Labels: American Extremists
posted by Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy at 12:01 AM
Another good one. Funny how many of the Democrats who despise Greenwald now were big fans when he was taking Bush to task for the policies they hated when it was Bush pushing them. The whole concept of being principled -- having the same set of moral beliefs that define what is right and wrong regardless of partisanship -- seems to elude them.I don't think Greenwald "hates" Obama. I do think that Greenwald hates a lot of what Obama does. Of course when Obama does something that's objectively good within Greenwald's frame of principled reference, he stands ready and willing to offer praise. Seems to me that the way for Obama to generate more praise from principled people is for Obama to do things that principled people find to be objectively good...though frankly at this point, at least for me, Obama is essentially on the whole beyond redemption. The man came to office with a once in a lifetime chance to effect fundamental change, and he blew it...because he didn't actually believe in it. (Great orator with some nice sounding rhetoric -- so long as you didn't really pay close attention -- in 2007 and 2008. But rhetoric is all it was. No principle behind it. Just marketing.)
I more or less agree with the above, but I do think Greenwald indulged in a little bit of showing how good Greenwald is for being willing to praise when praise is due.Glen's highest praise is always reserved for those who seek out objectivity, and for the most part, he definitely takes his own medicene. In this case, however, given Obama's history over the past 3 plus years and his consistency, it is highly likely that his "evolving" position on gay marriage is but a cynical move in an election cycle and an "objective" journalist would leave no stone unturned to explore and describe that scenario fully, which Greenwald did NOT do in his article of the other day.
For the average animal just trying to get along, it would be perfectly reasonable that Obama's position made him or her so happy as to relax cynicism for a moment and simply be happy about it. But Greenwald has explicitly stated on many an occasion that a "real" journalist does not have that luxury.
I agree with Glenn that having a POTUS make a statement in favor of marriage equality is a significant moment.I also agree that LGBT has been probably Obama's strongest area.However, I disagree with his assessment that Obama's handling of DADT was especially masterful and commendable. It's not clear to me why having his DOJ oppose the Log Cabin Republicans' attempt to overturn the law wasn't a retrograde move, albeit followed by his signing the DADT repeal that reached his desk.I also disagree with Glenn on calling Obama's handling of SSM "leadership." It is, again, I think a momentous occasion for a president to express support for marriage equality, but Obama's handling was laggardly, following the majority of Americans (and strong majority of his base) in expressing a view which he almost surely personally held since at least the 1990s when he answered a questionnaire affirming support for gay marriage, a position which he cowardly walked back. Worse, still, he reinforced his embrace of bigotry toward gay couples with glibly pandering religious justifications.Further, a leadership position would not be mired in the same states' rights position that Cheney took when he made (little regarded) history in 2004 with a similar stand. Both by being 8 years earlier and by swimming against the stream of his party, Cheney's position was at least as leaderly as Obama's. (Note: GG is quite forthcoming with comparisons between Obama's and Cheney's statements, I'm just making the point that "leadership" strikes me as somewhat generous for Obama's statement of "evolution," all things considered.)
Post a Comment
Create a Link
Enough (about me)
View my complete profile