As was inevitable, my little rant led to some confusion. The key issue is that a huge segment of the progressive blogosphere took offense and being told to put on some work clothes and stop expecting the administration to fulfill their every wish on their timetable. I don’t want people to stop advocating for their issues or to stifle their criticism of the administration when they disagree with them. I just don’t get where most of these people got the idea that they can blast the president, assign to him the worst motives, complain about nearly everything he does, and how he does it, and then expect every staffer in the building to not only agree with their criticism but show respect and deference to them, as well.
About The Author
BooMan
Martin Longman a contributing editor at the Washington Monthly. He is also the founder of Booman Tribune and Progress Pond. He has a degree in philosophy from Western Michigan University.
Yesterday’s outrage left me cold. It amazes me that the same people who continuously demand that the Democrats “grow a pair” are so easily whipped up into a frenzy of rage when their tender feelings are hurt by someone saying something mean.
Some (not all) of the progressive attacks on Obama are as nasty, mindless, and unrooted in reality as the bile spewed by Michelle Malkin, etc.
“Americablog’s John Aravosis” constitutes “a huge segment of the progressive blogosphere [taking] offense and being told to put on some work clothes and stop expecting the administration to fulfill their every wish on their timetable.” ?
Wow. Just wow.
I’d never heard of this guy or his blog before today. Now that I have heard of him and his blog I care no more about him or his views than I did before.
Maybe you need help with recognizing what matters and what doesn’t–that is, with keeping things in some proportioned perspective.
I daresay not even one person in one hundred has ever even heard of this Aravosis guy. Sheesh!!!
Why on earth would you think I am singling out one blogger. Is English your first language?
yeah, English is my first language.
You don’t explain what, for you, constitutes “a huge segment of the progressive blogosphere”. So, I’m working from what I can see posted.
“a huge segment of the progressive blogosphere”
Okay. Whatever you say. In essence, I agree with your frustration over others’ frustration. It’s just that I don’t see it as amounting to anything like the importance one might gather it has for you given these now-two-diary entries on the matter.
I accept my share of responsibility in missing your main point in the first place. Now that I do understand it, it strikes me as very, very small beer compared to things that really matter as I estimate them.
Who are you singling out? I entirely missed the outrage in my narrow little set of stops along the tubeway. Didn’t see it frontpages at Kos or TPM or even Huffington, or Raw Story or Think Progress or Tom Dispatch, near as I remember. Didn’t even see it frontpaged at Open Left, but I rarely do much more there than glance at the headlines, so may have missed it, that being its most likely venue.
While I agree that Blogland is often comically puffed up with its importance, it does seem strange to rant at those who didn’t support Obama in the primaries still expect him to do the right thing. You have opted to hold him to the letter of his campaign promises but to pretend no one has a right to expect Change We Can Believe In. We have every right to expect him to work for the America he described as his vision.
I think you blurred the line between criticism of what Obama is and isn’t doing, even when it’s absurdly impatient, and the kind of namecalling and attacks on his character and motives that drove me away from, for example, Open Left. There should be no hesitation to advance even crackpot theories about his policies and his strategies — to my mind that’s what we’re supposed to be doing. But to make scurrilous claims about his honesty and intentions based on half a year in office, to compare him to Bush, is both absurd and itself suspiciously motivated and deserves unlimited calling out.
I was one who didn’t support Obama during the first part of the primaries but ended up voting for him (and I think I have every right to bitch about what I think deserves bitching about). In retrospect it seems obvious that he was by far the best choice to take on the incredible mess he, and all of us, were left to deal with. I’ve been very disappointed and even despairing about some of his moves, but still think he’s the first real hope for change in the White House almost within memory. Real lefties only gut themselves when they try to poison that hope before the table is even set.
I agree most of what you said, but not the statement: “There should be no hesitation to advance even crackpot theories about his policies and his strategies.” I see a lot of this coming from the deranged right-wingers and people like Orly Taitz. Perhaps “advance” is not the word you meant to use. If “theories about his policies and his stratagies” are indeed “crackpot,” who benefits by “advancing” them?
(And Booman never suggested that we NOT criticize Obama. As a matter of fact, as I remember it, Obama himself asked to hear the criticism, as well as asking us to make him make good on his promises.)
There were only two blogs that were NOT in diva mode yesterday: Booman’s and John Cole’s.
While the incident will blow over and soon be forgotten, there are some bloggers who have pretty much lost all respect.
This is the only place where I saw it. Either the blogosphere is bigger than Boo thinks or I’ve already stopped looking at the other places.
I was banned at TalkLeft last year when I pointed out Hillary’s duplicity on the Michigan primary thing, so I have no love of Big Tent Democrat. I vaguely recall being criticized by one of the posters here for criticizing or complaining or asking questions about him.
I thought the bloggers were being way to thin skinned about this. They want to play in with the big boys of media but they get all freaked out about an off the cuff remark by an unknown source? What they should be happy about is that bloggers are even recognized by the wh and obviously having a great effect on politics today. They made a non story a story.
So bloggers need to put on their big boy pants and move along.
Please identify the bloggers by name. I still don’t know who you are talking about.
I just read something over at Balloon Juice by Annie Laurie about a study that asserts that political activism makes people more happy. http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=28149
Like Thomas Jefferson in her post, I keep being drawn back to politics out of necessity, but it sure doesn’t make me happy to be associated with the narcissistic blowhards who are attracted to the same causes primarily by their own needs for self-satisfaction. And they are frequently most satisfied when they screeching about the shortcomings of someone on their own side of the political issue.
I stopped reading AmericaBlog months ago because of this, and quite a few other blogs have never made it into my bookmark folder because one visit was enough to tell me who they are. And like their counterparts on the right fringe, they dependably respond to a post like yours by spewing that their free speech rights are being trampled. What still amazes me after nearly 4 decades of watching this behavior recycle again and again is that the self-satisfied are so self-blind they can’t see how identical they are to the Malkins, et. al., at the other extreme.
Well, I’ll one-up you — I’ve stopped reading Firedoglake AND Corrente, for the same reason. I wouldn’t call these blogs quite as deluded as Malkin, but what annoyed me was how they (and their commenters) were trashing Obama with Republican memes (empty suit, egotist, all talk no walk, etc) while claiming that this criticism was “constructive” and maintaining that they really had the best interests of Obama and the Democratic party at heart.
I’m not sure whether this is deliberately deceptive, or just delusional.
I stopped reading Firedoglake, but I thought it was because they changed the site’s format.
It’s not about the Obama’s feelings.
Why do we have to walk on eggshells around the president? He’s got a nice little thing going where liberals aren’t allowed to criticize him directly without the fanboys throwing a conniption fit. If a liberal cuts through the bullshit rhetoric Obama is throwing around (like a healthy adult does–stands up for himself when someone, even a putative ally, works to hurt the adult) his supporters go bananas and demand instant fealty to the man. So everyone has to walk on eggshells and pretend that Obama is secretly on their side but is such a tactician he can’t come out and say it.
Good. Let’s break up into camps. Mindless fanboys vs. healthy adults that don’t idolize a politician.
Please. It’s terribly silly to get riled up defending the president’s ego. And revealing.
This is a perfect example of the selective reading needed to uphold your own need to whine. In both his original post and in this follow-up, BooMan has expressly stated that he’s not opposed to criticism of the Obama administration, or of Obama himself – if you read this blog at all you’d see that he does a fair amount of that criticizing himself.
What he (and we) are talking about is the stupidity of those who react with outrage to the paraphrase of an anonymous ‘Obama adviser’ by a reporter who has previously made almost identical comments in his own voice. We are also criticizing the “I want it all and I want it now” mentality that motivates the Arivosis’s and Hamshers of left-blog world.
Like any well-trained wingnut, you have taken the essential idea – Aravosis, et. al., are behaving irrationally because their feelings are hurt – and tried to fling it back at the accusers. I hope you get the proper number of gold stars on your little screed from Left-Wingnut Prep School.
Why is it necessary for me to be hyper-sensitive to what Booman thinks and has written? I have read him for a long time and appreciate his writing and his blog. I disagree with him vehemently on this issue though. I think for myself my man. You should try it.
Like a well-trained fanboy you are trained to care more about your better’s egos than thinking for yourself.
I have a difficult time understanding how what Booman has written on this teapot tempest is other than a defense of Obama. One way or another, implicitly or explicitly, if it isn’t in some large degree taken up for the defense of Obama (in the large sense of Obama’s political strategies and tactics, etc.) then I’m at a loss in understanding what made worth so much time and comment here.
No one said it was about Obama’s feelings, and no one suggested walking on eggshells around the president. What, pray tell, is the “nice little thing (he has) going where liberals aren’t allowed to criticize him directly without the fanboys throwing a conniption fit”? Where do you get this crap? Again, who are these “fanboys” you refer to? Are they related to the right-wing’s “Obamabots”?
And what is the “bullshit rhetoric Obama is throwing around”? Do you think that he’s lying? Do you think that he doesn’t intend to follow through? Who is demanding “instant fealty to the man”? I read a lot of stuff, probably more than I should, and I don’t know who these “fanboys” or slavish devotees are. Who are they? What are you reading or watching that I have missed? Who is “defending the president’s ego”? What makes you think that his “ego” needs defending?
“And revealing.” Frankly, your comments are revealing more about yourself than they could ever reveal about Booman or the President or those who want the President to succeed and lament wasting time on “small beer,” as one commenter put it.
Thanks for the thoughtful replies mum.
To answer your question, yes, I would use and have used “Obamabot” interchangeably with “Obama fanboy”. While dismissive words they certainly contain a level of truth and I think that’s why those words are very descriptive of reality to a broad section of Americans. You guys are smitten with the president and it has effected your reasoning.
And yes, I do think Obama is lying. For example, he does not support robust health care reform, despite his bleatings to the sheep that he does. He is deceiving you and me and liberals in general and his supporters (Obamabots) are running interference for him to cover his tracks and to help him personally. This whole legislative Kubuki is designed to provide cover for Obama and the Dems (and they both share responsibility) to give the insurance industry what it wants but at the same time pretending that they really wanted reform or that reform is on the way in the future. It’s a game that has been played over and over and I am done being a sucker.
So an Obamabot, or Obama fanboy, is someone that was so excited about Obama becoming president (and hey–I was too) that they have now hrown all reason out the window in the foolish belief that Obama means what he says and simply has a clever strategy to enact “transformational” progressive reform. They are spinning for Obama.
The whole health care reform kubuki is the primary evidence right now that Obama supporters have left the realm of political advocacy and have thrown their lot in with the cult of Obama. How could anyone in their right mind believe Obama wants a strong public option? Why the excuses? Why is it the only time he pushes and uses his political capital it is to twist the arms of liberals and never centrists, if he really is a secret liberal?
Look, the one valid argument, and maybe Booman has argued this, is that by building up the cult of Obama we can use the power of the cult to do good things. By being his ally we can coopt his power and “make him do it.” However, I think this is a suckers game as Obama and the Dems always take for their own personal aggrandizement but never deliver actual policy results. How many time do you have to keep butting your head into that reality before you realize they don’t care about the same things and they really are using you. It’s nothing to be proud of. It turns one into a defender of a man’s ego and not a activist for policy goals.
We have been over and over and over these issues and many of us have correctly decided Obama does not share our goals and he is using us and really has more interest in representing Wall Street and the military industrial complex and in winning the race for his team than he does in pursuing liberal policies that he sort of ran on (or his supporters argued he supported if you read his speeches).
Hey. Obama is a master politician. Lots of people I thought were reasonable have bought Obama’s crap–hook line and sinker. I respect his skill.
You and Booman can rail against those of us that have had enough and are done being played for suckers. It’s not about Obama the person for me and when I see him working against me and liberals in general a self-respecting person stands up for himself. It’s not in my interest to build up the cult of Obama and plead with him to someday, maybe, if we’re nice and we make him do it and he finally gets 83 vote majority in the Senate, to “make him do it”. Democrats are not self-respecting so they are used to taking the abuse and that’s why so many welcome Obama’s deceptive games. But many of us are done with the compromise.
Hence the fundamental split in the Democratic party. I’ll shed a tear but being an optimist I’m ready to move on to really fight for liberal values. And I’ll tell you fighting for the cult of Obama is not the way to do it.
So, I find it absurd to accuse me and the real liberals of “sounding like Republicans”. Never mind the fact that your hero figure is enacting Republican policies. He’s actually playing footsie with Republicans while giving liberals the finger and yet you say the problem is liberals use words to criticize Obama that are similar to Republicans. What is more important? Words that sound like Republican words or actual fucking Republican policies that you know, are conservative and harmful to the country? It’s like I live in a dysfunctional family where I have Obama supporters pleading with me to be nice to Obama so he doesn’t punch me in the face again.
That right there is a perfect example of Obama fanboy behavior. You rush to the defense of Obama’s honor because you don’t like the words used to convey the betrayal the left feels meanwhile you totally ignore the actual policies in which Obama has betrayed the left (or worked against the left).
Those of us that feel like we are living in an abusive and dsyfunctional family will fight back. It’s the healthy thing to do. And those still stuck in the dysfunctional system (which you do a good job of describing in your comment above) will blame the victims–the left and the millions of Americans that will suffer as Wall Street and the military industrial complex further entrenches itself in our government and the office of the presidency.
What’s funny is that over the last few years we have all been warned (mainly by Greenwald) of the dangers of anonymous sourcing, and how people use it to interject their own opinions. And how we are never supposed to take people (particularly pundits) who use the tactic seriously.
And here some clown uses anonymous sourcing to spew something that looks completely made up, and people take him seriously. He’s a pundit on TV, for god’s sake! If I have ever seen a quote that was made up, and the phrase rehearsed in front of a mirror, it was that quote.
We will now get all sorts of stories (by pundits and wannibies) about how Obama has lost the ‘left’. And more and more pundits (and wannibies) will make more stuff up to get attention.
The guy was LYING. For MONEY.
::SHEESH::
nalbar
I couldn’t agree with you more. Greenwald was the main one who bitched out that one reporter for writing a story about Sonia Sotomayor’s reputation as a judge referencing only anonymous sources.
And now he is using an anonymous source to throw eggs at the President. The craziness ensues.
Digby gave a number of instances where he clearly made up a quote, and Greenwald picked up on them.
I don’t know if Booman wanting to break out into Hillary vs. Obama camps is necessarily a result of one incident of an anonymous leak . . . I would guess it’s more the straw that broke the camel’s back.
But I agree these symbolic poutrage fests are silly–by all sides. Obama has some very thin skin as well and I get tired of his fanboys pleading for us to protect the man’s ego.
Despite the silliness, underlying this incident is a real substantive crack in the Democratic party.
I have long held the opinion that radical change is necessary and the Democrats (now led by Obama) have consistently used people like me and made promises that they have no intention of following through on. In short, I truly believe the Democratic party is corrupted beyond salvation. Far from being an agent of change there is compelling evidence that Obama is an agent of the status quo and like the “moderates” that so frustrated Martin Luther King, Jr. the moderates are simply assisting the enemy.
You don’t like this line of thought so you ascribe childish emotions to the people that hold this view. And, to be honest, I guess I ascribe childish emotions to you fanboys that can’t think for themselves.
So there we are. But I think this split is real and it isn’t about the optics or one silly incident it’s about a real, substantive difference of opinion about the future of this country.
To me, Booman’s rant is evidence that Obama is fucked–his political skills are not what they are hyped to be and I think Booman is frustrated because he now realizes Obama is not going to be the “transformational” president he hoped he would be. So he will blame those that were too critical and didn’t adopt the Obama/Clintonian triangulation policy.
You wrote this is a response to my post;
—-
You don’t like this line of thought so you ascribe childish emotions to the people that hold this view. And, to be honest, I guess I ascribe childish emotions to you fanboys that can’t think for themselves.
—-
It’s an interesting take on what I actually wrote.
nalbar
Yeah. I published to quickly.
I didn’t mean to personalize it to you. I should have taken out the reference to you.
You can think this is silly without being an Obama fanboy.
Apologies.
Where do you get that Obama “has very thin skin” when the topic is the kiddiepout outrage over a mild jab from an unknown source at some bloggers? What does this have to do with Obama’s skin?
From your post, can we take it that for you, this is all about Hillary, as I’ve come to suspect? You seem unable to bear the idea that anyone dares to have any respect for Obama. Time to come clean: it’s not about policy. What is it about?
You suspect I’m a Hillary fan? Please. I think she would have been slightly worse than Obama–although since Obama took office and appointed all the Clinton people to prominent positions I think there is hardly any difference between them.
Dave. I think for myself and I call it like I see it. I truly believe that personalities play as little a role in my analysis as possible. Last year I was frustrated with the whole Clinton vs. Obama thing because I didn’t think there was much difference and I thought it was a huge distraction from discussing the issues.
I wanted to support Obama. I was skeptical of people like Booman that promised a transformational progressive president but I wanted him to succeed. But I’m not going to delude myself like so many Obama supporters are.
I did a quick search of the archives to show you that I was bored last year with the whole Obama v. Clinton thing (and retreated to more illuminating pursuits while the lefty blogosphere duked it out–even though I was basically on Booman’s ‘side’), but I couldn’t find the posts.
Instead, I found other interesting posts and comments. Good times.
Here’s one form last summer on pretty much this same issue; Booman had enough with the lefty blogosphere and thought they were being too sensitive (which is itself a sign of sensitivity):
http://www.boomantribune.com/comments/2008/7/1/02651/36718/72#72
Basically the disagreement is an old one about strategy. Nothing new here. But, it’s a huge warning signal for Obama. He is risking losing a great deal politically. He’s pissing off a good number of liberals. You are failing to appreciate the costs associated with Obama ignoring the left and sending signals of disrespect to the left. You can disagree with that all you want, that you think they should get the hippy stick treatment, that they are subtle signals and should be thicker-skinned, but you have to accept reality. The left will not be endlessly beaten with the hippy stick by another centrist triangulating Dem.
Reality is going to come soon to the Obama juggernaut. That’s what happens when one promises the moon to everyone and he can’t deliver.
If he screws up he will indeed reap the whirlwind. But he hasn’t yet. My problem with your Obama-hate is the consistent sense that you’re absolutely salivating for him and his “fanboys” to fail and suffer for it. Which makes perfect sense if you, like Beck and Bachman, think he’s Satan (which is what saying Obama=Bush signifies to me).
I think that says more about your mental state than mine. Why does it hurt you so much for people to believe there has not been a substantial difference between Obama and Bush’s policies? Do you doubt the sincerity of these beliefs? Do you really think there is no factual justification for this belief?
I call them like I see them. I don’t know how I can demonstrate to you that it’s not about Obama the person to me. I don’t buy into the cult of personality for any politician. Some are just more natural and better politicians. Bill Clinton and Barack Obama are two of the best the Dems have had in a long time.
I would be equally outraged if Hillary was doing what Obama is doing. I have consistantly criticized both of them for their centrism and triangulation. I treat all politicians the same; I try to judge them on the merits and not the ethos they evoke.
Let me take a stab at what bothers Obama supporters so much. Obama oversold himself. And many in lefty blogostan were responsible for overselling him. There was a lot of hope. And it was a perfect strategy for the time . . . it won him the election.
So I think Obama supporters have a vested interest in events unfolding as they promised. Those that reluctantly voted for Obama don’t have the same emotional need (like Clinton supporters).
I just can’t understand how normally reasonable people think Obama has come even close to fulfilling the change he promised.
Remember the Natural? This is basically what liberals who are disappointed in Obama are saying:
Say it ain’t so Barack. Say it ain’t so.
And you’re going bananas against these people for not mindlessly supporting the hero figure.
What’s with the drama? Going bananas? Hurt so much? Where in my post(s), exactly, am I going bananas?
It’s not about hurt, any more than I’m “hurt” by what Beck says. It’s about disagreeing with off-the-wall statements, as I see them. FYI, Obama wasn’t among my top 4 choices at the beginning of the primaries. By the time the vote got to my state I voted for him with some residual reluctance.
To answer your question, yes, I really think there is no factual justification for claiming that Obama is the same as Bush. There are no facts to decide what Obama is, one way or another. Your “facts” are simply your assumptions about what he’s GOING to do.
Just after posting the above I looked at dkos, where it appears the GOP doesn’t agree about Obama being Bush’s twin — unless they’ve decided Bush = Hitler.
Where did you get the idea that President Obama has “some very thin skin as well”? I know people who have supported him and worked on his campaigns from the very beginning (they lived in his congressional district). From what they have told me and from what I saw when working on both campaigns (the primary and the general), I think that that is an assertion or accusation that fails the reality test. And what exactly do you mean by “fanboys”? Who exactly are the “fanboys pleading for us to protect the man’s ego”?
You sound no different from the right-wingers that I come across when they troll the internet. We could substitute “Obamabot” for “fanboy” and you’d feel right at home.
What exactly is your “compelling evidence” that President Obama is an “agent” of the status quo? Are you sure that he isn’t an agent of communism or a traitor setting up a sleeper cell in the White House? And how were you used?
I think I’m a lot older than you are and I’ve been a liberal/progressive activist all my life, starting with working on JFK’s campaign when I was in grammar school. My father thought it was really important to teach us about civics and government and voting and history. Since then I’ve worked on multiple campaigns and I’ve ALWAYS been used.
Change is necessary, but “radical” change can’t happen with the entrenched interests that have pervaded our government. We’re a lazy people, both intellectually and politically. Give us bread and circuses and a few reality shows and games online and you can distract us from the many many problems facing us and the world. Judging from the reaction of the right-wing and the birthers/teabaggers/9/12ers, what little change has come with and is coming about because of Obama is frightening enough for some people. And those on the left who thought that Obama was anything other than a moderate, or thought that he would make abrupt radical changes, rather than moving cautiously and attempting to get as much of a consensus as possible, were obviously in the throes of self-delusion.
Booman’s rant is not evidence of anything with regard to the President, whether we are speaking of his skills or his performance. And I think that Booman has also told us why he wrote what he wrote, your thoughts about his frustrations to the contrary.
And what exactly IS “the Obama/Clintonian triangulation policy”?
See my reply to you below re the Obama fanboy and Obamabot comments. They are the equivalent of calling someone who disagrees with you as “wearing pajamas” or people that need to “grow up” and live in the “real world”. Many of these epitaphs have a kernel of truth and I find Obamabot fairly descriptive of many in the Dem party–but I recognize that it is a loaded term.
I think all sides are letting their egos get the best of them and are resorting to name-calling. But this is because there are fundamental fissures in the Dem party.
The compelling evidence that Obama doesn’t want robust health care reform is that he started out with the compromise position. Then, after promising transparency, he made a secret deal with one of the main industries effected by health care reform in exchange for support (i.e. $) for his political party. Not only was that a violation of an important democratic principle, it was a violation of his campaign promise and comes awfully close to a criminal violation. Then, instead of using the power of his bully pulpit to his political machine (via Rahm) to get robust health care reform passed, he did the opposite, and empowered Baucus and Olympia Snowe. In fact, he gave a speech in which he pretty much laid out the Baucus approach and said “single payer” is off the table and promised that the status quo of private insurance will be maintained and used the rhetoric of “personal responsibility” to argue for a mandate to force low to middle income people to buy poison policies and further enslave them to their corporate masters. Now, the Senate is playing games to pass the political buck.
And Obama’s strategy is to do the bidding of industry to secure its money for his political comrades but to make bleating noised to the left to make it seem like he’s really on their side. This is Obama’s twist to the Clintonian triangulation policy. Obama is much more willing to make promises to the hippies than Clinton was but both ultimately have a strategy of hewing to the middle.
And that’s a reasonable strategy. It may work. Obama is popular now. I think he really has to worry about the negative effects of overselling himself and the inherent fraud of this policy–but it seems to be working reasonbly well for him personally right now as it worked wonderfully for Bil Clinton.
But if you’re really a liberal and want liberal policy it will be a disaster of epic proportions.
I’m not going to track down the outrage of bloggers I don’t know and try to guess their underlying motives. I really don’t care what the White House staff members think about bloggers and their attire.
What does interest me about this story is this “anonymous source” from the White House. I thought that team Obama had more message discipline than that during the campaign. In the few cases of leaks I can recall about I/P, The first instance from the State Department and the recent one from the White House (possibly from the same source who had been kicked upstairs?), Obama’s spokesperson had to issue an official statement that contradicted the leaker.
Of course we don’t know if this “source” even exists, and if so, where s/he fits into the White House hierarchy. Could be the guy that delivers the arugula for all we know. Since this is the most boring nonstory since whatever Orly said last, doesn’t matter who it was.
My opinion on John Aravosis at America Blog changed after reading this law blogger destroy his “Obama is supporting pedophillia” bull crap. Although called out, Aravosis still uses it even today.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/6/26/746982/-Lambda-Legal:-GaynessPedophilia-and-Incest!-
I lost respect for Hamsher after she blasted Caroline Kennedy and instead of having a locked up progressive, we ended up with a Blue Dog, NRA backer representing New York.
I admire some of Glenzilla’s passion but Chris Floyd and Al Girodano easily exposed flaws in his advocacy styles earlier this year with some serious literary smack downs.
Im as liberal as they come and I agree with the validity of much of the criticism from the left. However, how does wanting the leader of our team succeed, make me an Obama fan boy? I could understand some of this criticism if it was year 3 and Obama did not do any of the things that he ran on or promised but it appears that he is trying to accomplish them in only 9 months amongst unbelievable circumstances.
Im not pissed at Obama for not being a liberal because well, he never was one and I knew that from day one but there is no doubt that he rejects the world view of the bad GOP guys and shares most of the one that our team has so that is good enough for me. He is better than any Democratic leader that I have seen in my 32 years of life.
Glenn and Jane are now writing material that Gerth or Ceci Connaly could have written. The tactic of taking 100 dubious or outright false data points and claiming that they show a “pattern” that transcends the quality of the original claims is true hack.
That is too funny. Booman is mad because lefty bloggers say mean things about Dear Obama.
And you respond by calling Glenn Greenwald a “hack”.
I guess we are splitting into camps.
Fragile egos all around.
Poor babes.
War is Peace. Obama is change. And you’re still a sucker.
Your reading comprehension is not the best.
I’m not mad that people say mean things about Obama. I’m disgusted that people who spend all day saying mean things about Obama would have the gall to get offended when the some anonymous staffer pushes back a tiny little bit.
All sides can be accused of having a thin skin.
Rahm and the White House have been very prickly about any sort of criticism coming from the left.
This is odd behavior for a president who all along cleverly planned the negotiations so that the liberal push at the end would “make him do it”.
What is this obsession with Rahm? I don’t get it.
Read about him.
I have and know someone who has worked with him in the White House.
And from our discussions, it was inferred that people give him too much power. Which I agree with.
I’m disgusted that people who spend all day saying mean things about Obama would have the gall to get offended when the some anonymous staffer pushes back a tiny little bit.
THIS!
I really liked your “little rant”, but then I volunteered for BHO in 10/2007 and have supported him since. The people you speak of have been attacking relentlesly since 1/22/09. I just try to ignore them, and they are definitely very, very thin skinned. I certainly don’t trust any of them. Those individuals are often quoted to attack BHO on Tv. The pundits on the right love them.
I agree with most of what you said, except that the attacks were already starting after he was elected and started selecting his cabinet and support people. And you’re right that there are people who will use some of the left-wing whiners to attack Obama. There were actually comments on Americablog that claimed to be Republicans (and even a couple of PUMAs) offering solace and support for those who were “disillusioned” with Obama.
This is so weird. People are upset about people being upset. And it quickly becomes a Hillary v. Obama thing, or people accusing Obama of being a pedophile. Somehow I have missed all of this.
I still don’t know what the big deal is but I think I’m backing SFHawkGuy.
don’t you think that is part of the reason for the ‘outrage’.
It’s been going strong since xmas last year.
After the election everyone was burned out and spent.
then, after the holidays, the country wanted the high of the primaries and election. They began to bitch.
blame. accuse.
And they went after Obama. Both right and left and it never subsided. On got more intense.
I think it’s an outgrowth of the primary/election and people directed it in a destructive bent.
