Must Read First: 'How A Handful Of Liberal Bloggers Are Bringing Down The Obama Presidency'

[WillyT]

Be careful of what you think.

How a handful of liberal bloggers are bringing down the Obama presidency
September 27, 2010 by Peter Daou

<snip>

This post was originally written about the frightening case of Anwar al-Aulaqi, a heinous individual who now faces a judge, jury and executioner in President Barack Obama. The body of the post remains the same, but I wanted to add further context in light of yet another slap at the left by the Obama team, in this case, VP Biden telling the base to “stop whining,” as well as news that Rahm Emanuel is leaving the White House.

When Robert Gibbs attacked the professional left he didn’t specify anyone by name, but the assumption was that it was cable personalities, disaffected interest groups, bloggers and online commenters.

With each passing day, I’m beginning to realize that the crux of the problem for Obama is a handful of prominent progressive bloggers, among them Glenn Greenwald, John Aravosis, Digby, Marcy Wheeler and Jane Hamsher*.

Virtually all the liberal bloggers who have taken a critical stance toward the administration have one thing in common: they place principle above party. Their complaints are exactly the same complaints they lodged against the Bush administration. Contrary to the straw man posed by Obama supporters, they aren’t complaining about pie in the sky wishes but about tangible acts and omissions, from Gitmo to Afghanistan to the environment to gay rights to secrecy and executive power.

The essence of their critique is that the White House lacks a moral compass. The instances where Obama displays a flash of moral authority – the mosque speech comes to mind – these bloggers cheer him with the same fervor as his most ardent fans.

Some will dismiss them as minor players in the wider national discourse, but two things make them a thorn in the administration’s side:

a) they have a disproportionately large influence on the political debate, with numerous readers and followers — among them major media figures

b) they develop the frames and narratives that other progressive Obama critics adopt and disseminate

I’ve argued for some time that the story of Barack Obama’s presidency is the story of how the left turned on him. And it eats him up. You know it from Robert Gibbs, you know it from Rahm Emanuel, you know it from Joe Biden and you know it from Obama himself.

The constant refrain that liberals don’t appreciate the administration’s accomplishments betrays deep frustration. It was a given the right would try to destroy Obama’s presidency. It was a given Republicans would be obstructionists. It was a given the media would run with sensationalist stories. It was a given there would be a natural dip from the euphoric highs of the inauguration. Obama’s team was prepared to ride out the trough(s). But they were not prepared for a determined segment of the left to ignore party and focus on principle, to ignore happy talk and demand accountability.

As president, Obama has done much good and has achieved a number of impressive legislative victories. He is a smart, thoughtful and disciplined man. He has a wonderful family. His staff (many of whom I’ve worked with in past campaigns) are good and decent people trying to improve their country and working tirelessly under extreme stress. But that doesn’t mean progressives should set aside the things they’ve fought for their entire adult life. It doesn’t mean they should stay silent if they think the White House is undermining the progressive cause.

Case in point: the extraordinarily disturbing case of Anwar al-Aulaqi:...

<snip>

More: http://peterdaou.com/2010/09/liberal-bloggers-are-bringing-down-the-obama-presidency/

:shrug:

[Canuckistanian]

1. They place principle above party?

Then where does that leave the party? Does the party have no principles?

[WillyT]

2. Are You A Pregnant Female ???

If not, find one and ask her.

:shrug:

[Canuckistanian]

21. Meaning what, exactly?

Are bloggers anti-female?

[WillyT]

22. Whoosh...

Sorry

[Canuckistanian]

36. Yes, indeed, whoosh

That comment left me totally bewildered.

I may be dense - please enlighten?

[Donnachaidh]

80. brother was that a swing and a miss

:rofl:

[daleanime]

4. Some times....

the question is the answer. :(

[Warpy]

3. I'd suggest there's a (c) to this

and that is that the Obama administration knows they're right.

If they could logically and reasonably be dismissed as a bunch of kooks, they wouldn't be a threat, at all. Unfortunately, they're holding Obama to his promises and their complaints are logical and reasonable.

Obama needs to tread carefully here. With Emanuel gone, perhaps Gibbs's rhetoric will be toned down a bit (they had adjacent offices) and some sort of rapprochement will be achieved.

Continuing to rail against the literate spokespeople for a large part of the party base is counterproductive.

[babylonsister]

5. I can buy a lot of that, but this?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=433&topic_id=472147

Obama Derangement Syndrome

by BooMan
Sun Oct 10th, 2010 at 12:01:44 PM EST


Rule number one for a campaigning politician is to always make sure that you explicitly ask for someone's vote. It's not normally referred to as badgering. But that's how Jane Hamsher refers to it, and she gets to represent the "professional left" in The Hill newspaper. She even goes so far as to suggest that Obama and Biden never asked infrequent voters to go out to the polls and vote for them in 2008. She actually seems to be offering a conspiracy theory that the Obama administration is trying to play eleven-dimensional chess and hurt the Democrats' chances by asking Democrats to vote and by using a slogan that polling shows doesn't help. Apparently, defending their record is some nefarious plot to hand over Congress to Republican control. At some point people need to consider the possibility that Hamsher doesn't have the administration's best interests at heart.


Some of these liberal bloggers do seem to have their agendas, and a lot of that has to do with their principles at all cost, nevermind compromise, which is pretty damned important in politics. We have a Democratic president who is a helluva smart man. To constantly fight against what he tries to do doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Let the attacks begin.


I fully admit as far as war/terrorists/trials, etc., go, I'm hardly up to speed compared to a lot of folks. So what I don't know about, I don't usually comment about unless I think the criticism is over the top.

Now. Will anyone agree that some stuff coming from these bloggers is over the top? :shrug:

[WillyT]

6. Saw That Sis...

Never been so saddened in my life.

And yeah... I'm voting, and they'll all be Democrats.

:evilfrown:

Read the whole thing Sis...

[frylock]

7. compromise is pretty damned important in politics..

the next time the centrists of the party offer compromise will be the first time.

[babylonsister]

9. It doesn't mean it should be a dead concept. Big tent, remember?

W/O compromise on some things, nothing is going to happen, and no one will ever be satisfied.

[frylock]

16. did you even read past the subject line?

where is the compromise from the right side of the democratic party? you can't force one side to consistantly make compromise, and then piss and moan when people complain.

[babylonsister]

31. Don't be so damned condescending, k?

I read what you wrote. I wasn't impressed. I imagine there are some centrists who have compromised. But that's not the point of this OP, is it.

[Luminous Animal]

24. The Republicans seem to do just fine without the meaningless big tent propaganda.

They have slowly but surely made deep inroads in regards to privatization, anti-abortion, anti-union, the social safety net, taxes, affirmative action, wars, and criminal injustice. Despite the fact that the majority of U.S. citizens are on the side of all these issues.

[babylonsister]

28. Blame 'the media'. I can't think of anyone else responsible. nt

[Luminous Animal]

30. Everyone's fault but the Democrats.

[babylonsister]

32. OK, Dems are at fault. Now what? Whatcha gonna do?

Keep writing screeds that signify their displeasure, or try to improve what we have? The former is what some bloggers do. Constantly.

[Luminous Animal]

42. These days I volunteer 9 hours a week to walk the precinct for a Dem candidate...

I also volunteer 3 hours a week making phone calls for Hamsher's "Just Say Now" campaign. Previously, I volunteered to make phone calls for the Greenwald/Hamsher instigated and supported Bill Halter primary campaign against Lincoln.

[Toots]

69. or try to improve what we have?

How exactly do you do that with out bringing up the problems?

[thunder rising]

12. WHO ASKED US TO "MAKE ME DO IT" ? HOW DO YOU PROPOSE WE DO THAT? (that's different?)

Oh, I know, sternly worded letters.

[Greyhound]

41. There are issues that you can "compromise" with and there are principles

that define what you you are. Obama, and the Democratic Party for the last 25 - 30 years, have forgotten the difference.

"Those that stand for nothing will fall for anything", like believing that they could negotiate some republik support for their major agenda. This Democratic Party has shown that it doesn't stand for anything except the desire to win another election.

[EFerrari]

48. Are you suggesting that liberal bloggers should not have their own agendas?

Whose agenda should they have? He already has a WH Communications Office, doesn't he?

[frustrated_lefty]

65. It isn't clear what you're referring to as over the top.

Sorry, the polarization on DU of late makes it difficult for me to determine what's over the top? That "Hamsher doesn't have the administrations best interests at heart?" Or, that someone is making the claim that Hamsher doesn't have the administration's best interests at heart? After following the link back to the original article, it looks like Hamsher was simply saying that slapping progressives in the face isn't a great motivator...but that's a separate issue.

Compromise is a good thing, a necessary thing in many instances. But, compromise is give and take, not give and give or take and take. Much of what passes for compromise in this administration is far too lopsided. If, for example, you're going to require every single citizen pay for health insurance, you'd better make sure they receive quality health care. Don't bail out banks and the auto industry, turn a blind eye to the criminal behavior of the oil industry in the gulf, and then have the audacity to tell the working man that it's time to suck it up and make sacrifices. I think in the wake of the 08 election, the vast majority of this country was ready and willing to make sacrifices for a common good. That good will has been pissed away, and I doubt it will resurface unless and until there's some sign of more balanced compromise being pursued.

In some other areas, though, there isn't a whole lot of room for compromise. Torture is ok, or it isn't. It's ok to assassinate American's or it isn't. GLBT citizens have equal rights under the law, or they don't. So, yeah, sometimes principles over party is also necessary. When you start letting the layers of principle fall away, you end up with a party that stands for nothing, whose only purpose is its mindless pursuit of power.

[WillyT]

76. + 1,000,000,000... What You Said...

:applause::applause::applause:

:thumbsup::thumbsup:

:kick:

:hi:

[Gman]

8. Who TF do these self-appointed bastards think they are blasting Obama?

and expecting people to just roll over because they're some kind of almighty liberal bloggers? Fuck them. They're no better than Republicans and teabaggers.

[WillyT]

15. Um... You Forgot The Sarcasm Thingy...

:shrug:

:hi:

[Greyhound]

52. Or if not, seems to have totally missed that a lot of people that should be supporting them are

so pissed off/disgusted with them, that they are willing to punish them in spite of the possible consequences.

I don't recall any administration in my lifetime that has been so determinedly tone-deaf and recalcitrant, they have cut off the coattails they should have provided, kow-towed to the very scum that have cause all our problems, and projected an air of utter indifference to the suffering of their supposed constituents.

If the republiks had not put forth an agenda of complete insanity, I'd say we would see are looking at a mirror image of 2008. As it is, the only thing I can say for sure is that this will be an interesting election.

Does anyone recall hearing something about crooked voting machines? I wonder why nobody seems concerned about them now?

[PVnRT]

72. No, he didn't

Gman demands complete and utter loyalty to Obama from all.

[Gman]

78. People don't understand how good they've got it nor how bad the alternative can be

[WillyT]

79. Bwahahahahahahaha...

Hoo boy... that was a good one.

Thanks for the laugh.

:rofl:

:hi:

[EFerrari]

50. Those bastards probably think they're American citizens entitled to their opinion. nt

[msongs]

10. let's purge all the liberals and progressives who are protesting conservadem policies! nt

[Me.]

11. One Problem With The Obama Admin And The 'Liberal Left'

Is that he brought in old hands from previous admins and many of them either actively dislike the left or simply dismiss them as having no valid point of view. The thinking, up to now, has been the old 'where else are they gonna go'. When Rahm said 'sit down and shut up' the tone was set. Only this time, the left hasn't shut up. The president said he wanted to be challenged and as with everything else he said, liberals have taken him at his word.

[unkachuck]

13. K&R....n/t

[madfloridian]

14. I admire those bloggers and respect their right to have opinions.

Are you guys saying they need to be careful what they say?

