home

The New "Left"

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Sat Aug 22, 2009 at 04:28:22 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

One of the interesting (and insane, imo) developments of the primary madness last year was how people like Paul Krugman became "bad progressives" due to their skepticism about Barack Obama's political style while others, like Andrew Sullivan and Joe Klein (and many others like them) became newly treasured voices of the "Progressive" blogosphere. It amused me but also angered me. The Sully love in particular, given his history of racism, sexism and McCarthyism. While Obama himself has made the disdain visited upon Krugman and those like him as ridiculous as it always should have been, via Digby, animai provides a classic debunking of the lionization of the Sullys and Kleins of the world:

This is the summer of Joe Klein, resurgent. He's been washed in the blood of the lamb and, like Andrew "fifth column" Sullivan wishes to be welcomed back into the liberal punditin' fold. Every time he says something mildly rational about the irrationality of our current Republican opposition--"nihilists" was good--he gets an approving link from someone in the blogosphere [MORE . . .]

. . . [T]he age old question "Joe Klein--weak, petty, and venial or weaker, pettier, and venali-er?" Well, oddly enough, I have a tale to tell on this score. It turns out that Athenae and I must be twins, separated at birth, because I had *exactly* this conversation with Joe Klein and asked him to name names just last week.

[Klein. . .] said that its true the fringe republicans were “crazy” but perhaps no crazier than the “crazy left” under Bush. I thought he meant the “truthers” so I said “name me one person in congress or the Senate who was as crazy on any topic as these Republican senators and Congressmen who sign on to the birther and deather stuff are now?” Evading this question he said “well, Glenn Greenwald is crazy—he's a civil liberties absolutist.” Now, me, I come from a long line of civil liberties absolutists so I said “I admire Glenn Greenwald's work immensley but it must be very embarrassing for you, of course, because he's been eating your lunch for years.” (!) I think this must be something of a sore point for him. He began shrieking “Glenn Greenwald is EVIL! EVILl! [. . .]

People around us were clamoring to know what the debate was about so I laid it out, chapter and verse: I explained the Klein was upset because he had been caught out shilling for the Republicans on National Security Matters and on the FISA court legislation in particular and that he was still upset because he'd been held up for ridicule for his absurd statement that there was no problem with the secret Bush programs although he didn't know anything about them. And that this extended to the actual retroactive FISA legislation, which he also said was fine but didn't know anything about. This seemed to inflame things somewhat. Can't see why. He began shrieking at me that he hadn't been wrong, he'd been misled by a “democratic staffer” but really, I just began laughing at that point because “I didn't read the legislation” like “the dog ate my homework” is rather a lame explanation for a grown man, let alone a self described journalist.

It goes on. Read it and remember Joe Klein is not the only one.

Speaking for me only

< Saturday Afternoon Open Thread: Before the Deluge | Sunday Morning Open Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    The New "Left" | 53 comments (53 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Thank you (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Jjc2008 on Sat Aug 22, 2009 at 05:02:14 PM EST
    for pointing me in the direction of this account of an encounter.  I love to read Glen Greenwald.  For me his one of the most trusted journalists of these times.  I despise Sullivan, always have.....his sexism and elitism alienate me.
    Never have had much respect for Klein.  

    It was a good read.  

    I agree, but..... (5.00 / 5) (#9)
    by NYShooter on Sat Aug 22, 2009 at 06:53:33 PM EST
    (It seems all I'm doing today is recalling posts I've written during the last two years predicting much of what we're witnessing today.)

    One of those posts, on Greenwald's Blog, before G.G. joined Salon, was titled, "Disgusting! Not the Republicans; You!" About three quarters of the way through the Primaries, it seemed as though G.G, usually so precise and factual, got caught up in the Hillary Hatred and said some things that were purely emotional, and so out-of-character, that I felt he had to be called on it. Naturally, I was buried in a deluge of "Troll!" accusations, and much, much worse.

    But, and it's a big "but," a few brave souls were moved to stand up and support me.
    Gratefully, Glenn (without really apologizing) ceased his assault on Clinton, and, so I'll assume he saw the error in his ways, and, I think, for the first time, began looking at Obama through a new prism.

    A great guy I once knew said to me, "a mistake, once corrected, is no longer a mistake."

    Other than that "mistake," I agree with everything you said about G.G.


    Parent

    I too was upset (5.00 / 5) (#11)
    by Jjc2008 on Sat Aug 22, 2009 at 07:17:22 PM EST
    with the seemingly automatic Hillary trashing that came from the left.  GG disappointed me in that too.   But he did not drone on and on.  

    I still think that too many on the left, even the smart ones like GG, too easily were spun on Hillary.  She's not perfect and I disagree with some things.   But women are always held to a higher standard in the political arena and get their husband's baggage more so than vice versa....at in my opinion.

    Parent

    Exactly, (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by NYShooter on Sat Aug 22, 2009 at 07:40:52 PM EST
    And that's why, when a good guy like G.G, shows he's human and succumbs to the passion of the roaring crowds, it's our job, from the sidelines, to gently nudge them back on track.

    And, you're right, while he didn't publicly denounce his "slip," he did cease and desist the ugliness. And that's plenty o.k. for me.

    Actually, and I speak about this on another post here, what bought this to mind tonight was how easily people get fooled (even very smart people.)  I'm referring, of course, to the irony of calling folks on the "other side," you know, the "nut jobs," for their "stupidity," and how they're fooled into voting against their own best interests.

    Maybe if we realize "stupidity" doesn't favor any political party, or social class, we can re-focus and start talking as human beings, and not judgmental snobs.


    Parent

    Boy, ain't that the truth (none / 0) (#14)
    by NYShooter on Sat Aug 22, 2009 at 07:49:00 PM EST
    Sometimes, after plodding through the mountains of archaic details Glen pours on us, I say to myself, "Jeez, I could've said that in 1/10th. the words."

    But then, that's why Greenwald is famous, and I'm not.

    Except, of course, to my 6 month old little Dobie, "Sasha," who's dancing around like a mad dervish, reminding me it's waaay past her supper time.


    Parent

    Oh man (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Tony on Sat Aug 22, 2009 at 05:09:14 PM EST
    The I.F. Stone lecture from Joe Klein in that anecdote is particularly rich, given who it is he is talking to.  I don't think I'm speaking out of school here, as Aimai has written before about who her grandfather was.

    That whole post is rich. (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Fabian on Sat Aug 22, 2009 at 06:37:34 PM EST
    I can't recount the Greenwald/Klein/FISA disaster myself, mostly because it's sooooo much easier to link to Greenwald's very detailed and thorough account.  Every time I try to give a short version of the story, I feel like I can't do it justice.  If anyone hasn't read it, please do!  I think it is currently the best story of blogger versus beltway journalist [eye roll] there is.

    The opening sentence:

    There is a lot of debate about what accounts for the decrepit state of our political press, but often overlooked is the sheer sloth and ignorance of journalists, who repeat what they are told without having any idea what they are talking about.

    Yeah, Klein's ego may well still be bruised by that almost two years later.

    Parent

    Media equals betrayal (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by Sweet Sue on Sat Aug 22, 2009 at 05:36:02 PM EST
    I was for the real Democrat from the get go but, then, that made me a bitter knitter.

    Well now you are the left of the left (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by MO Blue on Sat Aug 22, 2009 at 05:43:45 PM EST
    Not sure if that is better or worse than a bitter knitter.

    Parent
    What I can figure out (5.00 / 7) (#23)
    by Sweet Sue on Sun Aug 23, 2009 at 03:48:07 AM EST
    What I can't figure out is have I been wee weed up or trickled down?

    Parent
    it also made you (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by TeresaInPa on Sun Aug 23, 2009 at 09:13:34 AM EST
    racist, uneducated, dissapointed by men in your life and , oh did I say racist Jingoist and gun loving and religion clinging?

