Even though I don’t agree with him on everything, I still would award Glenn Greenwald the prize as the most outstanding blogger in the progressive blogosphere. He employs a rigorous logic and an utterly consistent voice to the issues he tackles. And if you disagree with him, you better come armed with a good argument and a lot of facts. As it happens, I don’t disagree with him about this:
At least as I always perceived it, the “liberal blogosphere” — to the extent that’s a cognizable entity — has devoted itself to criticisms of two failed institutions: (1) the establishment media and (2) the Democratic Party leadership. And the primary cause of discontent with the Party is exactly the criticism which [Nate] Silver applies here to the Obama White House: meekness, a constant compulsion to accommodate so-called “centrism” for political gain, a failure to embrace true transformative change (regardless of whether that’s due to political fear or actual belief). Why would anyone expect — or want — blogs, which arose as an outside agitating force against Beltway institutions and leaders, suddenly to cease this pressure and criticisms because now it’s Barack Obama leading the way in doing these things instead of Harry Reid, Rahm Emanuel, Steny Hoyer and Congressional Democrats?
Taken alone, that excerpt probably overstates the case and suffers from a lack of discussion about the Obama White House’s strengths. But it identifies their weakness. And it correctly argues that we should not want progressive blogs to cease pressure and criticism, especially of what we see as a continuation of failed strategies that served our leadership poorly during the Bush era.
However, my critique of the progressive blogosphere was not general. I reserved it for a subsection of critics who seem to fancy themselves as allies of the administration, but who have never demonstrated much affinity for either the candidate or the president. They tend to ascribe the worst motives to everything he does. And, yet, they feel like the are somehow responsible for his victory and thus entitled to deference and respect. It doesn’t matter how harsh they’ve been in their criticism, they still think it is completely outrageous for anyone in the White House to utter a word of rebuttal or to dismiss their opinions in any way.
So, if you look at the blogosphere on any given day, you’re likely to see a lot of anger directed at the White House on a shifting set of issues. And the White House gets asked questions about what people are writing. And they can either defend themselves or they can agree that the criticism is merited. As a general rule, White Houses defend themselves against criticism, regardless of whether it is coming from the right or from the left. I don’t think we should expect anything different. Sometimes, if the critic is very respected (or they owe them something), they will kind of tip-toe around the issue, eager to offer a rebuttal, but not wanting to provide offense. Other times, they’ll choose to be openly derisive because they don’t fear their critic and don’t think they have much clout.
If Rush Limbaugh makes a critique, they’re dismissive. If the Labor Unions make a critique, they’re careful. The fact that the White House is occasionally willing to dismiss criticism from the blogosphere should tell you where we stand in the food chain. But, before you conclude that we have no clout, consider how aggressively they distanced themselves from the anonymous source who told us to put away our pajamas and get more realistic expectations.
We have clout. But we lose clout when we’re seen as uncharitable blowhards. Most of the bloggers that I respect expressed agreement with what I wrote. I got positive feedback from Markos, Oliver Willis, Kid Oakland, Baratunde Thurston, Liza Sabatar, and others. But I don’t think the White House adviser’s remarks were aimed at us. They were aimed at other bloggers who have extremely negative interpretations of the president’s motives and policies. I think the progressive blogosphere is pretty consistent in what it advocates, and the critiques don’t differ all that much from each other. I don’t sense that people have let up too much on being critical when they feel it is warranted. If the White House sees us as allies, they probably shouldn’t. Nobody is harder to bullshit than the people of the progressive blogosphere. But, some of us are dedicated to seeing that they succeed in what they set out to do and give them the benefit of the doubt on most issues that they have no desire to break their campaign promises. Others are cynical, through and through.
I can’t say which camp is right or wrong. But I don’t think it is right or realistic to expect the White House to take all our slings and arrows without ever rebutting what we have to say. And if they think some of us are arguing in bad faith, you should expect to see them treat us with a corresponding lack of respect.
I don’t want to see us lose our influence because we’ve lost our reputation for fair play. So, I agree with Greenwald that people should push their issues just as strongly as ever, without any undue deference to power. But, they should be strive to be fair. And if they’re constantly putting an uncharitable interpretation on things, they basically lose the right to be treated well in return.
We have clout. But we lose clout when we’re seen as uncharitable blowhards.
What clout? I am not trying to be snarky, just asking since I am not in the know. Sure, we have clout with certain House members and Senators, but with the White House? I find that hard to believe. Obama hasn’t had much nice to say about bloggers(Publicly that is). The blogosphere revels in being hated by Rahm Emanuel. The Blue/Bayh Dogs(and DLC’ers .. who are all pretty much the same) hate us because we make life uncomfortable for them .. it is because Obama and Clinton showed up at NN ’08?
It’s hard to define. The White House invites me to be on conference calls, along with all the other bigger names in the blogosphere. They reached out during the primaries and they continue to do so. I occasionally get staffers (usually from Congress, but rarely from the WH) who push back against what the see as factual errors I have made. I know that Reid and Pelosi’s staffers read this blog daily. So, collectively, the blogosphere has an influence on the national debate, we’re being read, just as David Broder and Maureen Dowd are being read. If we’re pissed off, they notice. However, if some reporter from CNBC confronts some WH staffer with a blog-post I’ve written blasting the administration, I am not going to get offended if he says I’m just some jackass living in my parent’s basement.
If Reid’s office is reading this … I wonder what off year turn out in Nevada has been .. because Reid needs to either lead .. and pass real HC reform(and not that Baucus nonsense) .. or retire back to Nevada and let Schumer or Durbin be Majority Leader .. no more excuses!!
Sorry, Booman, but why wouldn’t you be offended if someone in the White House says you’re just some jackass living in your parent’s basement — and never change out of your pajamas? You’re not just some pajama-clad jackass living in your parent’s basement, are you? Wouldn’t you expect the WH staffer to be able to respond to the substance of your critical post? Don’t you think that our political leaders should, by now, finally have gotten past such hackneyed and ignorant stereotypes about who bloggers are and what they do?
I suspect that you and I might agree that Maureen Dowd has been less than stellar as a critic of the Administration. But would you find it similarly unexceptional if an anonymous WH staffer told a reporter that she’s a “frustrated old woman who can’t get a man”? Or if they said that Rush Limbaugh is a “fat, drug-addled sex tourist with erectional dysfunction”? Would you similarly expect Dowd and Limbaugh to not be offended by any of that at all? You wouldn’t expect them to squawk in protest? If they did, would you place the blame solely on their side, and none on anyone in the Administration?
Your series of “ventings” has given me the impression that you have some kind of general beef with certain other bloggers — whom, as far as I know, you still haven’t named — that goes beyond this particular episode. I find it hard to explain otherwise why you’re dissing them so severely, and so exclusively, as naive, after such an adolescent sputtering came out of the White House. You argue that the WH staffer’s animosity is understandable; why is it any less understandable that many people are pissed off at such a stupid remark?
“Bloggers in their pajamas in their parent’s basement” — gadzooks, somebody needs to grow up.
That would be like getting angry at a coyote for eating my chickens. The administration doesn’t own me anything and they’re free to deal with my criticisms anyway they feel they need to. I may fight back, but I won’t take it personally.
Yeah, if you can blog on this for the better part of a week, maybe naming names and providing links would help us to understand the nuances of your stand.
Do you really think that either Dowd or Limbaugh are so thin-skinned as media personalities (Writing the word “journalist” in the same sentence as Limbaugh is not possible.) that any criticisms, even of the ad hominem variety, cause them to lose any sleep? I think that one of the expectations when you put yourself out there to criticize anyone is the fact that there may be someone who takes it personally and responds with a “personal” attack. If, as a journalist/blogger, you always took it personally, you could well end up in your parents’ basement, cowering and feeling sorry for yourself, perhaps even while pajama-clad.
And, by the way, I thought Rush Limbaugh WAS a “fat, drug-addled sex tourist with erectional (sic) dysfunction.”
It’s clear from your essays and posts that you are in occasional communication (off-blog, need that be said?) with various people in the White House staff and perhaps elsewhere. There are, otherwise, too many details in your posts and articles which couldn’t reasonably find their way there. So much, then, is apparent to me.
One of the upshots of this is that you are, for good and ill, better and worse, a “resource” and a “conduit” for these people to channel and present their take on things. That isn’t, in my view, in and of itself necessarily a “bad” thing, but it is a significant thing. If you have access, it should be understood that it’s because those who communicate with you from the WH consider that there is something in it for them, for their point view. The moment they no longer find that to be the case, I’d expect that your access would come into question and its days might then be numbered.
In all of that, though I can’t claim to know, since I haven’t been following the daily conversations here long enough or consistently enough since Obama’s election, there seems (to me, at any rate) to be something lacking in transparency about this relationship of yours. Again, that’s just my uninformed impression in the relatively brief time that I re-engaged with this blog. Perhaps you’ve set out somewhere since Obama’s election a clear statement of how and with whom in the WH you’re in occasional contact. If so, I have missed that, so please excuse me for having done so.
I think that it’s in general to the credit of the White House that certain there would regularly read and consider what’s written and argued in various blogs and that these people would also engage some blog operators in conference calls. In general, the more contacts they maintain “outside the White House ‘bubble’ “, the better. At the same time, they certainly have and know their set of interests in doing this and these can hardly be expected to be entirely uncalculated.
The WH has a new media team, as do all campaigns and most politicians these days. Staffers in the Hill will definitely take an interest if you write about their boss.
Over the years I’ve built some relationships with people, some of whom have moved on to other positions, including in the WH. Mainly, it means that I can ask people questions and they’ll answer them. I think I have a reputation as a fairly vituperative progressive, but who is fair. I don’t expect Evan Bayh’s staff to answer my questions because I’ve been brutal to their man and there really isn’t any prospect of that changing. But I don’t rely on sources anyway. They mainly serve as a help if I want to understand something that is going on.
“But I don’t rely on sources anyway. They mainly serve as a help if I want to understand something that is going on.“
No doubt and that’s all well and good.
Just the same, if they “phone you“, as I understand is effectively the case sometimes as conference calls are arranged and held, then “they’re” not merely occasionally available to answer queries made at your initiative but, also, and significantly, (that is “significantly” not, “sinister-ly”) to “bring you in on things” which in their view it’s useful that you “know about”. Or so it seems to me.
sure. The WH has never called me on my own phone, but they will email me press releases and have invited me onto about four conference calls to talk (once) with Obama and members of his staff. I had one call with Arne Duncan, one with Peter Orszag, and one with David Axelrod. I also had one with Christine Romer and others, but that might have been the Axelrod call. His new media team will send personal emails if they want me to be aware of some event or (rarely) to correct an error. I actually get more emails from Hill staffers on concerns about what I’ve written than from the WH. And, usually, the corrections are helpful.
I don’t need these sources, though, as I might if I were writing for a publisher who expected me to have quoted sources for my articles. It’s nice to have people you can call but I am not cultivating sources so I don’t have to hedge what I say. It’s one of the advantages of blogging over reporting.
This is an aside to the general tenor of this thread, but I thank you for being brutal to Bayh. I can’t even call his office anymore because all I do is sputter. He is, unfortunately, one of my senators and it is very telling that all of my progressive Indiana friends and acquaintances trust Lugar more than Bayh. A definite rock-and-hard-place situation!
booman, i really like you so i’ve hesitated to write this… but what the heck that’s part of what comments are for. so here goes:
dear booman, you are confusing access with influence. you can tell the difference because when it’s influence they change their policies to please you and when it’s access you end up doing things on their behalf (defending their elitist crap, although not a big deal, is illustrative).
i’m just a long time fan not trying to give you a hard time, but hoping you will give this one some thought. thanks.
I think it’s foolish to imagine the left-leaning blogosphere as some sort of semi-homogenous entity that could or should be embraced or dismissed as a single whole, though it’s awfully easy to fall into that trap. If I read you, Daily Kos, Atrios, John Cole and, Sadly No every day, I’m actually reading a very smallish subset of the left-leaning blogosphere, even if that subset is comprised of some of its most popular sites. But as you say, BooMan, there’s a plethora of mostly left-leaning sites written by disappointed Hillary supporters, or by unapologetic Nader supporters, who feel as though a system that doesn’t give them what they want when they want it is intrinsically broken.
And yeah, that does remind me of a mirror image of the teabaggers.
To further echo your point, I do think it’s imperative that we have popular sites in the progressive sphere that are informed with enough sense of realpolitik that our agenda is continuously advanced. Whether it’s by moving far enough left in our rhetoric that we give the President space to move our direction without it seeming a capitulation (the FDR “make me do it” strategy), or by tempering our expectations and mistrust enough to keep our calls for change positive, it behooves us to be as smart as we can be. Political savvy is a precious thing, something that GOP currently lacks completely. We need to keep developing ours, and posts like yours helps in that regard.
All that said, I have no problem going after corrupt members of Congress in the Democratic caucus, even if we end up losing some of those seats to the GOP in the process. I don’t expect ideological purity, but I do expect a willingness to put country and party before ego and big donors. I’d rather deal with an honest conservative who opposes us on principle than a corrupt “centrist” who opposes us for his own dubious self-interest. But none of this applies to the President as far as I can see, even if Rahm is a prick. Personally, I think Rahm is a prick who uses subterfuge well, and we should probably take that into consideration before we go apeshit on him every time he verbally strays from our reservation.
Personally, I think Rahm is a prick who uses subterfuge well, and we should probably take that into consideration before we go apeshit on him every time he verbally strays from our reservation.
And when has Rahm used that for Progressive aims?
Actually, that Greenwald post is a case in point. The first half of it, about the value of critizing Obama, is excellent. But then Greenwald veers again into another defensive rant about the Nobel Prize — which, considering that neither Obama nor anyone else in the White House had anything to do with promoting this award for Obama, and considering it was the DNC, not the White House, who branded award opponents as traitors, has got to strike the White House staff as unfair, incomprehensible and irrelevant.
Well, his critique of the DNC is valid, and I don’t think there is all that much separation, really. That criticism doesn’t bother me at all. Accusing your critics of siding with Hamas is pretty tired rhetoric and deserves to be slapped down.
It deserves to be slapped down because it’s tired? Nonsense. If Dems failed to point out the hypocrisy of all these self-styled “patriots” cheering for the US Olympics defeat and savaging Obama’s Nobel in terms eerily echoed by the Taliban in Pakistan we’d be bitching about how they didn’t have the guts or brains to seize a political opportunity. Who’s the wimp now?
I disagree. You can make the same argument without bringing Hamas or the Taliban into the equation.
How?
From a purely technical point of view, many of the Republicans and much of the right wing DID “side” with Hamas and the Taliban in that they dissed the award of the Nobel Prize to the President; however the DNC skirts dangerously close to a type of political rhetoric that parallels the right-wing/Republican/teabagger abuse of the Nazi-Hitler-Socialist-Fascist-Communist-Femacamp-Traitor word salad. Not a good place to be, and certainly not conducive to reasoned and beneficial political discourse.
But one more point I would make, and it is that Presidents are not interchangeable. Bush and Obama are very different in terms of credibility, history, smarts, knowledge, leadership, capacity to govern, and judgment, not to mention the vastly different quality of people they have hired. So in that sense, it might be quite legitimate to criticize Bush for a particular policy or position, and not criticize Obama for a similar policy or position. Or vice-versa.
If Obama said that the United States was facing a significant threat from another nation, I might believe him. When Bush said it, I did not. Obama is the type of man, I think, who would not be bullied or manipulated into starting a war. On the other hand, Bush could be ignored when he pulled plans out of his ass for things like reforming immigration or rebuilding New Orleans, because he didn’t know how to get things done. Obama does, so when he announces an agenda it can be taken seriously and looked at closely.
Exactly. I think Greenwald’s weakness takes the form of wanting everything to be equal — a known liberal/left disease. In real life, we judge motives and intentions by far more complex and subtle standards than simple reason. If Limbaugh says Obama is a traitor I’ll ignore it. If Booman, say, says the same thing I’ll look into it. That’s why we have politics and not a Robotic Overlord (well, with some exceptions).
By the same standard, when Bush wanted, for example, No Child Left Behind, I assumed it was some plot to destroy public education, because that’s the kind of think he was all about. When Ted Kennedy backed it I at least had to give it more thought. That’s how the real world works for all of us. Greenwald and other good and valued people have an itch about wanting it to be otherwise. It’s a flaw when it informs their opinions.
Cheers, BooMan. The Greenwald tactic that kills his critiques is saying Democrats–not administration officials or party operatives, but Democrats–are behaving JUST LIKE REPUBLICANS. You can’t tell Democrats they sound like Republicans and expect to be taken seriously.
But if two wars that were unjust during the Bush years are still going on during the Obama years, then what has changed? If nothing has changed, or not much has changed,or not enough has changed, then can’t you say that Obama’s direction of the wars is at least very similar to Bush’s?
If I agreed with Krugman on how to handle the recession and what Krugman predicted as a result of a too little stimulus has come true, is it wrong for me to recognize that what Krugman said came true? Oh yeah, Obama was better than the rump of the Republican Party which only wanted tax cuts, but a jobless recovery doesn’t do much good for a lot people. So no, it’s not exactly Republican. Just not Keynesian enough. Maybe this criticism might not help Obama because he won’t listen anyway, but it at least differentiates dissent from the left for dissent from the right.
By the way, what’s the purpose of the Afghan War?
He means behaving like Republicans in form, not in content. Similar emotional patterns. Why is this so inconceivable? And at this point, those patterns are exhibited by a much smaller percentage of Democrats than of Republicans. Which also makes sense, considering the country’s real priorities.
P.S. The “Obama must do what we say or he’s Bush” line is just as out there as “Obama is the Messiah.”
I don’t know of anyone but the teabag crowd that ever accused Obama of messiahhood.
Not exactly. The way it works is, they accuse progressives/Democrats/whoever of endowing Obama with messiahhood. I had to talk a friend down on this point once. She had heard so much about Obamessiahnism that she accepted it as factual.
My take is that Obama is just one guy, he puts on his pants one leg at a time same as I do, he has good days and bad days, and he can’t wave a magic wand to Make Things Happen™ in Congress or the government. Whether he would if he could, I don’t really know; but with Bush I had no doubt that he’d have loved to just run the show himself. In fact he said as much with his “This job would be much easier if it were a dictatorship, as long as I was the dictator” comment.
I have to agree with you and Islamfashionista on this one. I have actually read comments on progressive/liberal blogs where it was very clear that the commenters that were expressing their anger at and impatience with Obama had expected him to be a “Magic Negro,” as repulsive as that phrase is. They were no different than the people who were ascribing messiahhood to Obama, even though they purported to be on the opposing side of the political fence.
Hey, folks, while we argue back and forth in the blogosphere about Progressive influence or lack thereof, the Canadian dollar and Swiss Franc approach parity with the US dollar, the price of oil is at a year’s high and gold is at $1,062 an ounce. Furthermore, unemployment climbs to over 10%, the housing crisis persists, and the fat cats of Wall St are drooling over a new set of bonuses. Meanwhile, on the health front the US trails every other industrial nation in the area of providing care for the sick and injured. Oh yes, the insurance lobby has just predicted a set of rising premiums for the years ahead. On the international scene, more soldiers are going to Af/Pak, defense costs are soaring and Iran, as always, is an existential threat to Israel and the rest of the world.
I realize that solving problems swiftly is not our strong suit. Still, I think Congress and the White House had better get cracking while there is still time to act. Events seem to be developing their own momentum and, I suspect, a deeper crisis is just around the corner. It is hardly the time for business as usual.
You forgot global warming, and, frankly, if we don’t do something about that, and soon, the rest of it really isn’t going to make any difference.
I’m not being facetious, and you’re right that these are very serious problems that we need to address and work toward solving. And when the offices open up again tomorrow morning, let’s get those calls made to our legislators and the regulatory agencies and the White House and crack the whip, and keep cracking it until the work is done.
There are two kinds of politics.
Both types of politics are necessary. If we only did what was acceptable with the range of current mainstream discourse things wouldn’t move very far. How else would (say) green, LGBT, or human rights issues ever become mainstream? How did the libertarian free market Reaganite and neo-coservative interventionist imperialist political position become mainstream?
Either type of politics requires reason, intellect, research, funding, organisation and relationship building to succeed. But I suspect that Booman is criticising here is just bad politics – the petulant rantings of those who don’t understand how the world works and who just think that by shouting loudest everyone will listen to them and do what they say.
That type of politics doesn’t get very far in any context, left or right, and merely to say that the Right doesn’t have a monopoly on such petulant antics is not exactly a mind-blowing revelation, is it?
But the big danger here is in believing there is some kind of coherent liberal-left blogosphere in the first place. There isn’t – there is an infinite range of views and methods out there. Some like Booman, by dint of insight and hard work, have risen to some influence and prominence. The vast majority are just making noise in an expanding universe.
You can no more attack or defend or stereotype the liberal left blogosphere as you can package a cloud. You can attack or defend specific sites, movements, tendencies, or arguments, but the ground keeps shifting around you. Perhaps the perceived wisdom, in 10 years time, will be that Obama was a sadly compromised transitional figure who never came close to doing enough on Global warming, ending wars, financial regulation, human rights vindication, public healthcare or income inequality.
You can create a narrative now which makes that argument and it may be dismissed as far-out idealism now – even if it comes to be seen as a non-controversial commonplace in 10 years time. Hands on White House staffers dealing with the political realities of the Beltway may understandably dismiss it as the wet dreams of those who should have changed out of their pyjamas.
But the issues in 10 years time will be measured by a different set of criteria. Was global warming averted, did more major wars break out, was a 10 year period of stagflation avoided, did income inequality continue to grow?
So the issue now is not just what White House staffers think or what is currently accepted as within the realm of serious and realistic political discourse. The issue is to what degree any argument is evidenced based, reality based, and predictive of the future. We shouldn’t be afraid to stray quite a distance from current perceived wisdom if we can make the case.
The rantings of rabble rousers on any side are best ignored regardless of whether they identify themselves as part of the liberal blogosphere or not. But what we are seeing is the emergence of a new pillar for democracy – outside the traditional media, judiciary, and formal representative institutions – by which citizens attempt to connect with and influence their leaders. Outside the traditional party system or even social systems such as unions, think tanks or country clubs. Some structure will emerge around that inchoate mass – respected commentators and sites, some rules of the road, some formal organisational structures such as Netroots or Obama’s campaign organisation.
But the blogosphere as a whole will remaining an evolving inchoate mass, incapable of collective action, reason, or ideology. Best not to spend too much time trying to defend it. Even those bits that claim to be progressive. You can only defend or attack a specific argument, organisation, site or individual. Generalised praise or condemnation is just a load of hogwash.
Amen.
As liberals, progressives, and Democrats clawed their way back to power in the latter Bush years, certain expectations developed about the results of victory. Whether naive or not, the collapse of those expectations has created an uproar among progressives, who have handled this realization in different ways.
The expectations are these:
It should be obvious from that list what has a number of folks in the liberal blogosphere ticked off. And they are rightly offended at continuing to be marginalized as “the left of the left” while “the right of the right” has huge media megaphones. And they are rightly offended by calls for blogger ethics that exceed the performance of traditional media ethics and for attempts to treat bloggers different from any other media. And they are rightly offended at seeing the main groups pressing for certain issues reining in their efforts at moving public opinion and putting pressure on Congress in response to pleas from White House staff; strategy should be collaborative. And they are rightly offended at receiving emails that treat them as an ATM.
But the absence of certain key institutions makes it very easy to run off the rails. These are the ones I’ve seen of late:
Wow! I declare this the Outstanding Comment of the Day and it’s not even noon yet.
Your listing of the ten “expectations” clearly defines the mood of disappointment and disillusionment many are feeling.
Very well articulated. But here’s the paradox: What good would it do to have the Democratic Party in the hands of people who, as Frank Schnittger eloquently put it, “don’t understand how the world works and who just think that by shouting loudest everyone will listen to them and do what they say” ?
I think many (both on the left and the right), look at politics not in a real-world frame of reference, but in an ideal one, whatever their ideal happens to be. They measure political figures against that ideal, and that’s it. Usually this goes along with a complete ignorance of how politics (even at its best) actually works.
Many people get angry about the “kabuki dance” element of politics, simply because it is not “straightforward.” But they don’t ask themselves why these kabuki dances are necessary or what they might actually mean in the specific instance.
The problem for all of us is that many of the considerations (good or bad) that figure into the calculus of political decisions are behind the scenes, unknown to us, often matters of speculation. The less we know, the more likely those speculations are to reflect our own fantasies and fears.
Of course we want transparency, but there is a natural limit to transparency, even for the good guys, because confidence, and thus confidentiality, is a crucial element of political negotiation.
In fact, I am “disappointed” in Obama on most of the same issues that the people we are talking about here are. The difference is that, judging from everything I can see and from what I believe to be most likely, he has thus far “failed to deliver,” or not gone far enough, because of genuine political difficulties that are not of his making. But also, I think he is gradually “pushing the envelope.”
Yes, I am sure he has made mistakes, I am also sure that his personal philosophy does not completely coincide with the so-called Progressive Left (whatever that is exactly), or with my own; yes, there are real problems with the Democratic Party (although it is not nearly so dysfunctional as in the heyday of the DNC, and we owe much to Obama for that).
But I agree with Booman’s criticism, and I believe that the main problem with the people it is directed at is that they have no realistic conception of the forces we are up against.
And what I mean by that is not only how powerful those forces are, BUT ALSO THEIR GENUINE VULNERABILITIES, and how to effectively exploit those vulnerabilities. On this, I take much heart from Obama’s background as a community organizer.
Excellent comment.
For your consideration:
With regard to your five points regarding institutions, I have these to offer:
How about actually linking to specific blogs and give specific complaints?
This thing has been going on for a few days now and I am getting the feeling that you, Booman, are dancing around here. You may think that everyone understands your complaints, but judging from the comments I think not.
You could try Googling “boohooman” for the bottom of the barrel examples.
Thank you! I’m frustrated that there are no names or examples given and linked to. Without these, the two blogposts I have read about the professed uncivility of the some in the blogosphere toward Obama are vague, unsubstantiated accusations.
I don’t read every blog, so there may be some out there I would agree are unfair to the President. I read blogs by people I respect, and there are many I never see. Who are the offenders? Making vague criticisms of unnamed bloggers is not in any way constructive.
I don’t blame BooMan for not “naming names.” Blogs wars can be exhausting so sometimes its better to just keep things vague (he’s really pissed off some folks regardless of specificity). There are some blogs (nearly all of them still bitter over the ’08 primaries) and commenters who never ever follow rule #1 that Greenwald posted:
(1) If Obama takes action or makes a decision that you think is good and constructive, say so and give him credit;
It’s just “Obama sux” 24/7 for some progressives and it got totally out of hand after Harwood’s “reporting.” If you want more examples, fan out from that Google search (hint: blogroll) and you’ll see what I mean.
That seems to be the case. I’ve occasionally checked the site meter lately to see where incoming traffic is coming from (and to which of Booman’s stories); some of those posts are truly depressing reading.
It is noteworthy that when he posts on a subject most of the time his thesis becomes THE default argument of anyone that agrees with his side.
Arguing with Greenwald on almost any subject he tackles is about as difficult as taking the other side of an argument against Paul Krugman, IMHO.
You might score a few points in the bout but you will likely be knocked out in the process.
And on a subject like this? Too harsh a critic? Too easygoing with the Admin.? A very subjective point of view regardless of what side you take.
My opinion is that both the carrots and the sticks are needed to get the results we all want.
Glad to hear the bloggers you named gave positive feedback. what was getting to me is the attacks on Obama’s motives, assertions that he’s just like Bush. Obviously Obama can take it, but such attacks miss the degree to which Bush/cheney undermined our democracy and the difficulties involved in the process we set in motion by electing Barack and overall make things more difficult. (somewhat off topic from your posts I guess, but imo the “obama is just like bush” cynicism leads to whining instead of effective pressure)
Lord have mercy. And I thought it was just wingnuts who perpetually wallow in umbrage.
This is all very simple to me. There’s holding feet to the fire and there’s perpetual whining, and I’m sorry, but if I see a Greenwald/Hamsher/Aravosis rant, I’m skipping right the hell over it. Feels like the primaries to me. We have problems that were years in the making–not just 8 years of terrible, but 30. THIRTY!!!!
But President Obama should remedy everything in nine months. It took a third of that time to get staffed.
Anyway, They of the Perpetually Aggrieved just will not be appeased unless Obama is kissing their arses in Hi-Def. They’re mad that THEIR issues aren’t front and center and done, because THEY elected him and THEY did all the work and THEY raised the money and how dare this negro not listen to THEIR received wisdom.
Because such condescension only comes Pat Buchanan-flavored right?
And so of course, this stupid pajamas comment just serves up another heaping dose of fresh umbrage and outrage.
How nice, but is it helping the health care debate?
And of course, if you have the very temerity to not go along w/ the umbrage du jour, then you’re “on the payroll.” Cute.
I had already cut back on my blogging diet, but I see that I’ll have to cut back even more. My time is just more limited these days. I checked the blogs…and just, wow.
Booman, I know you don’t need my advice, but just don’t get between They of the Perpetually Aggrieved and fresh umbrage. It’s just not worth it.
It limits the time to talk about issues on which both the Admin and the Congress need to focus.
Just as the Health care campaign is coming to a head and leading to a more or less Democratic led conclusion – the issue remaining being precisely how progressive – liberal Democrats start fighting with each other?
Talk about lacking focus, energy, direction, and organisation. Narcissistic infighting rarely contributes to good outcomes.
Very true. Yay to Dem senators going after health insurance anti-trust exemption. Nay to sucking up to Olympia Snowe. I was actually hoping she wouldn’t vote for the Finance cmte version of the health care bill, for just this reason. I’m not mad at Baucus for holding out a fig leaf (initially) for repubs and such, but when it was made clear what their game was, then cut your losses. (Hey, you showed you tried, only to be rebuffed…even if you knew that going in. Not above using a bit of theater to make the point.) And if you have the power, then use it for a strong public option. I am, by the grace of God, lucky enough to have insurance, but I HATE it. I should have the choice for something better.
There are things about which I’m not happy. E.g., I was two seconds from complaining about not seeing groundwork laid to re: cocaine sentencing disparities. But I see that AG Holder is beefing up the Civil Rights Division and a group of 10 senators introduced legislation regarding the disparities, following Rep. Bobby Scott’s intro of same bill in the House.
Also, I don’t think his NOLA visit was long enough. Don’t just visit a (charter) school (Grrr!!! Don’t get me started on the whole charter school thing) but go visit the areas that are still vulnerable, still not repaired, etc. I’m so glad he’s going, but I NOLA needs a bit more time and care. I’m sure Detroit, Chicago, Youngstown and many, many other cities and towns would say that, to be fair, but after what the Bush admin did to NOLA…Bush deserves jail time for that alone.
That said, this can’t all be done in 9 months. I respect the constant gut-checks it takes to straddle patience versus pushback. What I do not respect and in fact, will cause me to push my mute button, is Obama=Bush. Now that’s pure BS.
You’re right. It’s amazing how many people overlook the 30+ years and think that all these problems were created in the years of Bush the Second. And I do sometimes feel as if I’m caught up in some sort of perpetual Primary universe.
Bloggers have no more right to be “treated well” than anyone else. It feels very strange to read an essay explaining that the White House (or any other institution) has no special obligation to accept criticism from any source without hitting back. Of course they don’t, and it doesn’t matter if the attacks came from their “friends”. How can that possibly even be worth discussing?
The blogs have clout directly proportional to their practical value to the politicians, parties, and interest groups. “Where we stand in the food chain” should have no place in the consideration of bloggers who aspire to being a different kind of media. The sole political value of the new media, if that’s what it is, is to draw attention to issues and policies, find strategies to advance or defeat them, and gather material support for the cause. Worrying about whether Obama or any other pol likes or respects the blogosphere is a total waste of time and in itself diminishes its role. Isn’t the need to be a “friend” of the movers and shakers exactly what made the MSM so pathetic?
Let me say that I think most people are still suffering from the effects of the Bush and cheney dictatorship of the last 8 years.
And many still do not bother to analyze alot of what Obama does.
For one, Obama is not one to beat his chest and preen in front of cameras bragging about what he does. Alot is done behind the scenes.
Obama also does not make a show of putting pressure on stray dems. He is very behind the scenes. Like when he brought in the bank execs to the White House and a few days later heard about how he slapped them around back in Feb.
My guess is that Obama does alot more and is more involved then many realize. And is much tougher then many think.
He will give the congress leeway and such, but, when the time comes he manages to round them up, make the behave and we just don’t hear about it.
I don’t think Obama is as squishy as many make him out to be. And I think far too many progressives mistake this.
And listen to gop talking points.
He is also a constitutional professor and we could not wait to have a president who would restore the constitution and the office of the president to it’s place.
So, now Obama is making Congress be a co-equal branch and doing away with the imperial presidency. So, now progressives balk.
And alot of what Obama is getting the blame for is actually stuff congress is suppose to do. not the president.
So, Obama is expecting congress to do their job and the left is howling at him instead.
I do think people mistake the way Obama operates, the fact that he is not a show horse and postures and brags but, actually just does stuff, the fact that he is not making a big deal of things as weakness.
And I also think far too many on the left allow the media’s obsession with controversy they create get to them. Fall for it.
I agree with you. We really don’t know what goes on behind the scenes.
And I have a problem with the way Pam Spaulding and sometimes Glenn Greenwald falls into that trap of assuming things about the President that nobody has solid knowledge about.
Wasn’t it Glenn Greenwald, who wrote an article about the reporter who used “anonymous sources” to describe Justice Sotomayor’s temperament?
Then he is goes all left field about a White House anonymous source saying things.
I don’t understand.
About those protests — and Democratic and progressive criticisms of Obama generally — NBC’s John Harwood “reported” the following last night:
—
harwood quote
—
In the updates to her post about all of this last night, Pam Spaulding notes with exasperation the excuses and denials flying around everywhere, ….
To end up in update VI with
But all of that underscores the real point here. This has nothing to do with whether some anonymous Obama aide disparaged bloggers. That’s irrelevant. The issue is whether the White House is indifferent to — or even happy about — criticism from what is perceived as “the Left” because it makes them seem more “centrist”;
That’s like a Colbert story.
It just so happens that, in the grocery store yesterday evening, I met the married couple that helped run our local Obama office last year. I’ll call them Bob and Ellen. Ellen was a very enthusiastic Hillary supporter, but when Obama won the nomination she switched her allegiance to Obama and was an incredibly dynamic and energetic campaign worker. I believe that she and Bob virtually lived at our local Obama campaign office until the election. They were an inspiration to everyone who came into that office.
We hadn’t seen each other in quite a while, but when we started talking about things political, it was no surprise that the teabaggers and health care legislation came up, and we talked about the prospects of a local representative. But we soon found ourselves talking about some members of and commenters on the left blogosphere. It appears that we shared some of the same disappointment in one of the blogs (not Booman) that we had followed throughout the election season, all three of us lamenting what we saw as a lack of patience and balance and, to quote Bob, “sticktoivity.” Bob pointed out that, to his consternation, it appeared that some of the bloggers and their followers, who claimed to have been supporters of Obama, were now throwing him under the bus because they didn’t get what they wanted when they wanted it.
Then I came home and read Booman’s follow-up post and I have to say again that I agree with what he says. And now I’ll wait for the blasts from the “uncharitable blowhards,” because I’m sure they will be coming.
Instead of a blast this blowhard will gently whisper in your general direction:
Blah. Who cares?
Some random Hillary supporter agrees with you that Obama is dreamy and people are being mean to him, so?
Liberal critics of Obama are to the left of Obama, as well as to the left of Hillary. In fact, the main Obamabot argument last year during the silly Hillary v. Obama smackdown was that Obama was the real progressive while Hillary was a triangulating centrist that would sell liberals out.
Wouldn’t a Hillary supporter naturally support centrism and selling out to corporate power and Republicans? How does a Hillary supporter agreeing with you support your argument? [leaving aside the limited evidentiary value of anecdotal experiences]
The only conclusion one can draw is that Obama supporters are disproportionately influenced by the politics of personality; the cult of personality. Your messianic zeal for a particular candidate, and hatred of a candidate that is substantially similar on the issues but dared challenge him for the presidency, reveals the true motivations of Obamabots.
It’s like you only see two personalites fighting–the dreaded Hillary and the messianic Obama–policies barely enter into the equation.
Defending Obama’s honor appears to be the defining objective of the Obamabots.
Bringing Hillary into this discussion is a cheap trick by Obama fanboys to distract from Obama sticking a shiv in the back of liberals. It’s willful obfuscation and intentional misdirection. Hillary v. Obama–the strawman smackdown II.
You missed the point entirely, but I do recall that that seems to be your modus operandi. I only mentioned Hillary in passing in my anecdote. But you seem to be limited to throwing the fanboy/Obamabot meme around like it contributes something vital and meaningful to any discussion. It doesn’t, and I’m done feeding it.
Your Hillary anecdote was an integral part of your “argument”, such as it was.
Your friend “changed her allegiance” from Hillary to Obama. It’s about the battle of personalities to you. One owes allegiance to a candidate. You can see why people use words like “messianic” when Obama supporters reveal their way of thinking about politics in this manner (swearing “allegiance” to a candidate–as well as the implicaton that a switch from one conservative Democrat to another conservative Democrat is a sign of reasonable mindedness).
The Obamabot/Obama fanboy/Messiah slurs are tough and I sort of feel bad about employing them . . .
But they are necessary. You guys need to wake the fuck up and realize you’re knee-deep in some stupid personality play that is designed to tie up liberals to frustrate change. It pisses me off because you moderates are the biggest obstacle to change right now.
And your modus operandi is duly noted: demanding that your precious feelings and Obama’s feelings be respected above all else. Forget taking liberals seriously and considering why they may feel betrayed. Screw those whiny liberals, eh, all they do is hurt Obama?
This is the message you send to a good number of liberals with your STFU and clap louder for Obama message:
“How dare you liberals feel betrayed. Didn’t you pledge allegiance to Obama? How can you now complain? You should just trust his motivations and if he wants to employ a sell out strategy its because he knows what’s best. Leave. Obama. Alone.”
There’s an underlying assumption to much (if not all) of the strategy and tactics you and I deplore here. Usually, that assumption is not stated explicitly but, stated or not, I find that it virtually screams, ‘hey, anything better is just impossible (now)! (trust me! I’m right on that!) So, look, “get real” with the rest of us and get with the program!’
If Obama ever starts to act like he takes “liberals” seriously (recent comments from supposed insiders have claimed that Obama can and does easily dismiss critic “from the Left”), that will be after they start taking themselves seriously in the first place. But, as it is, they’re still bloodied and bowed from Bush and Cheney and still manifestly deathly afraid by hit and called terrible names by an extremist-right Republican party which, in running off the rails (and taking the country with it) should be so utterly discredited that it could not inspire much more than a disgusted laugh.
To me, one of the most amazing things is how much many liberals have apparently implicitly “bought” the far-Right’s litany of charges against them. And, I really fed up with people assuring me on their mere personal assurance alone, that this, that or the other thing is “the limit of what’s possible”.
People who set out ready to accept half of half-a-loaf and who make this known should not be surprised if they wind up with even less than half of half-a-loaf. Politics done and presented as a “magic act”, that is, slight-of-hand, or as done behind-the-scenes, or, what’s worse, as an openly-operated con-game disgusts me—whether these are done by Republicans or Democrats.
If many Americans look to Obama as if they expect magic results from him, maybe that’s in large part because he adopts tactics and means which, rather than working above-board, are done in a way designed to be out of sight and unexplained to ordinary mortal observers.
Theres another unstated assumption, it seems.
“Since we have a corrupted political system (and I think that this much is beyond question), then “we have to game it and use, ourselves, corrupt means” because, clearly, we’re not going to attack the corruption frontally. We’re going to accept it as a necessary given. It’s another of those things which are at ‘the limit of what’s possible’. Again, trust us on this.”
… and still manifestly deathly afraid of being hit and called terrible names by an extremist-right Republican party which, in running off the rails (and taking the country with it) should be so utterly discredited that it could not inspire much more than a disgusted laugh.”…
Goddamn this fucking “spell-check” program!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The real Negative Nellies are the moderates. The ones that claim change is too hard right now and that we must leave intact a corrupt and criminal system and instead try to do good from within this system, and incrementally at that (that’s the story they’re selling at least).
Throughout history the voices of conservatism and moderation have argued that change is too radical, and while these moderates claim they have the same end goals as the more radical agents of change, tactical and political reasons compel compromise–aidign and abetting the criminal and corrupt. Dr. King described it this way (via Atheist Ethicist):
Liberals are being asked to be overly concerned with the feelings of moderates. Why do we have to be hyper-sensitive to Obama’s and the moderates’ feeling as they “cave-in” to corporate interest yet again?
Consider how hard this is on Obama–we are implored–so cut him some slack when screwing you over.
It’s like a father telling his child that the spanking will hurt the father more than the child. Now don’t cry little boy, because any crying is a blow to my ego and how dare you question my motivation and sincerity when I spank you.