I hope not.

Because that was said in Bush's administration.

[Luminous Animal]

19. +1

[Luminous Animal]

17. This is precisely it...

"But that doesn’t mean progressives should set aside the things they’ve fought for their entire adult life."

And I am being badgered to do just that on this board and elsewhere.


And it is really worthwhile reading the entire article.

[WillyT]

18. Exactly...

:shrug:

[Nite Owl]

27. There are many who want us on the left

to still sit down and shut up. Not happening.
If the dems lose this election, if they lose the majorities that we helped them win they have to look in the mirror and see who who lost it. It wasn't the "professional left' or 'left wing bloggers' or acting childish and not being all enthusiastic over the crumbs given to progressives it was them who lost it. Obama has no right to feel any anger with the base, the base has every reason to feel anger at him and his administration who has thwarted and ignored just about every thing we expected of them. Their third way doesn't work and it's time that they admitted that. Obama needs to show some leadership.

[mmonk]

20. As long as the principle is correct and moral,

it is as it should be and they are not taking down the presidency. An ignorant public, billionaires, and media pundits are.

[xchrom]

23. If anyone is legitimately damaging the Obama admin

Maybe it's the admin themselves.

If the repukes couldn't bring down Clinton - I seriously
Doubt a bunch of bloggers from the left could.

Talk about hysterical hyperbole.

[highprincipleswork]

25. He postured Progressive, then threw all under the bus

The problem with the administration is that President Obama campaigned on Progressive principles, upped his Progressive policies to win against Hillary Clinton and John Edwards, got everyone all fired up for change, and then blew it by going too FAR RIGHT. I don't care if you call it Centrist, or Pragmatic, or Compromise - it's really none of these things.

It hasn't yielded the actual results that Progressive policies would have yielded. It hasn't inspired his base. It hasn't converted Republicans in any meaningful way.

Why such "smart people" would continue to wield such nonsensical policies for so long and expect them to yield better results is beyond me. It's as if they don't know what team they are playing for, trying to appeal to a bunch of folks that will never enthusiastically embrace them, their policies, their legacy, or even talk sense.

I, for one, was not looking forward to any more triangulation or appeasement or what is called compromise but is actually just surrender before the negotiations even begin!

[myrna minx]

26. That was a very good essay. n/t

[WillyT]

29. And I'm Betting You Are...

One of the 22% that actually read the whole thing.

:hide::evilgrin::hide:

Which is a good thing.

But it is actually a great essay on the in-fighting here.

And a lesson to all, with the capacity to learn.

:shrug:

[JeffR]

51. I gave it a rec, and here I am kicking it.

Seems to me it's a worthwhile topic both within and without DU. I'm not so sure this piece is a lesson I'd take entirely at face value, but it's worthy of consideration by everyone, no matter where they come down on whichever side they come down.

[ncteechur]

33. Some of these bloggers are legends in their own minds. They believe they are much more valuable

to national discourse than they actually are. Actually being a professional left is just as bad or worse than merely being called one.

[WillyT]

35. You Didn't Read It... Did You ???

:shrug:

[babylonsister]

37. Why do you insist people who don't agree with you didn't read this?

I read it and still have problems with certain leftie bloggers. Am I allowed?

[Luminous Animal]

43. Maybe you read it but you seem to be unable to critique it beyond vague smears.

[WinkyDink]

64. Have at it. But THEY AREN'T WRITING THE ARTICLE ABOUT THEMSELVES.

[EFerrari]

38. Heaven help us if the left pushes back on the RW noise machine.

What's next, suffrage? Integration? The Pill?! :scared:

[madfloridian]

47. They are honest and sincere in their beliefs.

They should not be judged on whether they criticize the president or not.

[WinkyDink]

63. They are being written ABOUT, not writing about themselves. Jeez.

[krispos42]

34. Then I guess Obama had better appease the LW bloggers.

Investigate, indite, incarcerate. Stare with Rove and work upwards from there!

[alarimer]

39. The left has not turned on him; Obama has turned on us.

He made promises he never intended to keep. We (and bloggers) are not fucking cheerleaders. He works for US, not the other way around. We voted for him, he needs to do what we want him to do. Bloggers and others are justifiably outraged by his continuation of Bush policies, especially in regards to unlawful detention and the abuse of state security claims in court cases. And then there is the dropping of the public option (which I am guessing he never really supported in the first place), etc., etc.

On edit:

I was unnecessarily harsh to Mr. Daou. But he is still wrong in that the bloggers are not to blame here; they are putting pressure where it belongs: on the person who should be keeping his promises, not continuing Bush's policies. Where is the change in that?

[babylonsister]

44. 'continuing Bush's policies' He made promises... have you ever

acknowledged anything Obama has done as positive? Yea, he sucks so bad, and the only people he should have appeased are the liberal left bloggers.

Give me a break.

For so many reasons, you are so wrong. He's been working with the pile of shit he was left with. If you don't see any progress, you're beyond help.

[madfloridian]

40. I read all of it and the links Daou gave.

I see where he was going.

I do think it was not wise to name names of bloggers.

In fact I respect them more because they were mentioned.

My concern is where the rest of us are going in our attitude toward those who speak out.

I am nearly a pariah here now because I disagree very strongly with the Obama education policy.

That should not be happening.

Those 5 bloggers deserve our respect.

[WillyT]

45. I Whole-Heartedly Agree...

:hi:

[mmonk]

46. Spot on.

[EFerrari]

49. Those names were just the elephant in the room any way.

We all know their names and we read attacks on them now for saying the same things they said when Bush was in office. Might as well bring it out in the open.

[emilyg]

55. They have my respect.

[Luminous Animal]

53. Kick.

[BzaDem]

54. The problem with this theory is that it assumes Hamsher et al are actually relevant in the slightest

Every poll shows that liberal Democratic approval of Obama is in the mid to high eighties. And Democratic approval of Obama beats every president since JFK.

To put it another way, it assumes most liberal Democrats give a shit about what they have to say (anything they have to say).

Can the tiny group of Obama bashers swing an election here or there? Sure they can. Any tiny group can swing a close election. Any group of a few hundred people can swing elections that are separated by a few hundred votes. But that doesn't make them relevant. There are always a tiny percentage of Democratic bashers, no matter who the Preisdent is or what they do. They are impossible to please. The fact that Obama's Democratic approval beats every Democrat since JFK shows that Obama is doing a good job of it, not that he is a failure/lost cause/etc.

[Major Hogwash]

59. Can you imagine the egos of those people, blogging away from behind monitors, not knowing who reads

their stuff?

They remind me of the crazy man who used to live behind my house when I was a kid.
Every day he would come out of his house after he got home from work and he would walk around his back yard mumbling to himself, swearing under his breath, and kicking things laying in the back yard.
Nobody knew how nuts that guy was until after he died.

He had written dozens and dozens of hateful letters ranting away about this or that to the editor of the newspaper, but he never sent any of them to be published.
In nearly all of them, he spoke as if he was smarter than everyone else on the planet, and that if they would only take his advice, things would be better.

Peter has written his own fair amount of criticism of President Obama and he has dreams of being as popular and powerful as the others that he mentioned.
But, when you consider the fact that the average blog has 4 readers, you will realize that blogging is pretty much like that old crazy guy walking around in his back yard, swearing under his breath, mad about something, but not quite sure what to do about it.

Was that neighbor guy's behavior crazy?
A little bit.
Did he hurt anybody by doing that stuff?
Naw, he just was sort of viewed as an oddball by the rest of the kids on the block who knew about him. And we avoided him as a result.

So, if those other people want to blog, I say, let them.
Because they aren't really all that influential, and they don't really do that much harm, and they don't really affect the outcomes of elections.

They just think they do.

[WinkyDink]

62. Kind of like people here.

[PVnRT]

73. So, if they are, as you imply, useless scum nobodies

why, then, does the White House spend so much time attacking them? For that matter, why is someone who is obviously as important and influential as you are bothering to even think about it? Inquiring minds want to know.

[msanthrope]

60. This is a great post. Of course, it's not as if Daou is ever going to admit that much of the ire

simply comes from backing the wrong horse.

Aligning themselves with HRC didn't pay off in the manner they thought, and so, they are bitter, and still excluded from the circles they think they belong to.

[DireStrike]

56. Oh I thought he was being ironic

He's serious... lol.

[EFerrari]

57. The title is ironic but the essay isn't. nt

[BzaDem]

58. When an essay is so ridiculous that it is initially considered to be satire (or is at least confused

with satire), it is time for those who agree with this piece to re-examine their fundamental premises.

[EFerrari]

70. Who really considers the opinions of critics whose skill is limited

to school yard insults?

[WinkyDink]

61. Obama takes things too personally, in public. He NEVER, EVER should have singled out by name ANY

citizen with whom he disagreed, or with whom he was frustrated or even disgusted.

He should NEVER, EVER have continued the extra-legal adventurism of Bush, complete with the impeachable offense of acting against the 4th Amendment.

But Obama's 2012 Achilles' Heel will be his forgotten pledge on the Public Option for HC. This one act, above all, has made the citizenry reluctant to believe any more promises, slogans, etc.
As President, you don't get a do-over for something so major, so central to your campaign and election.

Ask "Read My Lips" Bush.

[NJmaverick]

66. Glenn Greenwald, John Aravosis, Digby, Marcy Wheeler and Jane Hamsher*.

This is the dumbest article I ever read in a long time. The biggest flaw is the ridiculous suggestion that these people put principle before party, as they all have amply demonstrated that none of them have a shred of principle.

[NJmaverick]

67. Glenn Greenwald, John Aravosis, Digby, Marcy Wheeler and Jane Hamsher*.

This is the dumbest article I ever read in a long time. The biggest flaw is the ridiculous suggestion that these people put principle before party, as they all have amply demonstrated that none of them have a shred of principle.

[PVnRT]

74. I guess "principle" means

supporting and agreeing with everything the Obama administration does. That's a "principle," right?

[demodonkey]

68. A handful of bloggers split the movement to dump electronic touchscreens for paper ballots...

An excellent federal bill that will protect every vote in the USA with a voter-marked and voter-verified paper ballot and provide a basic audit of federal elections (while leaving the door open for individual states to enact stronger laws) is just not good enough for these people... no, they have to have what THEY consider to be the perfect bill, or else NO change at all.

Every time I "vote" (maybe?) on the Direct Recording Electronic voting machines my county forces me to use, I think of these people and THANK THEM and their clueless followers for the fact that my vote and tens of millions of others in at least 17 states are all still at total risk -- with no paper ballot of any kind to back them up.

Fools.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

71. "...they place principle above party."

Like this is a bad thing? If only more people would do this we migt actual create a better country.

[Greyhound]

75. Over 40 unrecs, congratulations!

You've pissed off the "right" people!
:rofl:
:kick: & R

[WillyT]

77. Well... I Try To Do My Best...

;)

:evilgrin:

:rofl:

:bounce:

:hi:

[treestar]

81. So they are more powerful than the voters

Nothing disgusts me more than any media claim to control the voters or nonmedia persons claiming they "deliver" the votes.

No, we will not allow any set of bloggers to bring down anything. They can have their opinions all they want. We do not have to be "influenced" by them. Anyone in journalism for that purpose is an ass.

[WillyT]

82. DYRTA ???

Cause that's NOT what the article said... at all.

:shrug:

Sorry Sis.

[MzNov]

83. Marcy Wheeler? Who knew

I love to read her articles but, huh?

Fuck Peter Daou

[WillyT]

84. The Article Is Actually Supportive Of Marci

Just sayin...

:hi:

[MzNov]

85. oh, this darn dirt on my glasses

guess I should go back up and read the entire thing :rofl:

The title is kinda misleading for the article eh?

:hi: