Egyptian police attack Gaza Freedom March activists Updated

Two days ago, 1,360 Gaza Freedom March activists from 42 countries including the United States intending to enter Gaza for a commemoration of the Gaza massacre of a year ago, were confronted by Egyptian security forces on the banks of the Nile. These international activists have been continually denied access to the Rafah border crossing, and some groups have been confined to their lodgings, bus stations, and embassies under threat of deportation.

Amy Goodman of Democracy Now reported just 24 hours ago on the dilemma activists faced by Egyptian repression of the freedom march. Egypt is clearly carrying water for the Israelis, but obviously, so is the Obama administration, which is totally quiet about this event.

The Gaza Freedom March is scheduled to start in less than 8 hours when this next video from Democracy Now was taken. In a plea, members of the March asked viewers to “call (their) local TV stations and encourage them to carry news coverage of this peaceful action for human rights. The delegates will not be turned away by fabricated ‘tensions’ at the border. The Israeli, Egyptian, US and European governments must act to end the siege of Gaza, but they will continue to ignore the situation as long as the people are distracted.”

No doubt that the American press and media are missing in action on this international story.

More recently, footage was taken of the Egyptian security forces attacking Gaza activists on Cairo streets. Although hundreds of Americans are among the 1,360 activists, the Obama administration is silent. This video is dated today, December 31.

Just getting back into swing here. The Viva Palestina convoy is en route to Gaza after having been turned away from entry into Egypt on a security fabrication if the convoy entered Egypt through a Red Sea port. After Turkey officials attempted to intercede, the convoy returned to Syria in order to enter Egypt through El-Arish, which is located on the Meditteranean. The convoy is now en route and will apparently miss, along with the Gaza Freedom March activists, the December 31 commemoration of Israel’s brutal massacre of a year ago.

Updates from the Cairo protests

Photobucket
Protest and police in Cairo’s Tahrir Square. (Photo: diptychal)

Mondoweiss reader Michael Brown sent this:

I finally found my Dad in the crowd. We were split up when he was pulled out first by the head. I got a vicious kick to the ribs around that time, but wasn’t pulled out for another two minutes. A woman, in tears, was thrown on top of me. I just read that Desiree Fairouz was thrown over a fence or barricade. Many were roughed up. Felt like open hand to my head, but it was the kicks that I think probably hurt people the most. Medics said I checked out ok. There was an Italian woman there who fainted and needed medical attention for a considerable period of time.

We stayed until about noon when the legal team thought it wise to get my father out. He’s 80 and it was a pretty strenuous morning, particularly as he’d been in the street and not on the sidewalk.

Here’s a video of Egyptian police moving protesters out of the street from Kayvan Farchadi with Sam Husseini:

And this report from Dave Bleakney, a Canadian delegate to the Gaza Freedom March:
SHAME ON THEM – FROM THE STREETS OF CAIRO

Too long to quote. LINK HERE: http://mondoweiss.net/2009/12/updates-from-the-cairo-protests.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+feedburner%2FWDBc+%28Mondoweiss%29

Decade-Ending Question

So, what’s the best thing that happened in this decade other than the one Giants’ Super Bowl victory and the two Yankees’ World Series championships? I know those three things top your list but there must be something that’s close behind, right?

Category: So What?

Rasmussen, whose non-election polls are about as reliable as reading entrails, tells us that 58% of the people want the underpants-plane bomber waterboarded. That’s interesting, but it doesn’t make it right. How about we have a poll about tying him to a tree, covering him with honey, and letting a colony of ants devour him? Anyone interested in the outcome of that poll?

Happy New Year!

Base Leader, Mother of Three, Killed in Suicide Attack [Update]

.

Sources: CIA Base Chief Killed in Attack

AP: Head of Afghan Base, a Mother of 3, Was Among 7 CIA Employees Killed; Taliban Claims Responsibility

The Central Intelligence Agency just released this statement:

CIA Director Leon E. Panetta informed the Agency workforce today that seven of their colleagues were killed and six others were injured at a Forward Operating Base in Khost Province, Afghanistan. The casualties were the result of a terrorist attack.

    “Those who fell yesterday were far from home and close to the enemy, doing the hard work that must be done to protect our country from terrorism,” Director Panetta said in a message to employees. “We owe them our deepest gratitude, and we pledge to them and their families that we will never cease fighting for the cause to which they dedicated their lives–a safer America.”

    “Families have been our Agency’s first priority,” Director Panetta added. “Before sharing this information with anyone else, we wanted to be in contact with each of them. This is the most difficult news to bear under any circumstances, but that it comes during the holidays makes it even harder. In coming days and weeks, we will comfort them and honor their loved ones as a family. They are in our thoughts and prayers — now and always.”
    Due to the sensitivity of their mission and other ongoing operations, neither the names of those killed nor the details of their work are being released at this time.

    “Yesterday’s tragedy reminds us that the men and women of the CIA put their lives at risk every day to protect this nation. Throughout our history, the reality is that those who make a real difference often face real danger.”

Director Panetta credited US military doctors and nurses with saving the lives of those wounded in the attack. In honor and memory of the dead, he requested that the flags at CIA Headquarters be flown at half-staff.

The latest reports from Afghanistan had been that 8 Americans died in yesterday’s suicide bombing. We don’t know yet why the number has changed or whether another American might have been killed. It’s also possible there was some initial confusion.

The Associated Press says it has learned that “the chief of the CIA’s base in the Khost province of Afghanistan was among those killed.”


Seven stars will be added to memorial wall at CIA HQ

  • My previous diary – FOB Chapman Hit by Suicide Bomber – 8 CIA Killed
    From the beginning of Operation Enduring Freedom, the US endangered civilian aid workers by combining military and operational jobs. This may be one instance where it went wrong. FOB Chapman was a PRT base in the civilian effort to meet the Afghan population. At the risk of being wrong, how many persons for the US AID agency working in Afghanistan meet the desription: “Mother of three …”

    “We are doing what USAID does best, which is connecting with the people, and bringing to them what they’ve asked for, which are basic needs.”
    Sarah-Ann Lynch, former Program Office Director, USAID/Afghanistan (pdf)

    Mother of Three Reflects on Work in Afghanistan

    For Sarah-Ann Lynch, a seasoned Foreign Service Officer and mother of three–ages 15, 12, and 8–the most difficult thing about serving in Afghanistan was making the decision to go. The year-long position would entail an extended separation from her family.

    As head of the program office, Lynch was in charge of assembling and managing the team that handled strategy and budget functions for the office, as well as donor coordination, information management, and cross-cutting issues such as gender.

    “We had such a committed and solid team, both on the American and Afghan sides–and it’s rewarding for me to know that this team that I helped put together is still together, doing great and very important work to improve the lives of Afghans.”

    The pace and pressure of the work was relentless but invigorating. Within two weeks of arriving, Lynch was asked to give a presentation on all USAID programs in the country to senior Afghan government officials.

    “When you went to sleep at night, you never knew what challenges you would face the next day. It was definitely an exciting job,” she said.

    Lynch was able to get out of Kabul fairly frequently for meetings and project visits. One of her most vivid memories is of a dedication ceremony she attended for a women’s garden center in Baghlan province in northern Afghanistan. The project would allow local women to receive training and also have private space to themselves– a rare opportunity for many Afghan women. “I got to sit down with a small group of women at the center.

    Like women everywhere, they just want more opportunities for their children and for themselves,” said Lynch, who has some insights into the struggles and rewards of motherhood.


    Sarah-Ann Lynch’s work in Afghanistan has been her most memorable assignment at USAID

    Update [2009-12-31 17:25 PST by Oui]:
    Afghan suicide bomber kills seven CIA agents after attacking base

    (Times Online) – Chapman base is also home to Khost’s Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) — a military-led development group. PRTs have been criticised widely for endangering civilian aid workers by blurring the line between development staff and the military.

    “Having CIA operatives in a PRT raises serious concerns for us,” said a senior Western official in Kabul. “We are hardly going to be encouraged to set up shop in dangerous areas if the insurgents get the message that PRTs come promising development but bring CIA agents.” The CIA operates outside the Nato military command structure in Afghanistan, reporting directly to the Pentagon.

    U.N. report criticised the “opaque” use of ultra-secretive CIA units

  • Intelligence alliance in Central Asia

    "But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."

  • Ten New Years Resolutions for the Obama Administration

    In 2010:

    1. I will inspire. I am one of the most charismatic orators of our generation, but as president, I’ve moved away from that critical element of my leadership.

    While my speech to the Muslim world in Cairo and onreproductive rights at Notre Dame were inspirational—if I do say so myself—I haven’t brought that eloquence to my key domestic agenda items, or to my broader vision and goals as president. In 2010, I’ll recapture my eloquent voice, communicating the core values and human outcomes of my policies and presidency, then (and only then) explaining how the wonky details will help to achieve them. The values that I led with in my campaign were Community—the idea that we’re all in it together and share responsibility for each other—and Opportunity—the idea that everyone deserves a fair chance to achieve his or her full potential. Those values will return to prominence in my second year as president, and be joined by the values of Peace and Security in our foreign affairs and national defense. I may even dust off Hope and Change.
    2.    I will be the progressive leader that Americans elected. It’s long been acknowledged by political scientists and pundits that Americans support progressive ideas and policies, but are attracted by conservative political rhetoric. Ronald Reagan knew how to exploit that reality, and the Bushes (and occasionally Bill Clinton) used it effectively. One of my gifts during the campaign was the ability to reunite popular, progressive ideas with a populist language in which everyday Americans could see their own hopes and dreams. In the coming year, I’ll rekindle that skill to promote the progressive policy ideas that Americans embrace, in a language they can connect to and believe in.

    3.    I will prioritize a strategic mix of populist victories, as well as major advances that require 60 votes in the Senate. I’ve learned a lot through the bruising debates over economic stimulus, banking and auto industry rescue, financial regulation, and health care. And, like all first-term presidents, I may well lose some votes in Congress at the mid-term elections. So once health care reform is behind me, I’m going to work to achieve high profile victories that virtually all Americans can understand—such as incentivizing job creation, job training and skill-building for the global economy; ensuring that stimulus-funded community health clinics and other infrastructure effectively serve a growing number of Americans; and knocking down practical barriers to voting and political participation. At the same time, I’ll set my sights on a few big changes that are likely to require all the votes I can muster—immigration reform and an end to discrimination against gay and lesbian Americans in employment and the military will be among those priorities. In doing so, I won’t start with compromise but, rather, with the legislation I actually want. And I’ll be sure to highlight the human stories behind policies that work and uphold our values.

    4.    I will be clear about my legislative priorities and draft and introduce the legislation that is most important to me. Economic stimulus and health care reform legislation suffered from my failure to state my core policy principles and fight for them in the legislative process. Going forward, I’ll make clear to lawmakers and the American people what my goals are in the policy arena, and I’ll push hard for those priorities. And for things that are core to my agenda, my administration will draft legislation that clearly establishes those priorities on my terms. I realize I won’t always get what I want, but Congress and the American people will be clear on what their president believes in and why. And I’ll achieve more this way than by the hands-off approach I’ve used so far.

     5. I will elevate the eloquent voices in my administration. An unexpected impediment to my agenda has been a lack of effective communicators in positions of visibility in my administration. That’s meant that I have to be spokesman-in-chief for nearly every initiative, and it’s hampered my ability to move forward on multiple fronts. In 2010 I’m going to address that by giving smart and articulate people in my administration—like Jared Bernstein in the Vice President’s Office and Cecilia Muñoz in the White House Office of Intergovernmental Affairs—a more prominent role in advancing important policies inside and outside the Beltway. At the same time, I’ll make sure that everyone in my administration who goes before a microphone has had the training they need to articulate my agenda in a way that moves hearts and minds as well as policy.

     6. I will be post-partisan in my representation of the American people, but realistic about the current partisan politics of Washington. I was right when I said that there is no blue America or red America, only the United States of America. I will continue to listen to and serve everyday Americans of all political and ideological stripes, and I’ll never demonize or play one group of Americans off against another. At the same time, I owe it to all Americans not to let the obstructionist tactics of Washington frustrate our nation’s progress—that’s part of the change that I promised. So while I’ll continue to offer the hand of cooperation to all in Washington, I’ll insist on reciprocation as the price of compromise. And I’ll call out obstructionism–from either party–for what it is. While playing hardball inside the Beltway when I have to, I will more visibly and rigorously cultivate Republican and independent elected officials at the state and local level, many of whom have already shown a willingness to work together on economic recovery, environmental protection, and other important issues.

     7. I will respect and motivate my core supporters while connecting their values and goals to those of the broader electorate. As president, I’m not able to mobilize the thousands of volunteers and organizers that I did as a candidate, yet I need that mass movement in order to accomplish the transformative change I’ve promised. Fortunately, there are a range of social justice organizations, faith communities, labor groups, and good government organizations who can turn out the human forces to make change happen. But they need to be motivated by White House policies, as well as oratory, that advance their values and goals. Instead of just handing them marching orders or pushing them to the margins, I’ll connect their priorities to the big goals of job creation, economic security, and opportunity that all Americans seek.

     8. I will return to the forward-looking articulation of race in the 21st century that helped to save my candidacy and educate the nation. In my Philadelphia speech during the campaign, I showed that the American people can participate in a nuanced, grown-up conversation about race, and that I can be a leader in that conversation. It was a narrative that praised the progress we’ve made as a nation while acknowledging the distance still to go. It spoke to the reality that barriers to opportunity for any group of Americans are barriers to our success and prosperity as an entire nation. And it reminded us all of the importance of continually building a more perfect union. “Race,” I said, “is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now.” Since the election, though, I’ve been mostly silent on racial equality, then I squandered a teachable moment through ham-handed comments when Henry Louis Gates was arrested, then I rebuffed the Congressional Black Caucus’s concerns about black unemployment by implying that paying attention to black joblessness is tantamount to ignoring the employment challenges facing all Americans. I know better than that. And in 2010, I’ll trust the American people to follow (and sometimes lead) me in a mature conversation about race. At the same time, I’ll attend to the unequal barriers facing some groups of Americans while expanding opportunity for all. Those dual goals are mutually reinforcing and, as I’ve said before, the president has to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time.

     9. I will nominate constitutional visionaries to the federal judiciary and push for their nomination. After a decade in which321 mostly ultra-conservative judges nominated by George W. Bush were confirmed and joined the federal bench, the Senate has been exceptionally slow, and often obstructionist, in considering and confirming my judicial nominees—including conservative nominees backed by Republican senators. In 2010, I’ll continue to insist on legal excellence and real-world experience, and I will add to that a search for judicial visionaries who will interpret the Constitution with the forward-looking values of fairness and equal justice for all that the Framers intended.

     10.    I’ll get more rest and spend more time with Sasha, Malia, and Michelle.

     Read more at The Opportunity Agenda website.

    Quote of the Day

    From Dan Pfeiffer:

    [F]or seven years after 9/11, while our national security was overwhelmingly focused on Iraq — a country that had no al Qaeda presence before our invasion — Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda’s leadership was able to set up camp in the border region of Pakistan and Afghanistan, where they continued to plot attacks against the United States. Meanwhile, al Qaeda also regenerated in places like Yemen and Somalia, establishing new safe-havens that have grown over a period of years. It was President Obama who finally implemented a strategy of winding down the war in Iraq, and actually focusing our resources on the war against al Qaeda — more than doubling our troops in Afghanistan, and building partnerships to target al Qaeda’s safe-havens in Yemen and Somalia. And in less than one year, we have already seen many al Qaeda leaders taken out, our alliances strengthened, and the pressure on al Qaeda increased worldwide.

    To put it simply: this President is not interested in bellicose rhetoric, he is focused on action. Seven years of bellicose rhetoric failed to reduce the threat from al Qaeda and succeeded in dividing this country. And it seems strangely off-key now, at a time when our country is under attack, for the architect of those policies to be attacking the President.

    In other words, Dick Cheney can STFU.

    FOB Chapman Hit by Suicide Bomber – 8 CIA Killed

    .

    Suicide bomber may have killed CIA agents at Afghan base

    A suicide bomber killed eight people today at a U.S. military base in Afghanistan’s Khost province. A Pentagon spokesman says the base, Forward Operating Base (FOB) Chapman, no longer houses U.S. military personnel — which has led to a lot of speculation that the base is used by intelligence agencies.

    I would inject a few notes of caution here. First, the claim that the base is deserted comes from a single spokesman — and an unnamed spokesman, to boot. But a Defense Department source tells us that FOB Chapman was used by the Khost provincial reconstruction team (PRT) as recently as this summer. It’s unlikely that the Pentagon simply abandoned the base on such short notice.

    Taliban spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid said in a statement that an Afghan National Army officer wearing a suicide vest entered the base and blew himself up inside the gym. A U.S. official who was briefed on the blast also said it took place in the gym.

    The U.S. official said eight American civilians and one Afghan were killed; it was not clear if the Afghan victim was military or civilian. Six Americans were wounded, the official said.

    The CIA has not yet commented on or confirmed the deaths.

    There was no independent confirmation that the bomber was a member of the Afghan military. Gen. Mohammad Zahir Azimi, spokesman for the Afghan Ministry of Defense, said no Afghan National Army soldiers are at the base, named FOB Chapman.


    Khost is the capital of Khost province, which borders Pakistan and is a Taliban stronghold.

    The Washington Post is now calling Chapman a “CIA base,” on the basis of an unknown number of interviews with unnamed U.S. officials.

      The attack represented an audacious blow to intelligence operatives at the vanguard of U.S. counterterrorism operations in both Afghanistan and Pakistan, killing officials whose job involves plotting strikes against the Taliban, al-Qaeda and other extremist groups that are active on the frontier between the two nations. The facility that was targeted — Forward Operating Base Chapman — is in the eastern Afghan province of Khost, which borders North Waziristan, the Pakistani tribal area that is believed to be al-Qaeda’s home base.

  • See my new diary – Base Leader, Mother of Three, Killed in Suicide Attack
    The CIA has declined to comment publicly on the attack until relatives of the dead are notified. A former senior agency official said it was the worst single-day casualty toll for the agency since eight CIA officers were killed in the attack on the U.S. Embassy in Beirut in April 1983.

    “I know that the American people will appreciate their sacrifice. I pray that the government they serve does the same,” said the official,

    Intelligence experts who have visited U.S. bases in the region say the CIA officers at Chapman would have focused mainly on recruiting local operatives and identifying targets.

    FOB Chapman: PRT base – Image Galleries – Stories

    Afghan attacks kill 8 CIA staff and 5 Canadians’

    (The Independent) – A suicide bomber penetrated a foreign army base in Afghanistan to kill eight US CIA employees yesterday, one of the spy agency’s largest death tolls, and a separate attack killed four Canadian troops and a journalist.

    A “well-dressed” Afghan army official detonated a suicide vest at a meeting of CIA officials in southeastern Khost province, Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid told Reuters.

    “This deadly attack was carried out by a valorous Afghan army member when the officials were busy gaining information about the mujahideen, in the (fitness) club,” he wrote in an email.

    Afghan Suicide Bomber Killed C.I.A. Operatives

    (NY Times) – The attack at the C.I.A. base, Forward Operating Base Chapman, in Khost Province appeared to be the single deadliest episode for the spy agency in the eight years since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. It also dealt a significant blow to the often insular, tight-knit organization, which has lost only 90 officers in the line of duty since its founding in 1947.
    The attack occurred as the agency has steadily increased its presence in Afghanistan and Pakistan over the past year, sometimes sending operatives to remote bases instead of to heavily fortified embassies in Kabul and Islamabad, Pakistan.

    In recent years, the C.I.A. has been at the forefront of American counterterrorism operations in South Asia, launching a steady barrage of drone attacks against Qaeda and Taliban operatives in the mountains along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.

    There was a large al-Qaeda camp south of Khost until August 1998, when its inhabitants were forced to move into Pakistan after the United States, using cruise missiles, bombed the camp in response to the attacks on American embassies in East Africa, believed to have been planned by Al Qaeda.

    C.I.A. to Expand Use of Drones in Pakistan

    "But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."

  • A few things this "Progressive" site now supports

    The owner of this site is now an avowed Corporatist.

    He thinks this is okay because “his” President, Barack Obama, is an avowed corporatist, and, well, he worships this man so much that whatever he does is just GREAT.

    The owner of this site would have supported everything Bush did, had Bush only had a (D) after his name.  

    Anyway, as a proud corporatist, here are a few things that the owner of this site now supports.
    Unregulated capitalism at work:

    And unregulated capitalism means corrupt capitalism:

    Child labor is a favorite of the Ruling Class, especially in China and elsewhere, you know, those places where the CEO’s have decided to “outsource” all of America’s jobs:

    And it’s a real shame when some of these kids end up dead because they lived just a LITTLE too close to an unregulated factory:

    But hey, at least that kid didn’t have to grow up with hideous deformities from the companies capitalizing on the firepower of depleted uranium:

    And God knows an unregulated food supply is a great idea:

    The “Magic Hand” of capitalism will keep everything PERFECT for us!

    Like here, where the Magic Hand did a nice job on this beach in Alaska:

    Don’t worry, that didn’t happen in the front yard of anybody -rich- “important”, so it’s quite okay!

    Just like this one:

    <>

    And I know Obama said we could “take it to the bank” that he’d remove troops from Iraq the second he was inauguarated, but I guess we’re staying to take care of all the Depleted Uranium babies in Fallujah, where we committed the worst war crimes:

     Thank God Obama is President!    

    We have a nice shiny pretty face on this shit now!

    A pretty face we can all get behind!

    We can FEEL GOOD about America again!

    Even though Obama doesn’t really plan on changing ANYTHING.

    See, that’s the joke.   That’s why he’s always smiling.

    Cenk

    In a set of recent pieces, Cenk Uygur has made a defense of relentless criticism of the president and an argument that Howard Dean and Jane Hamsher cannot be wrong no matter what they say so long as they are attacking the president from the left. Part of this argument I understand. Cenk is arguing that loud, visible criticism from the left helps blunt accusations that Obama is himself on the left, and that this makes him appear moderate which, in turn, makes his job easier. This isn’t an argument on the merits. Cenk isn’t saying that Obama is left, center, or right, and he isn’t arguing that criticism of him is fair or accurate or otherwise. He’s making a simple observation about how it benefits Obama politically to be attacked from the left. In this view, there is no downside to blasting away at the president from the left because you are either right and he might hear you, or you are wrong but he’ll benefit from the optics anyway. There are a couple of flaws with this strategy, even if it is true so far as it goes.

    The first flaw is that there actually is a downside to having progressive opinion leaders blast away at the president and say things like this about him:

    …you won’t make things better because you don’t work for us. You work for ExxonMobil, Blue Cross and Goldman Sachs, who are all stealing from us and making our lives worse. You can’t work for the people who are stealing from the public and serve the needs of the public at the same time. A House divided against itself must fall, you cannot serve the voters and Mammon, etc., as they say. It doesn’t matter anymore if some of you want to, or would if you could, because you didn’t and evidently can’t.

    Most blogreaders and radio listeners and Olbermann/Maddow watchers don’t like to admit that they take their cues from opinion leaders. But many of them do. Because of this, progressive leaders can’t act like Charles Barkley and say they don’t want to be role models. Opinion leaders shape opinions, and they can breed cynicism and apathy if they so choose. If they go out and tell their audiences day after day that the president of the United States is stealing from them to do the bidding of Goldman Sachs and Exxon/Mobil, then a hearty percentage of their readers are going to, you know…start to believe it. And that’s where you start eating into your base and causing problems in a midterm election that will be decided on differential turnout. So, you ought not to go around saying these things unless you really truly think they’re true. And if anyone thinks that blockquote above is fair and accurate, then I just don’t know what to say to them. It’s a bunch of malarkey, is what it is, even if it does advance Cenk’s strategy of making the president look reasonable.

    That is why I have a problem with this next bit from Cenk:

    …I believe in attacking hard from the left. Some have started to call this the Uygur Doctrine, which, of course, I love. The reality is I’m a political moderate who until about a month ago believed we should stay longer in Afghanistan and that single payer was not the way to go. But it’s not my positions that matter as much as my attitude. We have to, have to, have to attack Obama form the left. If we don’t, he is seen as the far left and the whole spectrum shifts even further right than it already is.

    I don’t know if he realizes it but he’s going to damage his own credibility with his audience if he continues to advocate that people make arguments that he doesn’t even agree with because they help move the Overton Window to the left. It’s important that Cenk not ask his audience to take him at face value when he isn’t being honest about his critique of the president and is asking others not to be honest either.

    Another problem with Cenk’s argument can be seen in his advice for those of us that don’t agree with this strategy of incessant bombthrowing.

    The point is that the mainstream media loves people who they can call “moderates.” If Joe Lieberman is somewhere between Obama and Cheney, no matter how far to the right he is, he gets to be called a moderate. Why? Because there’s someone to the right of him.

    Now, you have someone to the left of you. Congratulations, you made it! You’re now part of the cool crowd in DC, the only people that the establishment media care about or give any credence to – moderates.

    But Cenk is wrong about this. The only progressives who get on teevee and radio are bombthrowers who attack the president (and blacks that got confused and became Republican shills). You never see supportive progressive bloggers on television or radio. Never. That’s because controversy drives ratings. You see moderate elected Democrats on television because they disagree with the party and the president. The same phenomenon makes Jane Hamsher a starlet of cable news while anyone who defends the president is about as exciting as a WHAM! reunion.

    Now, Cenk argues that we can’t be worried that relentlessly criticizing the president (regardless of merit) will help Republicans because we aren’t going to get good policies out of this president and this Congress if we don’t push with everything we’ve got.

    I know what some of you are thinking – that’s not the worst case scenario. The worst case is somehow their attacks on Obama help Republicans win. But if you buy into that, then you have to pack your bags and go home. That means you are never willing to forcefully challenge Obama out of the fear that it might somehow hurt him. While I’m sure he appreciates that, I can guarantee you that he will thank you by completely ignoring you (and your policy priorities). Asking politely is obviously not getting the job done.

    But we have already established that Cenk is not merely advocating “forcefully challenging” Obama, but attacking him relentlessly as a matter not of merit but of strategy. And that leads to problems of both personal credibility and base suppression. This is not the way to go.

    This brings me back to my promise to address Armando’s critique as part of my response to Cenk. Armando says:

    … it is somewhat surprising to see Booman’s “Obama’s Dem Party, love it or leave it” admonition. It’s not as unreasonable a view as it might appear at first blush. It is reasonable to think that criticism should be measured and the push against Dems muted. But in my view, that is the wrong approach for the Left blogs. I believe, as I have for some time, that the Left blogs can and should be a voice for the Left Flank of the Democratic Party. I believe that Left blogs should fight for policies they believe in, not the pols or the political parties.

    Of course, Armando badly mischaracterized what I said because I didn’t ask or tell anyone to leave the party. But his view that “Left Blogs” should advocate policies they believe in and not pols or political parties is kind of beside the point when “Left Blogs” are bashing the president more as part of an Overton Window strategy than as a fair critique. What matters here is effectiveness and credibility. If you can get a public option by helping to convince Olympia Snowe, then pursue that. If Lieberman, pursue that. If Ben Nelson, pursue that. If Evan Bayh, pursue that. But if you instead call them all whores, attack their spouses, forbid Obama from making concessions to them, and accuse Obama of secretly agreeing with them, then I don’t think you’re going to get the outcome you want no matter how good it makes you feel.

    So, what I think we really need to do is stop playing games and thinking we can outsmart the electorate. Be honest with your audiences. Be fair to the president and Congress (they are deserving enough of legitimate criticism). And remember why we got into this business. The Republicans are fucking nuts and must be kept out of power for as long as possible.