The swiftboat like smear machine against Glenn Greenwald goes into high gear. Who's next?

[Better Believe It]

Greenwald is an Obama bashing, liberal hater. And as for The Nation, I got a few issues on a “try out” basis. I didn’t take all I was supposed to get. I called and cancelled. To me, it was mostly an Obama-bashing publication and seems to be dedicated to splitting the Democratic Party. Read far more that was favorable to the very extremist left wing than to the core party itself. There’s a whole lot of crazy stuff out there.

Comment by Rita Miller | September 15, 2011


Likewise “progressive” websites like Common Dreams, TruthOut, Reader Supported News. The latter is bombarding my emailbox once or twice with pleas for donations saying they need money badly. Maybe they have turned off Democrats like me who do NOT want to see a Republican sweep next year. Huffington’s Howard Fineman on Lawrence O’Donnell tonight is saying that the White House has a terrible relationship with Democrats in Congress.

Comment by grantinhouston | September 15, 2011

I think that many on the left are not really Democrats; that is, they have no real loyalty to the party as a party. It is more akin to a vehicle for them.

Comment by hockley | September 16, 2011


Glen Greenwald has long been a hyperbolic Lefty anarchist flame-thrower. His shtick is to attack power, no matter who has it. The fact that he got dressed down by on old DC hand like Lawrence O’Donell (twice) for his “if Obama were further Left he’d won 2010″ shows that for all his bluster – he’s mostly hot air.

Comment by Cappadonna | September 16, 2011

http://extremeliberal.wordpress.com/2011/09/15/anatomy-of-a-glenn-greenwald-smear-job/

Expect the political rhetoric and swiftboat like personal attacks against Greenwald and other progressives to increase in intensity as we get closer to the election. You could call it the Naderization of liberals. BBI

[Renew Deal]

1. The comments you posted don't look like swiftboating to me.

They look like reasonable opinions.

[grantcart]

95. That would be because its not.

[Bolo Boffin]

3. Next: Glenn Greenwald Trades Jokes About Obama Raping a Nun on Twitter.

Oh, shit, that actually happened.

http://chirpstory.com/li/3666

@AngryBlackLady @g_p_g @ggreenwald @emptywheel ABL, Obama could rape a nun live on NBC and you'd say we weren't seeing what we were seeing
DrDawg 1 day ago

@DrDawg @AngryBlackLady @g_p_g @emptywheel No - she'd say it was justified & noble- that he only did it to teach us about the evils of rape.
ggreenwald 1 day ago

[msanthrope]

10. Twitter and liquor don't mix. I keep telling people this....nt

[Spazito]

15. Whoa!

and

[ProSense]

16. That's some sick shit! n/t

[vaberella]

23. His defenders will ignore this deplorable action. He's a child. n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

42. So we've got one person here happy to endorse rape jokes about the President.

Who'll be number two?

[Odin2005]

45. How the fuck is that a rape joke???

Greenwald was saying that the apologists will explain away anything, even something horrible, like rape.

[Bolo Boffin]

48. Read it. DrDawg makes a hideous joke about Obama raping a nun on television...

Greenwald one-ups him on the punchline, and you just endorsed it.

[Ikonoklast]

54. Instead of saying, "That was in extremely poor taste, and I will not dignify that with an answer."

Greenwald expounds on it further.

[Bobbie Jo]

57. Like other varieties of "apologists"

who will explain away anything, even something horrible like hitting a woman because perhaps she "deserved it."


http://www.democraticunderground.com/100239661#post116

You mean like this?

[tabatha]

4. Btw, Swiftboating is an organized movement.

These are just people who are fed up with Greenwald. Is that not allowed?

[girl gone mad]

7. You assume we are ignorant.

These attacks are organized and they are coming from the usual suspects.

[tabatha]

12. Organized by who?

[msanthrope]

21. When you find out, can I submit an application for funding?

Seriously. My posts should not go to waste.

[tabatha]

36. Me? Find out? Most of the time I am too busy to even post much here anymore.

[Odin2005]

33. Yup.

[northoftheborder]

5. I don't agree with you at all about The Nation.

[tabatha]

9. He was quoting a comment by Rita Miller

Comment by Rita Miller | September 15, 2011

[msanthrope]

6. I think you demean what Kerry went through when you use that word so lightly.

Kerry was swiftboated.

Glenn? He gets called some names on the Internet and that's 'swiftboating?' What a thin-skinned response.

[Renew Deal]

11. I felt the same way

This is nothing like what happened to Kerry. That was terrible.

[Summer Hathaway]

14. ...

[MH1]

17. +1000

It's complete bullsh*t to call criticism of Greenwald "swiftboating". It really shows an ignorance of history.

[Dewey Finn]

62. I think it shows an ignorance

of that and a whole hell of a lot more besides.

[SidDithers]

61. Well said...nt

Sid

[fascisthunter]

88. the word "Swiftboating" has been used many times with different people

what a ridiculously simplistic spin. DO you have anything to say about the content besides a fucking word you just cheery-picked? Why so disingenuous? Can't you argue with what is being stated?

[RZM]

8. LOL. I love it. Random internet comments are a 'swiftboat smear machine' in 'high gear'

[FarLeftFist]

13. I'm confused. We're now smearing Lefty posters who are unhappy with Greenwald smearing the Left?!

[msanthrope]

18. Godamn it!!! Keep up!!!

(insert winking smilie, here)

[Capn Sunshine]

22. smear everyone, let God sort 'em out

you can't attack someone you don't agree with at DU without expecting to receive lots of negative comments. Greenwald is an over the top mouthpiece who thinks he can turn a buck off the outrage wing of the party. Someday, it will come out that there were a whole bunch of stealth faux progressives that were organized by a central command.
But not in time to save DU.

[Bobbie Jo]

26. This.

"Someday, it will come out that there were a whole bunch of stealth faux progressives that were organized by a central command."

Highly appropriate response to this particular OP.

[FarLeftFist]

31. Greenwald may be that person.

[FSogol]

34. Snicker.

[Renew Deal]

43. "over the top mouthpiece who thinks he can turn a buck off the outrage wing of the party."

There are several people like that out there. Norquists mouthpiece Jane Hamsher is the same thing. They have figured out that BS makes money and they have an unlimited supply.

[Kermitt Gribble]

94. So, people who call out

the Democratic Party for not being progressive enough are "a whole bunch of stealth faux progressives that were organized by a central command", and the people who cheer the Democratic Party for supporting positions that are not progressive are the true progressives??

Is that what you're implying?

[coalition_unwilling]

19. I have been simply amazed at the massive amounts of ink

being spilled on either side.

One thing that has struck me is that Greenwald's critics, rather than rebut the substance of his critique, have resorted to ad hominem criticisms of Greenwald himself.

I'm not sure exactly what accounts for this. Could it be that Greenwald's hat tip to Paul and rebuke of Obama cuts a little too close to home for some? I cannot answer. For myself, though, I can recognize the (partial) truth in Greenwald's writing but still find Obama overwhelmingly preferable to any of the Repukes, even Huntsman.

[boppers]

76. When Greenwald offers a logical argument, it can be critiqued.

Most of his work, however, seems to be trucking in opinion and poutrage, not fact.... the Paul episode kind of crystallizes it.

In short: "Unless Obama spends more time listening to racist anti-government perspectives, he's not a real progressive".... there's not a lot of substance to critique in that.

[coalition_unwilling]

78. This seems to be the central core of Greenwald's argument at issue:

"Whatever else one wants to say, it is indisputably true that Ron Paul is the only political figure with any sort of a national platform — certainly the only major presidential candidate in either party — who advocates policy views on issues that liberals and progressives have long flamboyantly claimed are both compelling and crucial. The converse is equally true: the candidate supported by liberals and progressives and for whom most will vote — Barack Obama — advocates views on these issues (indeed, has taken action on these issues) that liberals and progressives have long claimed to find repellent, even evil."

http://www.salon.com/2011/12/31/progressives_and_the_ron_paul_fallacies/

I think you and many other critics of Greenwald are (perhaps inadvertently) constructing a red herring about Greenwald's thesis, the easier to knock it over. Well, maybe you and others will reply that I'm examining Greenwald through rose-colored glasses. I hold no warrant for Paul. He is the consummate flim-flam artist, as DUer ProSense has been at pains to illustrate these past couple days. And behind Paul's flim-flammery lies not some calculating Nixonian Machiavellianism (as odious as that might be) but, rather, the beady-eyed glint of insanity.

Within that frame of clinical insanity that Paul and the rest of the Republican cohort save Huntsman and (arguably) Romney manifest, I can agree with Greenwald but still say, with no sense that I am selling out or turning my back on my principles, that I support Obama. Because I do not want those crazy fuckers in the Republican Party, Paul included, anywhere close to the White House.

Note on Romney: I am not expert enough in the intricacies of the DSM-IV to say whether Romney's sociopathy is enough to designate him as insane, hence my use of the term 'arguably.'

[sufrommich]

20. Oh no,people disagree with me on the internet!

I don't usually comment on the Greenwald posts here because he's basically a bomb thrower like Coulter and I take him just as seriously as I take her.He throws the controversial shit out there and probably gets the reaction he expects to get. I'm sure he's getting a kick out of the sturm und drang he causes on the internet, it pays the bills.

[Major Hogwash]

44. I never thought of him as being like her, but you may be right.

I have no idea why he bashes President Obama so much, but I think a lot of it has to do with his upbringing.

[MicaelS]

90. Can you elaborate?

What does his upbringing do with bashing the President?

[TheKentuckian]

24. Anyone ever who is deemed a heretic or an obstacle, they were ruling on friggin Bill Moyers

a few weeks ago.

It is like fundamentalist religious zealotry.

[blue neen]

25. Glen Greenwald is not running for President, so how could he be "Naderized?"

I thought that "naderizing" was basically siphoning votes from a viable candidate by a third party candidate.

[CakeGrrl]

27. Did he lose his job or something?

Otherwise, why the explosion of threads?

[Major Hogwash]

46. Because they just got the memo.

That was sent on Friday.
But, was held up by all of the holiday season traffic.

[Mojorabbit]

77. I am wondering myself. I have not been on much the past few days

and obviously I missed something because it looks like a full force attack.

[FSogol]

28. Sounds like commenter, hockley really gets it right.

"I think that many on the left are not really Democrats; that is, they have no real loyalty to the party as a party. It is more akin to a vehicle for them."

Comment by hockley | September 16, 2011

[Ikonoklast]

29. Whenever did the Libertarian Greenwald become a 'Progressive'?

I haven't seen one Progressive defend the Citizen's United movement as a victory for First Amendment rights, as Greenwald has done.

[Better Believe It]

30. So who's the next target? Michael Moore, Uygur, Maher, The Nation, The Progressive, the ACLU?

[blue neen]

41. Target of what?

?

[Dewey Finn]

63. So you're equating criticism with targeting?

How then do you characterize your long and illustrious history of posting excerpts of pieces from hither and yon that are critical of the President, prominent Democrats, and the party as a whole? Would you characterize that as targeting? If not, why not? I'm listening.

[Bobbie Jo]

70. Good question.

I suspect you won't get a response. I also suspect you already know the answer.

[Dewey Finn]

71. You might be right

on both counts.

[CakeGrrl]

73. +1000. When they "criticize" the President, it's all good.

When the most virulent blogosphere critics of the President are criticized for THEIR views, then OMIGOD!!!! It's a conspiracy against these invaluable Progressive voices!!!


(Never mind their former GOP/Libertarian-loving roots and recent associations. It's the here-and-now Obama bashing that makes them Progressive heroes.)

[Union Scribe]

91. Cenk is a perpetual target. nt

[Enrique]

35. "Greenwald’s smears of Sonia Sotomayor should have been a big red flag to everyone."

first comment reads:

Greenwald’s smears of Sonia Sotomayor should have been a big red flag to everyone. He created a strawman of her to attack, one that has proven 100% incorrect, one that *actual* legal analysts and people who worked with Sonia (called in by Maddow to rebut GG) made quick work of.

I didn't remember that, so I looked it up.

I found that this is what Greenwald wrote:

Greenwald’s smears of Sonia Sotomayor should have been a big red flag to everyone. He created a strawman of her to attack, one that has proven 100% incorrect, one that *actual* legal analysts and people who worked with Sonia (called in by Maddow to rebut GG) made quick work of.


http://www.salon.com/2009/05/26/sotomayor/singleton

"Obama’s choice of Sotomayor deserves praise"

(...)

But based on everything that is known now, this seems to be a superb pick for Obama.

(...)

It is very encouraging that Obama ignored the ugly, vindictive, and anonymous (right-wing) smear campaign.

(...)

Obama has also ignored the deeply dishonest right-wing attacks on Sotomayor,

(...)

Obama deserves substantial credit for this choice. There were choices available to him that would have been safer among the Respectable Intellectual Center (Diane Wood) and among the Right (Elena Kagan). At his best, Obama ignores and is even willing to act contrary to the standard establishment Washington voices and mentality that have corrupted our political culture for so long. His choice of Sotomayor is a prime example of his doing exactly that, and for that reason alone, ought to be commended.

[tabatha]

39. Thanks for looking that up.

I guess the original poster got the wrong end of the stick.

[Major Hogwash]

56. That's another good find.

Thanks.

[JackRiddler]

72. Wow!!! Thanks for establishing just how low some people will go to misrepresent Greenwald.

[Union Scribe]

92. Thank you.

A lot of these claims are being passed on and on at face value without any attempt by the critics to validate their claims.

[paulk]

37. what bothers me more than the attacks on Greenwald

is that the whole situation is being used as an excuse by Obama's core supporters to attack liberals and progressives.

which really says something about Obama's core support, IMHO.

[CakeGrrl]

38. Unlike the tone of your own post pre-judging "Obama's core support"

which it sounds like you are not a part of, correct?

[paulk]

50. no, I wouldn't put myself in that column

even though I voted for him, which, unless Obama's "core supporters" vote's count more than mine, puts me on the same level as a core supporter where it really counts - that is, the ballot box.

But I'm willing to criticize the man - even go so far as to say that he's been a major disappointment as President - which, in the eyes of many that I would describe as a core supporter, makes me and those like me the enemy.

It's a big bus...

[tabatha]

40. I have seen a lot of people attacking those who support Obama.

[paulk]

51. good for you.

if you see that sort of thing you should alert it...

[tabatha]

53. I do not alert on people expressing their opinion.

In fact, I rarely alert unless it is really egregious.

[paulk]

58. if the opinion is a personal attack

it's a violation of the community standards of this website.

it is my "opinion" that you should alert it, rather than making unfounded posts about people attacking Obama supporters

[tabatha]

66. I have recently made two comments about people attacking Obama posters.

One of them was alerted on by someone else and hidden.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=102270

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=102313

[paulk]

67. that's interesting

I happen to think the "opinion" expressed in the hidden post was pretty accurate. The poster in question is well known for quoting out of context to make an argument. To the point that I have that person on ignore. I don't think that's a personal attack - but I guess the jury thought differently. Or it could be that the poster whose post was deleted isn't very popular amongst a large contingent of DUers. Which is the great failing of the jury system - it gets way to personal. It's my opinion that the jury system is kind of a joke...

So I take back everything I said about alerting posts.

[Odin2005]

47. Yup. They are in Purge Mode, now.

I expected this as we got closer to the 2012 election, and it's only going to get worse and more hysterical from here on out.

[dionysus]

55. well, there's one thing that's hysterical, that's for sure...

[girl gone mad]

49. Exactly.

You can see where their priorities lie.

So much for blaming Rahm for this type of campaign. Clearly the fish rots from the head.

[paulk]

52. it's been that way since the 2008 primaries and caucuses

both online and in the real world.

and I have to agree with the fish bit, though I tend to think it Mr. Axlerod who is the fish. Maybe that's wishful thinking.

[Robb]

59. They never really loved him!!1!

Leave Glenn alone!










...He'll be fine.

P.S. - Fuck Nader.

[SidDithers]

60. Leave Greenwald alone!!!...

/Chris Crocker

Sid

[slay]

64. I know Cenk Uygur has been in the smear machine's headlights recently

just last week even - for DARING to suggest that people vote "uncommitted" in the Dem primary in Iowa to show they are unhappy with Obama ignoring progressive goals and ideas. And the people who are attacking Cenk and Glenn Grenwald - they could care less about our progressive goals and ideas as well - they only care about one thing and that's getting Obama re-elected no matter what the cost. And I think that cost is too high when progressives are once again (always) thrown under the bus to get a Dem in the white house. I've about had it with the Dems and their CONSTANT moving to the right! Obama (and the haters here on DU) take progressives for granted at their own peril.

[JackRiddler]

74. The irony is that this behavior does nothing to get Obama re-elected.

To anyone undecided, it looks like party-line PR repetition of the same talking points, over and over, aggressively, hunting heretics. It's alienating. It doesn't serve to persuade anyone, it is pure ego service.

[jefferson_dem]

83. So NOT voting for Obama (as Cenk recommends) is actually more productive in

getting him re-elected...than voting for him?

[JackRiddler]

85. Cenk has not recommended "not voting for Obama" in the general election and you know it.

Your use of this cudgel invalidates, and is a sample of what I'm talking about: monolithic, aggressive rhetoric that alienates all those outside the circle of the long-ago convinced. You may have your small self-reinforcing echo chamber here yet; it may make you feel like winners, but it will not be of help toward your imagined purpose.

Cenk, who is "just a pundit" and shouldn't be obsessing you still, has recommended a time-honored means for dissent within parties, that of the primary protest vote. If such a device actually moves Obama to distinguish himself more from his predecessor, it can only be to the good.

So yeah, being a loyal uncritical follower to any politician doesn't necessarily win elections.

[jefferson_dem]

99. Impressive flourish.

You make so many unfounded assumptions that it's tough to keep up.

First off, what I said is factually accurate. Cenk recommends NOT voting for Obama and expresses hope that "uncommitted" receives more "votes" than the president as he runs for the nomination. How anyone can say that divisive (by definition) tactic actually advances the President's electoral prospects fails the simple test of reason. In fact, stoking intra-party factioning such as Cenk (and others) recommends has never proven to advance the overarching goals of a party. Of course, Cenk already knew that.

I am not obsessed with Cenk. I merely think he's a loud-mouthed fool and may point that out from time to time.

Regarding your last point... Yeah, I'm a loyal (though not necessarily "uncritical&quot Democrat...here posting on a discussion board called "Democratic Underground." Imagine that.

[JackRiddler]

104. It may be your judgement that primaries always damage the winner...

but it is not true. Certainly on the presidential level, almost every new incumbent arrived through a competitive primary, proving at the least they must not have been "damaged" by it to the point where they could not win a general election. Even more opposite to your judgement on this is that the most recent presidential primary fight strengthened the eventual nominee's prospects in November, contrary to what pundits were bemoaning at the time, and again, contrary to this tired wisdom that internal dissent is always bad for a party. Please, try an empirical approach.

However, more fundamental here is that you have confused right and wrong with what you think is good or bad for "the President's electoral prospects." You seem unwilling to imagine any other acceptable standard for making decisions, and thus the president can do no wrong and no criticism can be accepted; in the end, all criticism of the administration is characterized as crypto-Republican.

[Union Scribe]

93. Yep.

I'll vote for Obama, but I frankly don't want anything to do with his "supporters" who act like that. I just hope they stay away from regular voters.

[CakeGrrl]

75. "The smear machine?" Who operates this ominous thing?

Oh, the drama. Or paranoia.

And by the way, if it's now too "costly" to re-elect President Obama, I'm gonna love to see how "costly" you think it is for the Progressive cause one or two years into a GOP term.

[slay]

106. Well since you asked...

The people from the old GD-P from DU2 are the ones I've seen doing it. Hey! I knew I recognized you from somewhere.

also - 2 years into a GOP term might inspire much of the country to turn progressive as a reaction to how bad the GOP would be. you know kind of like how enough people were sick of Bush that they voted for what they assumed to be a progressive president in Obama. if his betrayal of progressives costs him the election, that's his fault, not mine - or Cenk Uygur's or Glenn Greenwald's.

[joshcryer]

65. Juan Cole?

Oh, oops. You already did that.

[MisterP]

68. these criticisms come from their party-first worldview

"the only way to get X done is to vote Y, but it's okay if Y doesn't do X or even blocks it, because Y is better than Z"--great for Y members, but bad for getting X done: this happens with British Labour and Israel's Qadima, too. Also, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Ryan

[Dewey Finn]

69. So only a "party-first worldview" could conceivably account for any of the criticism?

There couldn't possibly be any other basis for it? Anyone voicing such criticism just has to be doing so because of a "party-first worldview"?

I freely admit I was educated in the Deep South, but even we were encouraged to accept nuance and ambiguity. Where were you educated?

[HappyMe]

79. Good grief!

'Swiftboating' .... 'who's next'...... 'Smear machine'


Overly dramatic much?

[jefferson_dem]

80. Calling out Greenwald for what he is = swiftboating?

In your world...

[JoePhilly]

84. Leave Glenn ALONE!!!!

You're lucky he even performs for you BASTARD PEOPLE!!!

[JackRiddler]

86. Sure. As if Greenwald gives a crap what gets written here.

[JoePhilly]

89. All Glenn cares about is "eyeballs".

His over the top rhetoric and hyperbole pulls "eyeballs" to his rants ... and that's really all that he cares about.

The right wing has a lock on the "Obama is a secret Muslim commie socialist" meme, so Glenn can't use that ... he might as well jump to the totally opposite pole, and claim that "Obama is a secret Republican who hates the poor" meme.

[JackRiddler]

96. Whole lot of projecting going on.

You seem to be more inside his head than he is!

My advice to you: Don't read it. You'll recover.

(Of course, the way you write about it suggests you're already not reading it.)

[JoePhilly]

97. I enjoy reading it ... he's becoming more and more screechy.

Did you read his rant that Obama is the reason that the GOP candidates are such a clown parade!!

It's hilarious!!!

http://www.alternet.org/teaparty/153587/glenn_greenwald:_the_real_reason_the_gop_primary_is_a_pathetic,_incompetent_clown_show

[jefferson_dem]

102. Oh my. I hadn't seen that one.

Are we absolutely sure Greenwald is a genuine "progressive" scribe (of course, he's affiliated with Cato and has regularly promoted Republicans), and not some sort of Breitbart plant, viciously punking his amen chorus?

[JoePhilly]

103. Isn't that awesome!!!

What I really loved in that particular GG article is towards the end, where he describes how ridiculous the right wing's argument that "Obama is a secret Muslim who is weak on terror" appears.

He's proving my argument that the media is pushing two totally opposite "Obama bad" memes ... and they don't care WHICH one an individual internalizes, just so long as they internalize the "Obama bad" part.

In reality, Obama is not the "secret Muslim" that the right wing claims, nor is he the "secret Republican" that GG (and some others) scream endlessly about.

[jefferson_dem]

100. Ha.

'xactly.

[Eddie Haskell]

81. The truth hurts

Attack the truth tellers

[Starry Messenger]

82. The Nation is far left extremist?

Oh. My.

[treestar]

87. OMG the poor thing!

People disagree with him! Alert the media!

[DeathToTheOil]

98. K'd & R'd

It was fucking nuts here last night. Sheesh!

[mzmolly]

101. This post makes it clear, that the term "swiftboating"

has lost all meaning.

Greenwald being criticized for saying stupid shit, is not akin to lying about a man's heroism in Vietnam.

[johnaries]

105. +1

[AtomicKitten]

107. +1

[just1voice]

108. David Swanson is currently being run over by the bus

Swanson had the conscience to oppose indefinite detention and write a very clear article about it which you so kindly posted. Thank you to both of you for at least caring about the most important issues of our era.

[Jeroen]

109. Jonathan Turley n/t

[A Simple Game]

110. I like the third one by hockley.

"I think that many on the left are not really Democrats; that is, they have no real loyalty to the party as a party. It is more akin to a vehicle for them."

Now there is some insight for you. Of course some on the left are not Democrats, I'm not, I'm unaffiliated.

But there are also many Democrats that are not on the left, many in these forums are center or even right leaning. I had a discussion today with one that was actually running down unions and liberals, all on a liberal web site.

As far as the left not riding in the Democrats vehicle, well, that vehicle quit making left hand turns a long time ago.

[bluestate10]

111. Greenwald is an unbalanced extremist, who keeps company with some rightist extremists. nt