They right went after Obama in a piss off of losing DC and the left needed the angst and anger. They thought it cool to posture that they were not like republicans and supporting their prez. So they began to hate.
first off: thank you for these posts.
second: i love you!
i called bullshit on John Aravosis and Jane Hamsher and Pam Spaulding on Sunday. am particularly disheartened by Pam’s playing along with the other 2 fools. i’ve long written the other 2 off but i thought Pam was classier. she lost me on this one.
Obama’s animosity towards the netroots goes back to 2005 and coincidentally the particular spat am thinking of involves the aforementioned 2 fools. he even wrote about it, for crying out loud.
but what astounds me is their shortness of memory : that they think they can continue berating him as they’ve done all these years and somehow get him to embrace them is just mindboggling.
so thanks BooMan for showing some sense.
PS: it’s because of these people i refuse to be identified as part of the netroots. they’ve done enough damage to too many people’s reputation by sanctimoniously calling themselves “leaders” of the progressive blogosphere. fuck them.
So then you disagree with Booman that reasonable people can criticize Obama’s staffer, and Obama, without being a target of this vent? Because Pam Spaudling, FFS, was a staunch supporter of Obama during the election and is still a staunch defender against all kinds of attacks; she also works her ass off for gay rights and as a blogger. If anyone has a right to be impatient with delayed campaign promises, it’s Pam.
So I can only conclude that, for you, no one does. Gee, I wonder why people are upset. Maybe it’s because they suspect highly that the staffer, and many other in the Obama administration, agree with you.
Hi Auguste,
my support for Pam and all the blenders is unwavering. to me the sites of record for the queer blogosphere are Bilero and Pam’s House Blend. as someone who’s been around blogging since 2002, i know Pam’s work very well.
my problem is the support for Aravosis’ and Hamsher’s opportunistic faux outrage. every time they pull one of these stunts they smear and set back the work of THOUSANDS of progressive bloggers across the country.
the animosity with Obama goes back to 2005 but they’ve been pretty effective at alienating a lot of other people for years. it’s why some of us have spent those years building bridges without them. i for one have spent the last 4 years in the background educating media and political flack how not to talk about “the progressive blogosphere” as if it were one cohesive unit but of blogospheres. and that’s why am all for growing independent and self-sufficient political blogospheres that intersect but do not depend on the netroots (a trademarked word and name, btw).
so, FWIW: love and respect Pam to pieces but this is the first time in the 6-7 years i know her that i’ve had to call her out. Hamsher and Aravosis are self-servingly manipulative and opportunistic and whenever they pull one of these stunts they leave a trail of muck that other people end up cleaning.
am just glad am not the only one calling them out.
oh, and Glenn Greenwald gets on my nerves too. he needs to chill the fuck down.
what is it with these people?!?!
so nice to see I am not the only one who sees much of FDL and Americablog for the faux outrage.
While I have not read Pam’s blog I do hear it is great.
I am not gay but, I love great blogs and whether she is advocating for her causes, much of it is of interest to all walks.
I will have to check the blog out.
I am sick of the posturing and outrage while no one seems to care that the proper course of things runs thru congress – not the white house.
And I am so sick of trying to tell people this since before Obama was sworn in and the left was already in outrage mode.
No you aren’t the only one. I could never stay interested in reading FDL. The shrillness was just too much to stomach. Same with John Aravosis.
Pam is okay. She sometimes gets too caught up with John Aravosis craziness.
You see what happens when the people are not being taught history and civics anymore.
No one seems to understand that alot of what the left is pissing about and blaming Obama for is stuff that belongs in congress.
People refuse to understand this.
Congress is who makes law. Congress is who changes law.
And yet you have gays, the progressives, the media, ect., going off the rails and calling Obama names, accusing him of all kinds of evil because he is not dancing their tune 24/7. But, there is nothing he can do. Most of this is Congress. Why are these people not screeching at congress?
Obama is a constitutional law professor. He is trying to restore the balance and end the imperial dictatorship/presidency.
And we sure did rail about that for 8 years. We loved Obama being a professor and saying how it will be great to see things restored to where they should be. Part of electing the man.
Now that he doing this, the left is howling.
Because he is not playing dictator and is letting congress do their job. So, the activist need to be yelling at congress instead of hating on Obama.