    Parent
    So was I that's (none / 0) (#38)
    by Socraticsilence on Sun Aug 23, 2009 at 10:20:46 AM EST
    why I voted for Obama.

    Parent
    Heh (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by cawaltz on Sun Aug 23, 2009 at 10:29:09 AM EST
    DOMA(which everyone who paid attention knew was coming after McClurkin), continuation of Bush policies(hints accorded when he voted yes on FISA), the idea that universal health care would mean making the poor choose between rent and health care (Harry and Louise ads as well).......yeah you did a heckuva job there voting for the "real" Democrat.

    Parent
    DOMA (none / 0) (#40)
    by Socraticsilence on Sun Aug 23, 2009 at 10:31:25 AM EST
    remind me again how Obama's responsible for a Clinton Adminstration lowpoint?

    Parent
    Nice try (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by cawaltz on Sun Aug 23, 2009 at 11:41:02 AM EST
    Clinton had an adverserial Congress and public opinion when he sought to expand the rights to gays, lesbians and transgenders. Even friggin' Reba McEntire seems to believe that gays should have equality at this point so what's Obama's excuse?

    Oh that's right Reagan wouldn't apporve. It's a pretty sad narrative when you are to the RIGHT of Cheney on gay marriage when you are the LEADER of the Left's coalition.

    Parent

    Especially (none / 0) (#41)
    by Socraticsilence on Sun Aug 23, 2009 at 10:32:27 AM EST
    given the revised brief which makes clear that the Admin doesn't support Bill Clinton's bill.

    Parent
    you mean the brief (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by The Last Whimzy on Sun Aug 23, 2009 at 10:48:00 AM EST
    where they talk about how they oppose it but consider themselves powerless to do anything about it??

    awesome.


    Parent

    It appears to be the admins (none / 0) (#44)
    by Socraticsilence on Sun Aug 23, 2009 at 10:59:02 AM EST
    postion that Separation of Powers dictates that the Executive branch cannot unilaterally decide which laws to obey and which not to obey- perhaps you disagree but given the results of the last 8 years surely you can see the wisdom in arguing deference on law. I would think the brief suggest that the admin has taken a position on DOMA much like its position of Marijuana- it will only enforce the act when smacked in the face with its violation.

    Parent
    But of course (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Aug 23, 2009 at 11:04:02 AM EST
    Obama doesn't have a problem with signing statements, now that he's in office.

    You should go over to AmericaBlog and read their writings debunking the notion that Obama's hands are tied regarding DOMA.

    Parent

    my understanding (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by The Last Whimzy on Sun Aug 23, 2009 at 11:15:59 AM EST
    is the public option is also out of their hands.

    i see a trend.


    Parent

    Je repete (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by cenobite on Sun Aug 23, 2009 at 11:16:11 AM EST
    I figured the DOMA vote was pretty much the same as the bill repealing Glass-Steagall (which is also widely and incorrectly blamed on Bill Clinton), and I was right.

    The bill was passed by Congress by a vote of 85-14 in the Senate[1] and a vote of 342-67 in the House of Representatives

    Surprise! A Republican bill passed by a Republican congress with an overwhelming veto-proof majority.

    Exactly what was Bill Clinton supposed to do about this again?


    Parent

    not support it (none / 0) (#49)
    by Dadler on Sun Aug 23, 2009 at 11:28:38 AM EST
    but he did support it, along with many other moronic dems (pelosi and bident among them).  that's what happened.  it's not like bubba was out there warning us how dangerous it was to repeal such things without effective new regulations.

    A monumental f-up by all in DC who supported it.

    Parent

    it would be wrong to pretend (none / 0) (#50)
    by The Last Whimzy on Sun Aug 23, 2009 at 11:35:06 AM EST
    Clinton was against Glass-Steagall, although I'm sure not all legislation is perfect from any one person's perspective.

    I can blame Bill for Glass-Steagall, but I can't blame Bill for the economic collapse we saw over the last few years.

    There's a simple way to put this.

    Clinton + Glass/Steagall = Robust economy.

    Bush + Glass/Steagall = Economic collapse.

    so there must be other variables.


    Parent

    I assume you were a Kucinich voter right? (none / 0) (#42)
    by Socraticsilence on Sun Aug 23, 2009 at 10:35:40 AM EST
    Otherwise you'll be hard pressed to argue that the voting record of your preferred canidate was clean whoever he or she may have been.

    Parent
    No politician's record is clean (5.00 / 4) (#52)
    by cawaltz on Sun Aug 23, 2009 at 11:50:20 AM EST
    which is why I find it particularly aggravating that Obama's supporters are so gosh darned surprised that he isn't "progressive." All it took to recognize him was paying attention during the primaries instead of assuming all the candidates were dittoheads.

    I mean geez when you run around saying Reagan was "transformational" and not adding the caveat that it was in a horrible way(or for that matter using Bush as your "transformational" person since Lord knows he can lay claim for destroying the policy of premption, the unitary executive, the fourth branch defense, the gutting of the Geneva convention, the recission of the 4th amendment and a whole host of other disasters) its pretty clear that you aren't interested in the left side of the spectrum.

    There were several million clus that health care reform was going to be bothersome under Obama as well. Harry and Louise ads. His statements that universal care would mean making poor people choose between rent and health care. The money he collected from the industry. The fact that half his economic team are a bunch of free/rigged marketers......take your pick.

    Parent

    Primary Colors wrapped up Joe (5.00 / 5) (#15)
    by oldpro on Sat Aug 22, 2009 at 08:04:44 PM EST
    Klein for me.

    As for Sully, I wouldn't read him if he were the only thing in print.  When he appears on my TV, I change the channel.  Let's all hope I never encounter him in person.  I don't have the restraint of Izzy's grandaughter.

    The book or the lie? (none / 0) (#26)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Aug 23, 2009 at 07:46:44 AM EST
    The way he carried on so long in trying to keep up the lie he wasn't the author was disgraceful.  But I read it before all that happened, and it's probably the best political novels I've ever read.  Pretty damn good portrait of BC, too, IMHO.

    Parent
    The lie. Didn't read the book. (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by oldpro on Sun Aug 23, 2009 at 08:52:37 AM EST
    Saw the movie and mostly liked it.

    Best related column I've seen...David Corn's Salon column re Klein called "The Liars Club," subtitled "Joe Klein is not only a disgrace to his profession, he may be nuts too."  Corn recounts a very revealing encounter he observed of the man who may be a talented writer but is a pathetic human being.

    Parent

    the "brain glazing" of the (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by cpinva on Sat Aug 22, 2009 at 08:27:59 PM EST
    journalist/punditocracy began well before bushII, think back to the early clinton years, even before the 92 election.

    any idiotic raving, spouted by anyone, about the clintons, was given front-page treatment by the press. only (very) rarely did any of these elites sully themselves by actually doing any investigation, to determine how much, if any of it, had even a grain of truth to support it.

    since this was how one got to be one of the highly compensated members of the village (and invites to all the finest soire's), we got fed tales of bj's in the oval office, not issues that might actually have an actual effect on our lives.

    why should it surprise anyone now, that this same mentality splashes headlines about (non-existent) euthenasia clauses, on the front pages of what newspapers are still left?

    Posts (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Aug 22, 2009 at 09:42:14 PM EST
    like these are what keeps me reading Talk Left.

    Just spent the evening tonight (5.00 / 7) (#18)
    by ap in avl on Sat Aug 22, 2009 at 09:56:04 PM EST
    with a good friend who used to love Krugman.....

    that is, until he dared to challenge Obama's positions.  Then, his ideas became suddenly questionable and "ill-founded".  During this period of our friendship, I would just order another Grey Goose martini.....because that seemed the proper thing to do for our friendship......

    Tonight, she was the one who ordered the extra drink.

    She's beginning to have doubts about the one.

    I'll drink to that.

    Krugman before Obama (5.00 / 7) (#24)
    by Fabian on Sun Aug 23, 2009 at 07:09:31 AM EST
    was hailed as our one progressive and well reasoned voice in the media.

    Krugman after Obama (2008-present) is hailed as an intelligent progressive voice when he supports Obama's (current) positions and counter productive at best when he criticizes Obama's policies.  

    If you are objective, you've realized that neither Krugman nor Obama has changed significantly.  The way they are perceived by some has changed.  That sums up personality versus policy to me.  Krugman is about policy.  Every time I hear a chorus of "Leave Obama aloooooone!", I know I'm listening to people who aren't interested in policy.  Policy oriented people chant "Keep the pressure ON!" because they want results.  

    Parent

    Hunh? (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by No Blood for Hubris on Sat Aug 22, 2009 at 09:57:59 PM EST
    Did he really say "civil liberties absolutist" like that's a bad thing?

    [collapses, senseless.]

    forget pundits (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by The Last Whimzy on Sun Aug 23, 2009 at 03:13:33 AM EST
    isn't joe biden a progressive champion now?

    yes (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by TeresaInPa on Sun Aug 23, 2009 at 09:17:21 AM EST
    and so is Rahm Emmauel... or at least he was before he was blamed for everything Obama is doing wrong.

    Parent
    i find the whole thing kind of bizarre (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by The Last Whimzy on Sun Aug 23, 2009 at 11:13:50 AM EST
    the pretzel people now have to wrap themselves into because they convinced themselves and/or rather staked their own credibility on convincing others that Obama wasn't just a politician, but a different kind of politician who would do things differently.

    Criticizing Obama is now an admission gullibleness.  Or lying.

    So the campaign activists are navigating tough terrain right now.  A lot of them are pretty sure, even, Obama has done nothing wrong at all.


    Parent

    Phoneys (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by mmc9431 on Sun Aug 23, 2009 at 08:01:23 AM EST
    If I were a card carrying member of the Obama cult, the fact that Sullivan or Klein were on his band wagon would scare the h#ll out of me.

    Both have demonstrated throughout their careers that they have no journalistic integrity. The first time the wind changes they'll be the first to jump ship.

    Well, there is a New Left... (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by masslib on Sun Aug 23, 2009 at 09:49:36 PM EST
    It's the one that turned a blind eye to sexism and wild accusations of racism.  It's the one that thinks a sustainable coalition can be forged between African Americans, Latinos and wealthy creative classers(the latter who seem to support corporate welfare as long as it is paired with some sort of meager social welfare).  It's a Left that seems to prefer Republican ideas like No Child Left Behind with a liberal funding twist, rather than traditional Democratic ideals of improved funding for public schools, community schooling and supporting teacher unions.  It's the Left that approves regressive taxation as long as it attached to some sort of sinful behavior. Honestly, Joe Klein fits in better with the New Left, than this traditional Democrat at least.

    When you join a personality cult... (none / 0) (#1)
    by andgarden on Sat Aug 22, 2009 at 04:48:05 PM EST


    so true (none / 0) (#8)
    by kmblue on Sat Aug 22, 2009 at 06:49:15 PM EST
    J.K. was so owned by Glenn.  I had to go back and read that saga over and over, it is so delicious.

    I have never seen anyone with aimai's balls (none / 0) (#20)
    by jerry on Sat Aug 22, 2009 at 11:35:53 PM EST
    Boy do I go to the wrong cocktail parties.  I've never seen anyone call anyone out in the manner that aimai claims to have called Joe Klein out.

    Or maybe this was some dream conversation of hers.

    Certainly would make for more interesting (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by oculus on Sat Aug 22, 2009 at 11:43:46 PM EST
    and challenging Sunday am talk shows, not that I ever watch them.

