If you have "no place to go," come here!

Is Glenzilla about to be Krugmanned?

vastleft's picture


There's a lot to say about this, including the theme that will make our Paul happy -- questioning the notion that we must support Obama no matter what, and also the beyond-dubious premise (by way of Greg Sargent) that "Obama's 'candidacy has long seemed to embody a conviction that Democrats can win arguments with Republicans about national security -- that if Dems stick to a set of core principles, and forcefully argue for them without blinking, they can and will persuade people that, simply put, they are right and Republicans are wrong.'"

However, I must sign off, but I wanted to share this link with you ASAP and to see what y'all make of it.

No votes yet


A_B's picture
Submitted by A_B on

I'd say you're a little too eager to divide the Democrats.

Given that there are numerous posts on this blog's nemesis, DailyKos (and elsewhere), complaining about Obama's capitulation, I think this is a failed attempt at, once again, positing that supporters of Obama are irrational fools and support him unquestionably. See e.g.,

If you have a problem with Obama's position on FISA, then state it. Enough with the attempts at creating enemies. Clinton supporters claim that Obama can't unite the party (i.e., "unity pony"). It would help if they weren't actively trying to divide it.

And for the record, I think Greenwald is exactly right.

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

Glenn Greenwald is right. Except when his point is echoed at Corrente.

Corner Stone's picture
Submitted by Corner Stone on

I pop in and out here at the MCB. Did I miss a post where you retracted your endorsement of BHO?
I've skimmed through a few of your last posts and it seems you're a little miffed at him. I didn't know if that translated to a retraction, or if you are still openly stating your intention to vote for BHO?
*This isn't snark. I'm curious.

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

Still planning to write honestly about Obama and still planning to vote Dem in November. Same as it ever was.

CMike's picture
Submitted by CMike on

Glenn Greewald and Jane Hamsher are collecting a big pile of money. They are working with those selfless ones who must remain nameless so they can perform their good works. As I understand it, Greenwald and Hamsher are going to be pouring some money into a campaign to discredit Steny Hoyer who won his seat with 83% of the vote in 2006 when the Republicans did not put up a candidate and with 69% of the vote in 2004.

I guess they're in it for the long haul - what they'll need is more money...for years. Unlike those corrupt local governments, the best and the brightest from the open source Prog Blogs don't need any sunshine when they meet, strategize, and allocate hundreds of thousands of dollars.

In the meantime Nancy Pelosi is possibly facing a real challenge this November from Independent Cindy Sheehan. Lucky for Nancy Pelosi her hands are clean on this FISA deal. Otherwise Glenn, Jane and, I'm guessing, Kos would be directing their wrath and ad campaign against the Speaker.

Why look, Glenn is tearing Sen. Obama a new one. Here's what Glenn has to say in the article Vast Left linked to:

Obama is a politician running for political office, driven by all the standard, pedestrian impulses of most other people who seek and crave political power. It's nothing more or less than that, and it is just as imperative today as it was yesterday that the sickly right-wing faction be permanently removed from power and that there is never any such thing as the John McCain Administration (as one commenter ironically noted yesterday, at the very least, Obama is far more likely to appoint Supreme Court Justices who will rule that the bill Obama supports is patently unconstitutional).

Yeah, Sen. Obama better watch it. Glenzilla is on his case.

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

because even though he acknowledges that Obama is scum, he decries what he calls the "manichean" perspective that would compel people to withhold their vote from Obama.

Instead, he embraces the manichean viewpoint that Republicans are evil incarnate, and must be defeated no matter what.

Greenwald insists that this episode shows us how important it is to vet candidates -- while making it clear that no actual vetting of Obama is necessary because he is running against a Republican.

He's descended to the level of self-parody.

He's still on the unity pony. He's just miffed that the pony pissed in his latte. But that's not gonna stop him from sucking down the frothy goodness....

Submitted by lambert on

Haw. Now, what does that remind me of?

Double shot? Cinnamon?

[x] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

when it's their issue that gets the Obamamation treatment. Glenn could've seen a preview of all of this when Obama ran Harry & Louise ads against UHC. Or take any other eceonomic issue he ran to Hillary's right on. Even if you supported Obama, running ads reminiscent of right-wing insurance industry talking points against a UHC proposal should've been cause to be upset. And some were. But most wrote it off as a principled stand against mandates. Which, of course, is what got Krugman Krugmanned initially.

Submitted by lambert on

as Krugman has it. Anybody who was surprised by this wasn't paying attention.

[x] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Corner Stone's picture
Submitted by Corner Stone on

Is that he is the ultimate example of the Creative Class. IIRC - and I may not here - but I believe he lives and works from South America, possibly Brazil (Wiki says Brazil)?
Getting paid New York pundit dollars but living in low cost Brazil. That's the way to work it and I don't argue that's the way it should be if you can make it happen.
I generally like GG's writing, even though sometimes I feel like he parses statements from others down a little too far in order to make his point.
I also have to agree with Paul L here that essentially GG is a hypocrite in bemoaning this situation.

Thanks for the reply VL.

bystander's picture
Submitted by bystander on

between Brazil and NY, I believe, in part because the US will not recognize his domestic partner. There may be issues which go beyond that relating to visas, etc. He's written about it in a fairly forthright way ... although, I haven't paid too much attention because it really doesn't make much difference to me where he writes.

With all due respect, I don't find Glenn as hypocritical as some would allege. Glenn has had any number of people accusing him of being in the bag for Ron Paul, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and if memory serves, even Mike Huckabee. It could be the difference between reading Glenn every day and/or following Glenn's responses to readers' comments in the threads. I'm not sure what the criteria is for assessing someone's loyalties, but as a committed uncommitted (since Edwards dropped out), I've found Glenn's Unclaimed Territory a comfortable place to be. Digby being another.

The threads in both places are another story altogether, but that's not something you can lay at the feet of the blog's author, I don't think. I've read (what I consider to be) wacky comments here, but am not inclined to assign the responsibility for those ideas to the blog's author. Perhaps I'm mistaken in taking this approach.

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

stuff is silly, of course.

But there is no question that Greenwald is in the bag for Obama.

Greenwald styles himself a media critic, but since January 9 hasn't once noted how savagely Clinton has been treated by the media. The last time "Clinton" appeared with the word 'sexism' or 'misogyny' appeared was in march -- when he was condemning the idea that Obama should be treated the same way Clinton has been treated -- the word 'sexism' appeared in a quote from Digby.

As I've noted earlier, he was the first 'respectable' A-lister to race-boat the Clintons. He was also among those who thought that Obama's Wright speech was 'the greatest speech on race EVAH' (a sure sign of Obamessiahism). He went batshit over the "Gibson/Stephanopolus" debate -- and while that debate was certainly flawed, it was the first debate since the questions of Ayres, Wright, and 'bitter/cling" issues had recieved notice, and those were legitimate things to ask about.

Finally, only Obots were shocked/surprised by Obama's position on FISA --- and Greenwald was among them.

The bottom line is that anyone who wasn't drinking the Kool-Aid could not have helped but notice what was going on in this campaign -- and Greenwald still hasn't acknowledged it. Greenwald decries the 'trivialization' of the campaign, and its lack of focus on issues -- but the Obama campaign was about anything BUT issue, and Team Obama consistently pushed the media to hype trivia about Clinton (from Bosnia, to tax returns, to RFK.... )

Submitted by lambert on

That's quite a bill of particulars there, Paul.

I hate to be cynical, because he's been pounding on the executive power thing when few others were. OTOH, anybody who heard the little alarm bell when Obama consolidated funding, the 527s, and moved the DNC to Chicago wouldn't have been surprised by Obama's views on FISA. Interviews with the Globe are one thing, but the actual uses of power are quite another.

I'd love to have a time-line of the key A list posts -- starting maybe with Greg Sargent being silenced and ending with the RFK smear....

[x] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

willyjsimmons's picture
Submitted by willyjsimmons on

In his conclusions about STILL voting for Obama in favor of McCain.

But oh well.

CMike's picture
Submitted by CMike on

Have any new "wacky comments" appeared in this thread since you posted? Here's an "approach" you would not be "mistaken in taking": when criticizing others in a thread be specific.