Greenwald: "Hillary is banal, corrupted, drained of vibrancy and passion...a fucking hawk..."

[ProSense]

Greenwald Bashes ‘Neocon’ Hillary Clinton: ‘She’s a F*cking Hawk’

by Matt Wilstein

Glenn Greenwald’s new book, No Place to Hide: Edward Snowden, the NSA, and the U.S. Surveillance State, is hitting “stands” this Tuesday, which helps explain why he’s even more ever-present than usual across the media landscape today. He stopped by the Today show Monday morning for a somewhat contentious chat with Matt Lauer and GQ released an extended interview with him online that will appear in the June issue of the magazine.

The Q&A session covers a large swath of topics, from his relationship with Edward Snowden (they still talk almost every day) to the possibility of a James Bond-like movie of his NSA leak story (“I was actually a little worried about that, because James Bond is stupid.”) But one of Greenwald’s most impassioned answers comes after a question about all the “early presidential jockeying” for 2016:

“Hillary is banal, corrupted, drained of vibrancy and passion. I mean, she’s been around forever, the Clinton circle. She’s a fucking hawk and like a neocon, practically. She’s surrounded by all these sleazy money types who are just corrupting everything everywhere. But she’s going to be the first female president, and women in America are going to be completely invested in her candidacy. Opposition to her is going to be depicted as misogynistic, like opposition to Obama has been depicted as racist. It’s going to be this completely symbolic messaging that’s going to overshadow the fact that she’ll do nothing but continue everything in pursuit of her own power. They’ll probably have a gay person after Hillary who’s just going to do the same thing.

I hope this happens so badly, because I think it’ll be so instructive in that regard. It’ll prove the point. Americans love to mock the idea of monarchy, and yet we have our own de facto monarchy. I think what these leaks did is, they demonstrated that there really is this government that just is the kind of permanent government that doesn’t get affected by election choices and that isn’t in any way accountable to any sort of democratic transparency and just creates its own world off on its own.”

Greenwald did not tell the magazine if there is a presidential candidate he would be supporting instead, but it seems pretty safe to say he will not be voting for Clinton if she ends up getting the Democratic nomination.

<...>

http://www.mediaite.com/online/greenwald-bashes-neocon-hillary-clinton-shes-a-fcking-hawk/

[ellenrr]

1. yeah... and.......?

[ProSense]

7. "And" I think

you should respond to some of the comments in this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024934372

[saltpoint]

53. Excellent suggestion. eom

[sheshe2]

74. I'd like to see a response myself.

Thanks for the link ProSense. That sure as hell was an eye opener.

[Cha]

83. Wow.

[msanthrope]

93. You won the godamn Internets with that reply. nt

[Cha]

116. ..

[MADem]

125. That's a good start. Concur. nt

[ucrdem]

156. That one was a hit with the Greenwald crowd.

There wasn't much we could do, sorry.

[JI7]

159. one of the recs looks like the troll who was banned multiple times today

[Hekate]

161. Snap!

[MineralMan]

2. Feh! Greenwald the Manichaean.

I await the deluge...

What's the next headline:

Glenn Greenwald Endorses Rand Paul for 2016 Bid

Just Feh!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

3. Well....I wouldn't say she was completely without passion...mostly, maybe.

[Dawson Leery]

4. Then Greenwald too must be "banal" and a "fucking hawk" for supporting the Iraq War.

https://www.readyforhillary.com/contribute

[Capt. Obvious]

12. WTH would you post that link?

[scarletwoman]

36. This smear about Greenwald "supporting the Iraq War" is such total bullshit!

He did not begin blogging until 2005, long after the war started, and his blog was all about OPPOSING the Iraq war.

Prior to 2005, he was a private citizen and did not publish any public statements about the war whatsoever.

In the preface to his first book, "How Would A Patriot Act?: Defending American Values from a President Run Amok", he does say that before his political consciousness was raised, he thought that our leaders knew what they were doing. The majority of Americans at that time thought the same thing.

But as soon as Greenwald began writing PUBLICLY, it was to oppose the war and the bush* administration.

Read his entire preface, it explains how he changed from a non-political private person (he didn't even vote) to a vocal Iraq War critic: http://www.bookbrowse.com/excerpts/index.cfm?fuseaction=printable&book_number=1812

To say he "supported the Iraq War" is dishonest in the extreme, since began his public writing career in clear opposition to it.

[msanthrope]

97. No---Mr. Greenwald was not a 'private citizen.' He called victims of racism 'odious and repugnant'

doing media interviews on behalf of his client, white supremacist Matt Hale, long before 2005.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002101211

That's not a private citizen--that's a lawyer going toe to toe with Patrick Fitzgerald and losing.

As for Mr. Greenwald being a non-political person, that's not correct. He ran for public office in his teens.

You know....this gem about his racial feelings really stands out...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2353888

[Dragonfli]

70. I see your point, and you have convinced me

that anybody that supported that war were assholes and those that went the extra step to vote for it are complete assholes and should be hated as vehemently as he is for it.

In fact, since he never publicly endorsed the war but only spoke about his initial private support of it in a scathing book against the war, those that supported it publicly and even went so far as to use political power to make it happen with their votes are worse, complete assholes as opposed to just assholes I suppose we should call them, they certainly should be so hated that no one should even consider voting for them again.

Unfortunately the complete assholes include most of the Democrats in office at the time, leaving very few that we shouldn't hate, and fewer still that should ever receive our votes again.

Thank you for enlightening me to the proper reaction to these complete assholes, pure hatred.

[scarletwoman]

103. Bravo! Superb!

Thank you for this post!

[Dragonfli]

128. Well, I am consistent, I don't make excuses for some and not others

I also remember how it felt being a rare minority that opposed the war from the very beginning, I know you were too as I have been here a long time and well remember how consistent you have been.

You, like me I am sure, felt rage at the impotence of our voices as we marched en masse against the war only to see all the news act as if the many thousands of us never existed and our many protestations never happened. The complete news blackout sucked.

I place GG in the same class as my mother that was behind it mostly because she trusted our government and thought they knew what they were doing but upon reflection and learning a few facts was in the end marching with me and the veterans against the war across the peace bridge in protest and support of those young men seeking refuge in Canada. I forgave her because she was tricked but after she learned some truth recanted and did her best to oppose it.

I can never forgive those that enabled such death and destruction directly. People with power that used that power to herald death have blood on their hands, such blood does not wash off easily.

I don't remember your stance on the Afghanistan aggression, but I opposed that as well because I felt war against a population was not the way to fight the crime of terrorism, criminals should be sought as criminals and populations that have nothing to do with the criminal actions really should not be slaughtered as a solution. If they had fought terrorism as the crime it was, many more Saudis than Afghanis would have been sought, but it never was about justice but rather war for profit and resources and perhaps even as a method to destroy our civil liberties, using tragedy as the excuse.

I don't get how posters here feel such hatred for Greenwald for his private initial support of the war while cheering those with the real blood on their hands, it is pure hypocrisy.

[JEB]

109. Exactly right.

Waiting for Hillary's scathing book against the war.

[Dragonfli]

134. I am sure that book will come out as soon as her book decrying off-shoring jobs

via free trade deals is complete and published, any day now.... yep.... any day...

[ProSense]

119. Hey,

"Unfortunately the complete assholes include most of the Democrats in office at the time, leaving very few that we shouldn't hate, and fewer still that should ever receive our votes again.

Thank you for enlightening me to the proper reaction to these complete assholes, "pure hatred."

...save some of that "pure hatred" for Greenwald's favorite politicians.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024931733#post186

[Dragonfli]

131. Oh, don't worry about that sweetie, I hate all assholes that cause death destruction and poverty.

I do not love some of them but hate others based on how they register, to me it is what they bring to fruition or want to that I concern myself with.

As another DUer likes to say, you will know them by their works.

Lots of posters here should try consistency some time, it is much easier to remember what you are for or against when such does not depend on the random flip flops of politicians but is based instead on what you actually believe and hold as your principles.

It must be hard for people to remember what they are for when they have to change what they are for on a nearly daily basis.
Don't you agree?

Oh and I really think you are sweet, worrying about me and what I need to hate so much, for a while there I thought you didn't care seeing as you tried and nearly succeeded in having me kicked out of here. I am glad you are over that little bit of vindictiveness, we are all human and I forgive you.

[ProSense]

137. Well,

Oh, don't worry about that sweetie, I hate all assholes that cause death destruction and poverty.

I do not love some of them but hate others based on how they register, to me it is what they bring to fruition or want to that I concern myself with.

As another DUer likes to say, you will know them by their works.

Lots of posters here should try consistency some time, it is much easier to remember what you are for or against when such does not depend on the random flip flops of politicians but is based instead on what you actually believe and hold as your principles.

..."sweetie," Greenwald's favorite politicians are frauds, and the fact that he doesn't know that means he's clueless. Anyone backing these frauds or making excuses for Greenwald, shouldn't talk about "consistency."

Ron Paul Calls For 'Nullification' Of Obamacare: 'Pretty Soon ... We're Just Going To Ignore The Feds'
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ron-paul-calls-for-nullification-of-obamacare

"Ron Paul hates govt intervention, likes mandatory vaginal ultrasound probes"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002161152

Rand Paul backs bill that could lead to crackdown on states where voters legalized weed
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024663470

[Dragonfli]

144. I have been here ten years and I have been consistent.

You will find no posts supporting wars for profit, free trade, tax breaks for the wealthy, the weakening of civil liberties, nor will you find support for any of the Pauls.

In fact, I have never supported anything from GG or anyone else that is or was opposed to any of my core beliefs. I do agree with what he has written against the war and what he has written regarding leaks revealing an out of control NSA which I believe violates my fourth amendment rights on a daily basis. If you like the out of control NSA or the wars then we disagree with each other and that is unfortunate, but how am I inconsistent?

The same can be said for my agreement with Democrats when their policies on a given issue matches my own principles as well as my disagreement with them when the pimp wars or shipping jobs overseas but such does not reveal inconsistency but rather the opposite.

So.... What exactly are you trying to make up about me? I am not quite following your fiction here.

[ProSense]

145. Huh? How on earth is that comment "trying to make up about" you?

"So.... What exactly are you trying to make up about me? I am not quite following your fiction here."

Seems you didn't like the response and have no rebuttal so you're trying to deflect.

[Dragonfli]

146. It certainly appeared as if you were attempting to connect me with Ron Paul, whom I never even

mentioned, since I never voiced support of any kind for what you fictitiously tried to connect me to, how then should I have put it?

I am still not following you and don't see how you think I have been inconsistent.

Making a connection that does not exist is fiction, self delusion, or a lie, I was trying to go with the least insulting possibility, but I certainly will not concede a connection that does not exist except perhaps in your flawed reasoning.

If you need to reread my post and then wish to take back the false accusations of my non existent support for Paul, I will gladly accept your apology and chalk it up to an error caused by not reading my post very well or too quickly.

I don't want to fight you, I'd much rather accept your apology and forgive you.

[ProSense]

147. You need to reread the comment because you read something into it that's not there. n/t

[Dragonfli]

148. I Reread it, still awaiting an apology, I never showed the slightest support for Paul

Your implication is still fiction (for that matter I have never "made excuses" for Greenwald nor have I shown inconsistency regarding that which I support and that which I do not.)

It is OK, I know some people have too much pride to apologize for anything, I'd rather just drop it than hold my breath awaiting what will not come.

I have an idea, why don't you stop reading my posts if they annoy you so much. and I shall endeavor to do the same with yours.
Deal? A peaceful solution based on mutual avoidance of that which annoys us.

[ProSense]

149. Point to where it states you showed "support for Paul"

You're trying to deflect from criticism of Greenwald.

[Dragonfli]

150. If you were not making an implication regarding Paul, was that post perhaps meant for

someone else? It was addressed to me and was full of links about Paul.

I assume then the quilt by association attempt was made about someone else you meant to reply to?
Well, sorry then, but since it was addressed to me you can certainly understand my confusion

"anyone backing these frauds" must have been the mouse in your pocket and not me who the comment was addressed to, I get it, it was all just a mistake.

Can you stop trying to start a fight with me now?

[ProSense]

151. See, you can't n/t

[Dragonfli]

152. .

whatevs, sorry I did not fight with you like you wanted, you needed another couple of hides to get rid of me, I get it and I am sorry I didn't react the way you had hoped.

[ProSense]

153. Like I said

"I get it and I am sorry I didn't react the way you had hoped"

...Greenwald's favorite politicians are frauds, and the fact that he doesn't know that means he's clueless. Anyone backing these frauds or making excuses for Greenwald, shouldn't talk about "consistency."

[Caretha]

129. You win the internets today

Expect ZERO response from all the paid to post members. You shall not be disappointed.

[Tarheel_Dem]

158. Well, no one can say you're not earning your keep, right?

[Le Taz Hot]

5. And . . .

[NYC_SKP]

6. "She’s a fucking hawk and like a neocon, practically."

[pnwmom]

8. Right. And Al Gore would have gotten us into the Iraq war because he and George Bush

were just the same.



That was a war, however, that Greenwald supported. He'll say anything if it butters his bread.

[malaise]

10. But didn't Hillary Clinton also support said war? n/t

[nationalize the fed]

13. "With Conviction"

Here's some passion (kind of)

[pnwmom]

17. Hillary never would have gotten us into the war in the first place.

She wouldn't have had Colin Powell as Secretary of State, feeding a false story -- linking 9/11 and Iraq -- to Congress.

The Iraq war was Bush's baby, to avenge his daddy Bush.

Hillary voted for the Iraq war resolution in the fall, which was supposed to require Bush to find evidence of WMD before he invaded -- but he ignored that requirement and used the IWR as a fig leaf and invaded anyway in the spring. But the war would have gone on no matter what. The Republican Senate that was in place in January would have given him a blank check -- an IWR with no conditions.

So the one that some Dems signed onto was a last-ditch attempt to take some control over the situation, but it failed.

[bvar22]

24. And THAT is why Hillary, in a justified fury,

appeared on all the Talking head Shows,and in Editorials in all the major News papers
condemning the Invasion of Iraq,
and pointing out how the Bush Administration had illegally misused the authority
granted him in the Authorization to Use Military Force in Iraq.

Standing Up for what she believed as Bush ordered the US Military into Baghdad
was her Proudest and Greatest moment.
.
.
.
.
Unfortunately, that NEVER happened,
and the absence of this outrage from Hillary
negates the validity of this favorite argument of her fans.


Wouldn't YOU have been pissed if you really believed Bush had abused you?

[pnwmom]

32. The bottom line is that the sole impetus for the war was Bush's obsession

with his daddy's failure. It isn't a war that Gore or Clinton or any other Dem would have started.

Al Gore wouldn't have ignored the Hair-on-fire warnings that were coming about an upcoming attack, and 9/11 could have been prevented. And he never would have blamed 9/11 on Iraq and invaded Iraq on that false pretext.

[bvar22]

47. Playing Dodge Ball today?

Hmmm?

[AngryAmish]

41. "in a justified fury"

You know you can see people in a justified fury every monday night on the wrestling show.

[bvar22]

46. I would be justifyably furious if the Village Idiot from Texas...

... had managed to fool me into signing something called:
"The Authorization to Use Military Force in Iraq,"
and I did not believe it was "An Authorization to Use Military Force in Iraq".


You would NOT be furious with him?
You would NOT use your celebrity status to demand face time on TV to call him to account,
or write scalding editorials and PAY (if necessary) with some of my MILLIONS for full page adds condemning the Invasion and pointing out that you did NOT support this Invasion?

That is a No Brainer for me.
I guess we are very different people.

[AngryAmish]

95. Inside wrestling, the fans are called marks.

Heck, the fans call themselves marks.

It is an old carny term. When a guy running a carnival game got a guy gullible enough to empty his pockets at a rigged game, the carny would put some chalk on his hand, clap him on the back and tell the dude he had bad luck and to try another game. The guy, now marked by chalk, would get a warm welcome by the other carnival workers, would keep bleeding the fool. One game would bring down too much heat if they impoverished the mark. Five games and the cops figure he had it coming for being stupid or drunk.

Wrestling, which came out of the carnival circuit almost 100 years ago, keeps it's carny roots.

There are smart marks, who enjoy it for entertainment, and real marks, who think wrestling is real.

Which are you?

[Caretha]

139. Well you know

this little Gal from Texas (me) was not confused and knew that Bush/Cheney & cabal were lying......but Gee WIZ folks.....

Hillary is so much smarter & in the know ....so obviously she was right (but she wasn't, now was she?), and by golly by gum....that little ol' "me" was FUCKIN right after all and Hillary is either to stupid or to corrupt to be the next President (I'm betting on corrupt).

You want to know how I knew? I studied it. I knew that they had flown over 1700 sorries over Iraq since the first invasion by Bush Sr. I read the weapons/UN inspectors reports. I followed other media besides the paid & bought for yellow pieces of shit we call journalism then & now in the US. I had it figured that the secret energy meetings with that old fucker Cheney were all about screwing over anyone they could for the oil.

I didn't have inside info like Hillary....I'm not clued in to the scuttle butt & insider DC crowd, each scratching each others butt & backside, but......I will tell you this - I'm not an idiot and I really give a shit when people die because of lies & corruption. Go ahead....vote for another one. In my book.....she isn't any better than any of the other assholes that have led us down this path of perdition.

Her husband Bill was the best damn Republican President we ever had - and if that is your aspiration for the government we want - be my guest. Just don't expect everyone who calls themselves a Democrat to swallow that swill.

edit: that was not really directed at you bvar....I know you get it.

[AngryAmish]

40. well played, sir

[DontTreadOnMe]

9. I will be awaiting his review of the GOP candidate...

I wonder if he will be consistent and attack both sides... or does he just enjoy attacking the Democratic Leaders.

[struggle4progress]

31. Oh, he'll coyly make pleasant noises about several libertarians, just as he has in the past

for Rand Paul or Gary Johnson

[nationalize the fed]

11. Truth cuts like a knife

Hey, she's passionate (kind of) about the TPP

[Spazito]

14. The asshole who supports the Citizens United decision...

has no credibility, imo.

"She’s surrounded by all these sleazy money types who are just corrupting everything everywhere."

The sleazy money types corrupting everything everywhere have a free hand THANKS to the Citizens United decision.

Fuck Greenwald.

[Adrahil]

16. You got that right. Just another libertarian asshole. NT

[Nye Bevan]

18. Bear in mind that the ACLU also fully supports the Citizens United decision. (nt)

[Spazito]

19. Is the ACLU now talking out of both sides of their 'mouths' ...

as Greenwald is doing in his breathtaking hypocritical commentary, "all these sleazy money types who are just corrupting everything everywhere."? I don't think they are and, were they to do so, they would have no credibility either, imo.

[Jefferson23]

90. The ACLU actually had a great deal of internal conflict before their statement came out, there

were significant levels of objections.

[Spazito]

94. I hadn't read their rationale for supporting Citizens United since the decision came so...

I re-read it today and the conflict within the organization comes out quite clearly. To me, their support of free speech on the part of corporations ignores the commensurate reduction of free speech for ordinary Americans who cannot access the level of free speech given to corporations by the Citizens United decision.

In re-reading their statement, it strikes me as a rather weak argument over all.

[Jefferson23]

96. I thought the rigorous in fighting was telling but I did not agree with their outcome.

snip* It is also useful to remember that the mixture of money and politics long predates Citizens United and would not disappear even if Citizens United were overruled. The 2008 presidential election, which took place before Citizens United,was the most expensive in U.S. history until that point. The super PACs that have emerged in the 2012 election cycle have been funded with a significant amount of money from individuals, not corporations, and individual spending was not even at issue in Citizens United.

Unfortunately, legitimate concern over the influence of “big money” in politics has led some to propose a constitutional amendment to reverse the decision. The ACLU will firmly oppose any constitutional amendment that would limit the free speech clause of the First Amendment. ( end )

Public funded elections, that is what I support.

[Spazito]

98. I, too, support publicly funded elections, it is the only way to equalize the playing field...

Their argument on the issue of money and politics predating Citizens United was, imo, a moot point to the issue at hand and, even worse, it comes across as shrugging their shoulders about a problem, inferring nothing can be done about it and then supporting something that exacerbates the problem tenfold.

[Jefferson23]

99. Yea, for the vast majority of their work, I am a big supporter, financially too..but not on this one

One day, public funded elections. Americans on both sides are learning the hard way that
lobby money is a poison in our elections.

[Spazito]

100. I would love to see that happen but, being cynical, I don't see it anytime in the near future...

the same corporations that have received 'personhood' through Citizens United will control the debate were it even to arise in a serious way. I would very much like to see my cynicism be proven wrong as publicly funded elections are the right thing to have happen.

[Jefferson23]

101. Huge battle, but it is the most important one..as so many of the ills we see stem from that

problem. I am encouraged when I hear Senator Sanders talk about it as often as he does...gives
voice. Over turn CU, then move to public funded elections. It truly can be a bi-partisan
subject for American voters, we all have to demand it.

[Spazito]

104. I agree, it is the most important one...

one that must be undertaken for sure. If the American public were to support a Constitutional amendment to overturn CU, it would be a very positive sign there is fertile ground for the debate on election funding.

[Jefferson23]

111. Yep, they are there to serve us and it's time we got back on track.

[Spazito]

115. Completely agree!

[NOVA_Dem]

22. I bet they know the ACLU supports Citizen United but conveniently ignore it.

[baldguy]

127. They often support Nazis as well

[BlueCaliDem]

154. Yep. eom

[OilemFirchen]

37. His boss has a net worth north of $8 billion.

He's not surrounded by sleazy money types, he's joined at the hip.

Then again, he would like to see a billionaire win the Presidency. Because kewl kontrarian or something.

[Spazito]

39. Good point, I had forgotten about his new friend...

and, yes, he would like to see a billionaire win the Presidency but only if they are Republican/Libertarian.

His hypocrisy is truly breathtaking as well as nauseating.

[Cha]

85. LOL @ GG.. why he could be talking about himself.. "sleazy money types" fucking hypocrite.

[Spazito]

91. It is hilarious in a pathetic way, isn't it...

He is completely oblivious of his gross hypocrisy and, it seems, so are many of his acolytes.

[Cha]

92. It is pathetically hilarious.. they're their own vicious worst enemies.

[1000words]

15. Greenwald ... and Hillary!

This has epic thread potential.

[whatchamacallit]

20. Why is the truth controversial?

Thanks for posting it.

[ProSense]

27. It maybe because he's a hypocrite and an opportunist. His attempt

to pre-emptively discredit critics is telling: "But she’s going to be the first female president, and women in America are going to be completely invested in her candidacy. Opposition to her is going to be depicted as misogynistic, like opposition to Obama has been depicted as racist."

Even more bizarre is his attack on a strawman, a future "gay" Democratic Presidential candidate: "They’ll probably have a gay person after Hillary who’s just going to do the same thing."

"They'll" seems to be a reference to the Democratic Party.

[oneofthe99]

77. But you do agree with his description of her?

He's spot on......................

[TheKentuckian]

86. Actually, I think he is close to on target though I suspect a Hispanic between the woman

and the openly gay candidate.

Maybe an atheist after that but everyone will be corporate to the core and neocon aligned.

[ProSense]

110. Greenwald is just putting his pre-emptive narrative in place. n/t

[Cha]

87. An opposition to GG is depicted as against all ugly A$$holes. lol

[Blue_Tires]

21. Someone will be along shortly to say that you quoted Greenwald "out of context"

And just like every other day, Greenwald is having the expected pissy-shit fit and lashing out at the snipers on Twitter...

Can he just hurry the fuck up and just be Rand Paul's campaign manager already?

[ProSense]

38. Evidently, Greenwald

"Someone will be along shortly to say that you quoted Greenwald "out of context""

...wants people to know that he, not Snowden, should get credit for the "decision-making." From the GQ interview:

What do you think the biggest illusions are about the various roles that you and Snowden have played in all of these revelations?

I think that there's this ridiculous effort to attribute every leak to Snowden in terms of what he decided to publish or when he decided to publish it. It gets framed as "Snowden's latest leak" or "Why did Snowden decide to leak this?" But he actually plays very little role in making decisions about what gets published. I make all those decisions myself. I consult with him—because what I publish reflects on him or affects his legal situation. But he doesn't play any decision-making role at all in that process. So that's a huge misconception.

On the other hand, some people assume that he's played less of a role in how the reporting gets done. I mean, at the beginning he had very strong ideas for what he wanted to be published and not be published. And a lot of what has happened since then is the by-product of that process. Some people try to depict him as this sort of like reckless leaker and the newspapers, especially the Times and the Post, as the responsible journalists, when in reality, I mean, he's actually probably been more conservative in thinking about what should he publish than those newspapers have been. I don't think anyone really appreciates the extent to which that's true.

http://www.gq.com/news-politics/newsmakers/201406/glenn-greenwald-edward-snowden-no-place-to-hide

[MohRokTah]

23. And Greenwald is a "fucking asshole".

Why aybody would give this guy the time of day is beyond me. He's a more assholish version of Glenn Beck.

[DURHAM D]

25. He sounds drunk.

[scarletwoman]

26. I completely agree with Greenwald re Hillary.

She IS a neocon, and a neoliberal and a friend of Wall Street, and if she's in the White House it will mean a hawkish foreign policy and corporate lobbyists in control of domestic economic policy.

[oneofthe99]

78. Is there actually DU members who disagree with this??

[Paulie]

136. Only those in the profession

Trying to make it all make sense to the nongoodthinkers.

[Enthusiast]

124. Me too.

[ellenrr]

175. true, obviously true, undebatable...by anyone who's been alive for the last 20 years or so...

so do you understand why people are trashing Glen Greenwald?

[struggle4progress]

28. Attacking the Clintons seems so 1990s:

'Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because her father is Janet Reno'

But rightwing hatred of Hillary Clinton has continued unabated ever since: 'She is vilified for being a feminist and for not being one, for being an extreme leftist and for being a “warmongering hawk,” for being godless and for being “frighteningly fundamentalist,” for being the victim of her husband’s peccadilloes and for enabling them'

It's unsurprising to find Greenwald attacking the woman: it not only pleases the right; it also pleases some folk angry that Ms Clinton isn't as progressive as they might like

But it's a cynical ploy: she's not running in 2016

[hrmjustin]

29. I will make my own opinion of her.

[Paulie]

138. She has a record. Enough to form an opinion today

Unless you think leopards change their spots?

[hrmjustin]

141. As I said I will make my own opinion of her.

I like her.

[PeteSelman]

30. Yes, we know this already.

And we're still going to get stuck with her. This country is over. Has been for years.

[riqster]

33. Yah hey, Glenn, speaking of money, you are shilling for your book, aren'tcha?

Hypocrisy R Us.

[Dragonfli]

34. That is not entirely fair, she appears quite passionate when speaking to Goldman Sachs

Also she appears to be quite vibrant regarding the need for trade deals that will help us in our race to the bottom of wages and safety regulations.
I have to disagree with the man here.


The rest of course is spot on, but only a blind man could miss it so there is nothing special about noticing those traits, he really phoned this one in.

[phleshdef]

35. "Opposition to her is going to be depicted as misogynistic, like opposition to Obama has been..."

"...depicted as being racist"

Right because there wasn't huge racist opposition in regards to Barack Obama EVER....

[geek tragedy]

42. Greenwald's hero Rand Paul obviously stands to benefit

from such efforts.

Kind of amazing that Greenwald only cares about stuff Libertarians care about. Go figure.

[bvar22]

48. You really need to brush up on your History.

No only did she vote FOR the "Authorization to Use Military Force in Iraq",
as of the 2008 Campaign, she still stood by her vote.

[Old and In the Way]

44. I prefer a Democrat choosing SCOTUS replacements.

Everything else is secondary. I can only imagine what an activist packed Republican SCOTUS could do to our democracy and the social economic life of this country..Not that this really matters to a non-US citizen.

[Dragonfli]

75. I think an activist packed Republican SCOTUS would use "The Handmaids Tale" as a blueprint

for their brave new America, unfortunately trying to stop this involves voting for people that will still continue to turn this country into a land of billionaires and serfs as they appear to love the same economists and bankers across the aisle which have inspired the new creeping oligarchy.

The country will still suck, but in a less Christian far right way, following instead a Secular "socially less evil" far right way forward.

We are cursed I believe to vote against our interests no matter what and can only hope to stop some social evils as we do so.
It sucks having to vote for evil, however socially less evil the evil is, but that is the only choice we are allowed.

[DonCoquixote]

45. And of course, greenwald is not right wing

He merely will help them if he sees cash and power, which he always does.

I may be one of the folks looking forward to raw blood-sport in the Primary, where either Warren wins or Hillary has to do so much crawling through barbed wire that she cannot help but bend left. All the same, for GG to throw out a conveniently timed grenade only confirms that GG is what he is: a rich, selfish, privileged boy looking out for his fellow privileged boys, like his buddy Rand.

[Scuba]

49. I disagree that she's drained of vibrancy and passion.

She's been corrupted and is a hawk, however. Not too sure how original her ideas are.

[RussBLib]

50. he's basically right, but he doesn't need to use such language

He could benefit from a course in tactfulness and clever use of language.

[blm]

51. No mystery - Greenwald will vote for Rand Paul.

.

[VanillaRhapsody]

52. I've read much better writers on DU..

When you read the words he writes....he is like a high schooler trying to pad his work with superfluous words and phrases so that he can meet the 4 page book report quota before the deadline!

[DisgustipatedinCA]

57. High schoolers don't win Pulitzers.

.

[VanillaRhapsody]

58. I don't care...his writing is awful....

[Auntie Bush]

54. Why in the hell does any Dem listen the what fucking Greenwald has to say?

I guess all those Dems that don't mind that we get a Rethug president and another couple Conservative SCJ's. They don't mind if women lose there rights. Greenwald is a fuck wad.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

55. So you're in agreement with Greenwald for a change. Glad to hear it.

nt

[ProSense]

59. You're

"So you're in agreement with Greenwald for a change. Glad to hear it."

...mistaken and hearing things, evidently.


I'll repeate what I posted abover, Greenwald's a hypocrite and an opportunist. His attempt to pre-emptively discredit critics is telling: "But she’s going to be the first female president, and women in America are going to be completely invested in her candidacy. Opposition to her is going to be depicted as misogynistic, like opposition to Obama has been depicted as racist."

Even more bizarre is his attack on a strawman, a future "gay" Democratic Presidential candidate: "They’ll probably have a gay person after Hillary who’s just going to do the same thing."

"They'll" seems to be a reference to the Democratic Party.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

60. Although the post was locked, I saw the words with your name next to them.

I'll provide the link with your permission, the one where you call Hillary a hawk. Let me know.

[ProSense]

61. It's really

"Although the post was locked, I saw the words with your name next to them. I'll provide the link with your permission, the one where you call Hillary a hawk. Let me know."

...important to prove your bogus point, isn't it? I mean, using the word "hawk" to describe Hillary doesn't mean I agree with Greenwald's point which was:

"Hillary is banal, corrupted, drained of vibrancy and passion. I mean, she’s been around forever, the Clinton circle. She’s a fucking hawk and like a neocon, practically."

Again, Greenwald's a hypocrite and an opportunist. His attempt to pre-emptively discredit critics is telling: "But she’s going to be the first female president, and women in America are going to be completely invested in her candidacy. Opposition to her is going to be depicted as misogynistic, like opposition to Obama has been depicted as racist."

Even more bizarre is his attack on a strawman, a future "gay" Democratic Presidential candidate: "They’ll probably have a gay person after Hillary who’s just going to do the same thing."

"They'll" seems to be a reference to the Democratic Party.

Should I repeat that again?

I mean, it's clear that Greenwald fans have adopted is rebuttal tactic: claiming he's right because he's just like (insert name).

No, I don't agree with Greenwald. You're going to have to find validation elsewhere.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

63. Your words, ProSense, not mine.

And no, I don't believe you agree with Greenwald on much of anything, but at least at one time, you agreed with him to the extent that you said Hillary is a hawk. I'm not sure if you've changed your mind since then or not. Let me know if you're so inclined.

[ProSense]

68. OMG, after everything I just wrote,

"And no, I don't believe you agree with Greenwald on much of anything, but at least at one time, you agreed with him to the extent that you said Hillary is a hawk. I'm not sure if you've changed your mind since then or not. Let me know if you're so inclined."

...you're still searching for validation? Go reread what I wrote so that I don't have to post it again.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

71. I'm not searching for validaton or anything else. I was making a statement.

I said what I came to say.

[ProSense]

72. Welcome back.

Enjoy your stay. LOL!

[ProSense]

73. OK, thanks for the link. Now explain what that means? That is

if you're here long enough. LOL!

[JI7]

79. bs, many people would say Hillary is a HAwk, that isn't the comlaint about Greenwald

[DisgustipatedinCA]

80. Not sure why this keeps coming up. I was pointing out that they both called Hillary a hawk

And you're right, lots of people think she's a hawk. I do. Glenn Greenwald does. And ProSense does, or at least did at one point in time. There's irony in the title of this OP, and I was pointing it out.

[JI7]

82. no, context is important or else it's like saying one agrees with Romney on economic issues

just because he supports minimum wage increase.

[Cha]

88. "They’ll probably have a gay person after Hillary who’s just going to do the same thing." GG got a

fuckin' bug up his a$$?

[Tarheel_Dem]

56. Why is this CATO, Citizens United loving asshole welcome at DU? He's a third partyist, and...

extremely anti-Dem. His philosophy is antithetical the mission of this board.

Vote for Democrats

Winning elections is important — therefore, advocating in favor of Republican nominees or in favor of third-party spoiler candidates that could split the vote and throw an election to our conservative opponents is never permitted on Democratic Underground. But that does not mean that DU members are required to always be completely supportive of Democrats. During the ups-and-downs of politics and policy-making, it is perfectly normal to have mixed feelings about the Democratic officials we worked hard to help elect. When we are not in the heat of election season, members are permitted to post strong criticism or disappointment with our Democratic elected officials, or to express ambivalence about voting for them. In Democratic primaries, members may support whomever they choose. But when general election season begins, DU members must support Democratic nominees (EXCEPT in rare cases where were a non-Democrat is most likely to defeat the conservative alternative, or where there is no possibility of splitting the liberal vote and inadvertently throwing the election to the conservative alternative). For presidential contests, election season begins when both major-party nominees become clear. For non-presidential contests, election season begins on Labor Day. Everyone here on DU needs to work together to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of American government. If you are bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for our candidates during election season, we'll assume you are rooting for the other side.

And he & his supplicants certainly fail this test:


Don't be a wingnut (right-wing or extreme-fringe).

Democratic Underground is an online community for politically liberal people who understand the importance of working within the system to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of political office. Teabaggers, Neo-cons, Dittoheads, Paulites, Freepers, Birthers, and right-wingers in general are not welcome here. Neither are certain extreme-fringe left-wingers, including advocates of violent political/social change, hard-line communists, terrorist-apologists, America-haters, kooks, crackpots, LaRouchies, and the like.

[arely staircase]

64. "America hater, kook and crackpot" describe GG perfectly. nt

[Tarheel_Dem]

76. Exactly. nt

[Bobbie Jo]

108. Yes, the "kook and crackpot" clause

could be applied to more than a few around here these days.

[arely staircase]

62. In the past few days Greenwald has talked shit about HRC, James Bond and somehow decided the US is

the bad guy in the stolen children saga. He must wake up everyday and ask himself how he can be an even bigger douche nozzle. And then he does.

[Cha]

89. GG's a vicious hater and his own worst enemy. Then when he gets push back his fans

can't understand why everyone doesn't like greenwad like they do?

Doesn't he have a stupid book to Hawk?

[msanthrope]

105. I'm floored by his James Bond hate....why does he think James Bond is "stupid?" nt

[arely staircase]

106. it is like he is running out of things to be a dick about. nt

[msanthrope]

107. Truly....so he's friends with James Blond, but hates James Bond? What an asshole. nt

[PragmaticLiberal]

140. That'll never happen.

[Thinkingabout]

65. I regard Greenwald's articles the same as rag magazine articles might be interesting to read

But nothing to sink my teeth into. He has his followers and those who doesn't have much regard for his noise. As much as he may dislike Hillary and his endeavor to discredit her in perhaps to win over some to Rand Paul may work with some but not me. Rand Paul may want to be greater than Hillary but will never be able to match up with Hillary.

[DFW]

66. Greenwald choice of language negates whatever valid points he might be trying to get across

That was the kind of hate speech I expect from Freeperland.

People who use stock words like "liberal" and "corporatist" for their enemies have nothing to contribute but the hurling of words, and Greenwald just did quite a job of that. I'm with Howard Dean on the presidency: "we need younger blood to do this job," but I wouldn't blame Hillary if she asked Greenwald, "is that all you've got?"

Substance is negated by this childish method of making a point. If Greenwald is incapable of moving beyond the "am not/are too" stage of kindergarten playground verbal jousting, I suggest he go back to his playpen. I'm interested in a higher level of discourse. He should take a correspondence course from Norm Ornstein or something.

[randome]

114. It's like Tourette's Syndrome or something. He can't just talk or write plainly.

He has to 'dress it up' with what he must think is 'street cred' or something. Most other writers do better.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A 90% chance of rain means the same as a 10% chance:
It might rain and it might not.[/center][/font][hr]

[joshcryer]

121. It's all about page views and hits.

It's pathetic.

[Number23]

164. I literally cannot WAIT for Hillary's response to this. If she bothers responding to this

megalomanaical asshole at all.

[DFW]

173. If she's smart, she'll ignore it and let it speak for itself

And I'm sure she's plenty smart.

[Hekate]

67. Oh FFS

[WillyT]

81. Finally... Something We Can All Agree On !!! - K & R !!!

[DCBob]

84. and very likely to be our candidate for President.

Considering those comments I would assume Glen will be supporting the Republican candidate.

[TheKentuckian]

102. And he is right again

[ProSense]

112. I'm just waiting for the tweet that claims he didn't say what he said. n/t

[JEB]

113. A reasonably apt assessment.

[ProSense]

117. Wonder if Greenwald

blames Hillary for Benghazi? Will he Stand with Rand in calling for her to be subpoenaed?

[JEB]

120. I have no idea, but would imagine

that he would recognize GOP fundraising tactic for what it is.

[JEB]

122. Wonder if Hillary would make nice with the likes of Henry Kissinger?

[JEB]

142. Evidently not a problem for Hillary supporters.

http://still4hill.com/2012/08/25/profiles-of-hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-henry-kissinger-3/

[scarletwoman]

168. Like attending a gala birthday for Kissinger?

Wonder no more: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4843927

[joshcryer]

118. Wow, fuck GG.

Lying POS.

[ecstatic]

123. Of course he couldn't say who he'd support (hint: Rand Paul)

That would put his left-tea fans in an awkward position.

[baldguy]

126. And I guess Rand Paul is the Prince Of Peace in Greenwald's eyes.

[lostincalifornia]

130. And why again should I care what Greenwald thinks? He doesn't even live in America, though he sits

On his throne and regurgitates his same old same old

For any pro or cons that Nader has, he at least lives in America

[marmar]

132. True, but that's kind of a "water is wet" quote.

[JEB]

135. That assessment by GG does not require any leaked documents or phony investigations.

Water is indeed wet....so if you don't like that just attack the messenger.

[Beacool]

133. Greenwald needs a chill pill.

Also, I don't care what he has to say.

[Iggo]

143. She's not a hawk?

[ucrdem]

157. Translation: "Ready for my next Benghazi, boss!"

[Number23]

160. God, what a charmer. The folks supporting him show so much more than they could ever realize

But she’s going to be the first female president, and women in America are going to be completely invested in her candidacy. Opposition to her is going to be depicted as misogynistic, like opposition to Obama has been depicted as racist.

Spoken like a true Republican. Of the mouth breathing variety too.

[Cha]

163. GG sounds all weasely and jealous of Democrats.. like he's trying to stay relevant for his fans..

to promote his damn book or something.

[b ]"..They’ll probably have a gay person after Hillary who’s just going to do the same thing."

[Number23]

165. That man ain't the brightest bulb in the box but he ain't crazy. He knows EXACTLY what red meat

to toss to his fans and what to say to get their lips moving while reading his spews the fastest.

[Cha]

166. I'll wager he knows he can say anything and then sit back 'cause the fans will explain what it

means. Leave Greenwald alone! He's free to lie and diss and lie some more but nobody better call him on it or they're trying to marginalize him because everyone is very afraid of him.. or some such shite.

We "hate him because we're terrified of him... " rofl

http://sync.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4945503

[Cha]

162. Glenn Greenwald was stupid enough to back Bush's War for fuck sake until it was no

longer profitable.

[maddezmom]

170. LOL!

Seems to be your standard question each time you are here.

[djean111]

177. Even so, that does not mean that what he says is not true.

Attack the messenger all day, does not change anything.
Attack the MESSAGE by giving examples of just how it is not true.

[Orsino]

169. This must be his first election cycle.

What he says is true, but it's true of pretty much every presidential candidate nowadays.

[bettyellen]

174. that is exactly why he sounds so naive. seems to be his first rodeo.

[woo me with science]

171. Good description of Hillary. nt

[BootinUp]

172. thats wack

[mylye2222]

176. Yes he is right

Remember. Hillary Clinton is a Dino. Hillary Clinton made everything to help Bush defeat John Kerry back in 2004 to keep her candidate seat hot. That why i will be anything but Hillary Clinton in 2016! ELIZABETH WARREN AND BERNIE SANDERS 2016!
She always sided with GOP destruction machine and her and her husband blocked john kerry investigations in bcci affair and Iran contra.

[mylye2222]

178. Hillary Clinton is not the only woman

Who can be NOMINATED. Id prefer a RINO like Warren that a DINO like Hillary.