    Parent
    I'm not sure (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by Fabian on Sun Aug 23, 2009 at 07:19:51 AM EST
    it takes that much gonadal fortitude to call out Joe Klein, especially armed with that famous and very well documented episode.  (Thanks, Glenn!)

    I've suspected that Klein is exactly the kind of person that he was revealed to be.  The average beltway pundit apparently believes that what they wrote in the past should never be used against them, that every day, every post, every column should be judged in the moment and not compared to their accumulated writing.  

    Parent

    Naaah (none / 0) (#28)
    by daring grace on Sun Aug 23, 2009 at 08:35:37 AM EST
    Every bandwagon has, along with its strings and brass and woodwinds, its requisite wackadoodle section that gets all wee-wee'd up sometimes, coming in off tempo in a different key.

    You learn to either laugh at them or tune them out if you like the rest of the music.

    well I uh, uh , uh, um (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by TeresaInPa on Sun Aug 23, 2009 at 09:22:30 AM EST
    well the notion that we are somehow going to.....uh uh uh.... all we weed up!

    Such eloquence.

    Parent

    According Gibbs (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by itscookin on Sun Aug 23, 2009 at 12:05:45 PM EST
    as reported by NPR, "wee-weed up" refers to wetting the bed. So August is the month for congressional bed-wetting? The interchange between the White House press corps and Gibbs over the President's meaning was bizarre.

    Parent
    Laugh at Time magazine? (none / 0) (#35)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Aug 23, 2009 at 09:34:16 AM EST
    Is it the new MAD magazine now?

    Parent
    Unfortunately (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by daring grace on Sun Aug 23, 2009 at 10:10:42 AM EST
    my reply in response to mmc's comment didn't post below that comment but came out instead as independent and in response to BTD which gives it a different meaning.

    If I were a card carrying member of the Obama cult, the fact that Sullivan or Klein were on his band wagon would scare the h#ll out of me.

    As someone who's been accused of being a card carrying etc., I felt qualified to respond to that one.

    Parent

    I see said the blind girl :) (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Aug 23, 2009 at 10:15:25 AM EST


    Parent
    No ones card (none / 0) (#54)
    by mmc9431 on Sun Aug 23, 2009 at 12:07:36 PM EST
    Sadly, this 60's liberal has learned to not carry any anyone's card. I won't even sign up for the "preferred card" at the grocery store! I haven't seen more than a small handful of politicians that are people of their convictions.

    I vote Democratic because I don't agree with anything in the Republican platform.

    I had expectedthat the  Dem's (with total control) would at least be able to block the Republican agenda rather than advancingit,  as they are with this HCR.

    Parent

    Wow, that was mind boggling for me (none / 0) (#33)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Aug 23, 2009 at 09:29:20 AM EST
    It is one thing to read someone's words and begin to draw a picture of them in your head, but it is strange to find out they resemble that picture in my head in real life.  Not having back and forth discussions with people looking them in the eye?  How can he be a pundit on any issue if he is unwilling to listen to people or loses his mind so easily in public? He isn't even a good pundit on his own issues with so much stomping about and hollering EVIL EVIL, frig man...rein in that inner child.

    And about Sullivan (none / 0) (#34)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Aug 23, 2009 at 09:33:12 AM EST
    It pained me deeply to experience a man who thinks I'm a good for nothing leg spreading out of control sl*t be almost the only "pundit" saying anything about McChrystal.  If the crazy left is such a bunch of pacificists where were they a few months back?  All out shopping and having lunch?

    Joan Walsh should also be embarrassed (none / 0) (#55)
    by BernieO on Sun Aug 23, 2009 at 02:11:08 PM EST
    She called Chris Matthews her friend in a recent column. Anyone who thinks that Matthews is a friende of progressives is seriously deluded. He will turn on us as when the popular opinion about who is cool changes.

    The New "Left" | 53 comments (53 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment