame, poor vastleft, is that you tolerate and defend such insipid commentary on a blog where your name sits on the masthead, just as I told chicago dyke. I've got nothing against Obama critics (I am one, from time to time); on the other hand, self-important, intellectually dishonest tools who think nothing of attacking large swaths of voters (they're all cultists!) and comparing BHO to Hitler (and those who defend said tools) deserve scorn and derision from everyone. I'm just doing my part to make it so. Enjoy your pity party, oppressed Obama critic.
[ Parent ]
Vague, Nameless Left Quickly Condemns Obama | 69 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox