With elected officials like Nader, Cornel West, Cenk and Greenwald, what hope is there?

[Bonobo]

Oh, wait...

They're NOT elected officials. Those are just commentators on the sidelines that are being attacked and taking so much fire from people who want to shift the focus of responsibility away from those that actually were elected to represent us...

Instead, our elected officials are the ones changing the constitution, hobbling habeus corpus, calling for indefinite detention of enemies of the state, propping up the war machine, cutting home heating assistance for the impoverished and feeding the Wall Street monster.

Also, they are not fixing infrastructure, returning jobs that went overseas or supporting the greatest movement that the US has seen in 100 years which is striving to return some badly-needed economic equality to the world just as they failed to support the pro-union movements last year.

[cthulu2016]

1. And somebody ought to fire Treasury Secretary Krugman. That guy sucks.

[Fumesucker]

2. They should kick his ass back to Trantor..

[cthulu2016]

4. I couldn't believe he spelled Hari Seldon wrong on his blog.

He later apologized.

[Bonobo]

3. Yeah that shill for Wall Street has to go! LOL. nt

[Tx4obama]

5. I hope the rest of your year 2012 turns out to be more positive :)

Just because someone (including Nader, Cornel West, Cenk Uygur,, and Glenn Greenwald) is not elected official - doesn't mean that they shouldn't be called out when they are wrong. Most folks can walk and chew gum at the same time

Happy New Year

[Bonobo]

6. I agree within reason.

But the bulk of the fire on a political website deserves to be aimed at elected officials and not people who are simply voicing their opinions IMO.

[tblue]

8. Please tell us who is exempt from being called out?

And also please tell us when those 3 have been wrong. If they have. And what would be their motivation, if you know.

No one is exempt from being called out. IMHO.

[Tx4obama]

10. Huh? I never said that any talking head was exempt.

Did you mean to reply to my comment or somebody else?

[99th_Monkey]

23. There's calling out, and there's calling out.

Holding elected officials accountable = my civic duty

Whining about other peoples OPINION of my elected officials actions = kind of a distracting waste of precious time and energy.

[Tx4obama]

24. And then there's calling out talking heads for 'their actions'

like when Cenk suggested last week that the Democrats in Iowa NOT caucus FOR Obama but vote 'uncommitted' instead.

That is just down right wrong, in my opinion

[99th_Monkey]

26. Funny how you fail to mention ...

as Cenk DOES in that commentary, that peeps voting "uncommitted" has
absolutely NO negative effect on Obama's re-election chances.

What it DOES do is send a message, that indefinite detention without trial,
on mere "suspicion" of US Citizens is UTTERLY UNACCEPTABLE.

[Tx4obama]

30. Wrong. It would have an affect....

it is divisive and the media would go wild reporting that the folks in Iowa were not supporting Obama.
Not everyone sits around on political websites and knows all the tiny details of each news story or issue
and folks all over America would see the non-support of Obama in Iowa as negative against Obama.

Cenk is wrong on this issue and he's currently on my shit-list

Ciao

[99th_Monkey]

35. How do YOU suggest that we Lefties make our voices heard in the WH?

Letters & Petitions? wait, we already tried that.

phone calls and emails? ditto.

peaceably assemble in public spaces for redress of grievances?
well, we're seeing how that has been answered by hyper-militarized
police brutality.

what's a Democratic Lefty to do?

[99th_Monkey]

42. * CrIcKeTs *

[chervilant]

66. Wow.

I am impressed!

(I have to wonder when all the other "can't say bad things about our Obama" DUers will show up to post patronizing or condescending responses to this OP...)

[progressoid]

45. +1

[MNBrewer]

48. +2

[AnotherMcIntosh]

55. + 3

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

73. Give the White House *MORE* liberals/progressives in the Halls of Congress!

Not these Blue Dogs, and certainly not DLCers. Sitting on our asses and allowing Teabagging Republicans to overtake Congress does no one any good, and it certainly is a setback for the Progressive Movement.

That's what we ought to do.

It's no longer about Barack Obama; it's about giving government the tools necessary to function properly. And as long as there are Teabagging Republicans who want to destroy government from within, again, it sets us back.

Elect more liberal Democrats to ALL levels of government: local, state, judgeships, and Congress!!

[FredStembottom]

43. I think it would continue the pressure on Obama....

... and his administration to keep addressing the serious needs of his constituents and drop the horrible waste of time that the tone-deaf fixation on bi-partisanship was.

Millions of Americans need help desperately. If this little symbolic act keeps the administration's very recent conversion to populism going, it's well worth it.

I want O to win - but I need that win to translate into the traditional Democratic values, stances and actions that will save my friends and family from going down the drain.

Just winning won't do for many millions of us.

[MNBrewer]

50. Assuming that you're correct and it is "divisive"

what's wrong with that? Know what else is divisive? Drone wars. Indefinite detention. Shredding the right of habeas corpus. Etc.

[rhett o rick]

62. It's a shame when Democrats want to stifle dissent. Besides I am not sure what you are

worried about. Someone in DU is always posting how the left is behind Pres Obama 85%.
I, for one, refuse to walk lock-step like a republican.

[AlbertCat]

75. the media would go wild reporting that the folks in Iowa were not supporting Obama.

Like they're not gonna do that anyway...

[99th_Monkey]

92. MSM reporters might even ask one or two of those real people

WHY they were voting "uncommitted". That I believe is the point of this.

That the nation knows the truth, about Obama's "Extreme Liberal Base"

[deutsey]

40. But we mustn't speak of Dear Leader this way!

[one_voice]

59. Are you posting from North Korea?

Dear Leader:



Are you still in mourning?

[deutsey]

89. No, but on DU I sometimes feel I am.

[SidDithers]

64. pffffftttt....

"Dear Leader"

It's interesting that insults from "the left" are the same as insults from "the right".

Sid

[deutsey]

90. It's more interesting when politicians campaign on the left

and govern on the right.

[girl gone mad]

28. That was Occupy Iowa's suggestion.

Cenk merely repeated and endorsed an idea that originated with Occupy Iowa.

Why not call out and attack Occupy Iowa?

[Tx4obama]

34. Because Cenk is the one supporting it and pushing the idea into the public spotlight

12/29/11
Cenk Uygur
Vote Against Obama in Iowa
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/vote-against-obama-in-iow_b_1174314.html

[99th_Monkey]

36. Let's be clear

So to be a "good Democrat" one must NEVER voice any kind of
dissent or hold Democratic office holders accountable?

did I get that right?

[Tx4obama]

72. I did NOT say any of what 'you' said. n/t

[girl gone mad]

37. Occupy Iowa supported it first and brought it into the public spotlight first.

Again, why don't you attack Occupy Iowa?

Or at the very least, be honest about your true motives.

[Tx4obama]

71. What exactly is it that you think my 'true motives' are? You lost me on that one. n/t

[webDude]

68. Thank you!

[piratefish08]

39. they are not called out for being wrong. they are called out for opposing the Presidents view. BIG

fucking difference.

[Fumesucker]

7. They are all criticising Obama from the left..

And that is not to be endured.

Criticism of Obama from the right is tolerated, welcomed even, that from the the left is hated with an intense passion.

[boppers]

18. Neo-libertarianism is the left?

When did *that* happen?

[girl gone mad]

29. I guess the new phase of attack..

is to attempt to smear liberals with the "libertarian" label.

Yawn.

[ThomThom]

47. when the right stopped being conservative and

started changing things in the economy
they are still conservative on things that should be changed like gay rights and drug wars

[Fantastic Anarchist]

56. Left Libertarians do exist.

[99th_Monkey]

27. Exactly

That's what kills me, literally, and our Constitution and Bill of Rights to boot..

is that the more the RW whines the more Obama gives them EVERYthing they want,
and then some, with precious few exceptions (<== duly noted)

But GAWD forbid a lefty Democrat should make a peep, while we watch our nation
being pillaged and our nation's people under siege by our newly militarized police force.

[ProSense]

9. Wow,

"Those are just commentators on the sidelines that are being attacked "

...what a unique concept: criticism of prominent pundits and commentators.

I must have missed the rule that only elected officials can be criticized.

[Bonobo]

11. An

"I must have missed the rule that only elected officials can be criticized."

...idiotic and tired posting style is easily copied and ridiculed.

By the way, did I claim there was a rule that said such a thing? I must have missed that part of my OP.

[ProSense]

13. And

"...idiotic and tired posting style is easily copied and ridiculed.'

...you envision this ending criticism of anyone or such posts?

[girl gone mad]

31. And

"...you envision this ending criticism of anyone or such posts? "

...you efforts seem half-assed or such gibberishy.

[Bluenorthwest]

69. Hmmmmmmm?

.you envision this ending criticism of anyone or such posts?

I see the community yawning at the redundant style. It is so dull. Just so insipid and dull.

[Number23]

85. That would be the only purpose this OP could serve. I think the gratuitous

personal attacks on you by folks you could win a debate with while in a coma is just the icing on the cake.

[ThomThom]

49. the sentence was "With elected officials like Nader, Cornel West, Cenk and Greenwald,"

those are not elected officials
we should call them all out but getting their position straight would help with credibility

[Ikonoklast]

12. And none of them will ever run for office, either.

Not that they are afraid that they might lose, they'd be even more afraid that THEY MIGHT WIN.


Then they'd have to actually accomplish something other than blowing smoke out of their holes, and see exactly just how difficult running things actually can be.


Not everyone can write a decent book, but anyone can be a critic.

[Luminous Animal]

14. Yeah. Thomas Paine was a total twit.

[Dewey Finn]

15. And where in all this was Thomas Paine being discussed?

Link much appreciated.

[Dewey Finn]

17. PS - If you're seriously comparing Uygur, Greenwald and West to Thomas Paine

then I start to doubt if you really appreciate Paine's stature in the nation's history.

As to Nader, I'd put him up there with Paine any day. I just hope the history books omit most of the details of his political career. His reputation doesn't deserve the embarrassment.

[joshcryer]

32. Well, in the information age, pundits *are* our "Thomas Paines." It's disgraceful, of course.

But what can you do? They drive the narrative completely.

[stevenleser]

79. Some of us drive a good narrative... I think.

[WillyT]

61. LOL !!! - DUzy !!!

[Arctic Dave]

16. The golden boy must not be held to account.

Only the people who point out the emperor wears no clothes.

Step in line or you too will be banished from the wunder kid's bubble.

[dionysus]

19. when getting flustered, toss out desperate insults...

[Arctic Dave]

20. Did you mean to post to me?

[dionysus]

22. yes. the gnashing is awesome. n/t

[Arctic Dave]

57. LOL. OK, if you say so.

[girl gone mad]

33. Ths post is the definition of projection.

[Ikonoklast]

21. Much easier to be a commentator from the sidelines complaining that they know more than the coach,

than it is to be on the field trying to win the game.


Those that can, do.

Those who never try, become political pundits.

Guess which one is the safer course of action, accountable to no one?

[TheKentuckian]

25. Politicians are only accountable to their funding, most of the votes are sewed up regardless

At least 40% will vote for their party and the other 20% votes on likability and against whoever seems to be winning.

[progressoid]

46. Uh, aren't we all commentators from the sidelines?

There are only a handful of us that are elected officials.

[treestar]

53. [phone]

And they are being "attacked?" They can't stand the heat as commentators, apparently. How could they stand the heat on elected officials?

[SidDithers]

65. Is Greenwald "the golden boy" right now? Or is it Cenk this week?...nt

Sid

[piratefish08]

38. i NEVER should have voted for Taiibi. NEVER!

[Cameron27]

41. lol

[nashville_brook]

44. ha!

oh how i wish i could vote for taiibi.

[99Forever]

51. But... But... But..

You are absolutely correct.

[treestar]

52. Just Commentators from the sidelines

Says it all. It's too easy to talk about things one has no responsibility for.

And the commentary is BS. Merely because someone gets themselves attention does not mean they are always right.

Our elected officials have not changed the constitution. It remains in effect.

Your last two paragraphs speak as if they can easily do things. This is over 500 people, and the states. There is no kindly monarch, and no evil monarch.

[stevenleser]

78. Exactly. Everything looks easy from the cheap seats. nt

[MjolnirTime]

54. they're just bigmouths who accomplish very little.

[Hawkowl]

76. As opposed to yourself

[MjolnirTime]

84. You know what I say is true. That's why it bothers you so.

[HangOnKids]

80. I'm Sure They Are Devastated By Your Opinion n/t

[a2liberal]

58. K&R (n/t)

[JoePhilly]

60. Leave them ALONE!!!!

You're lucky they even perform for you Bastard People!!!

[SidDithers]

63. You're right. There's absolutely no criticism of elected officials...

good point.

Sid

[slay]

67. Excellent post - K&R

our government is broken and yet some want to pretend it's still business as usual. Great post Bonobo.

[Bluenorthwest]

70. I note those that take issue with your OP offer no actual ideas, just snark and sarcasm

some directed rudely at you. This seems to define them of late, this constant nastiness. They make snark, post smilies of popcorn, and they are entertained with attacking people, rather than discussing ideas.
It is really sort of amazing that all the comments are content free and personally loaded snark.
I myself agree with you. The posters who come to snark and fart in a room of adults discussing things are doing so to interrupt discussion, not to facilitate discussion. They suck centrist eggs.

[killbotfactory]

74. I don't like people who earn their paychecks by criticizing the democrats

left or right.

The choice is democrat, republican, or protest vote/abstention. If enough people from the left start bemoaning the democrats over things real and imaginary, it depresses the vote and republicans win. It's stupid.

When your livelyhood depends on bashing democrats, you can justify all sorts of stupid shit.

[stevenleser]

77. Bingo! nt

[ihavenobias]

82. Better to earn a paycheck defending Dems even when they act like Republicans?

How can anyone equate, for example, the right wing saying that President Obama is a Muslim Marxist to the left saying financial reform didn't address the underlying issues that led to the financial collapse or that the NDAA support is unacceptable?

I don't get it, are we supposed to pretend that the financial reform DID address derivatives, etc.? That the NDAA is NOT outrageous? How is that any different than the Bush supporters that disgusted and enraged us for 8 years with their unwavering, uncritical support?

Substantive criticism from the left creates pressure that can lead to better policies - it also helps politically by making the president appear more moderate in the eyes of the MSM and fighting the (laughable) right wing claim that he's a radical leftist.

[killbotfactory]

83. A lot of criticism I see coming from leftwingers is not sustantive, that's the problem

A lot of it is hot air, lies, and ginned up outrage over minute details, while ignoring the big picture. All with the subtext that Obama is not worth supporting, and you are a naive fool if you do. That doesn't help anybody except the right wing, who depend on depressed voter turn outs to win elections.

[girl gone mad]

86. I think biases may cloud your judgment.

The criticisms from Taibbi, Greenwald, et. al. are substantive and accurate, and also do address the larger picture. Our economy and our democracy are in rough shape. Obama bailed out Wall Street criminals to the tune of trillions, directly jeopardizing our long term economic stability in the process, then applied his brand of economic libertarianism to Main Street. The weak must fend for themselves while powerful corporations and politically connected elites are repeatedly rescued from their own bad decisions. The police state has only become more entrenched. We are not in a good place. People like Greenwald are merely modern day Cassandras, trying to warn us away from the dangerous path we're being led down.

[killbotfactory]

88. They are op/eds not holy writ.

People can draw upon a lot of research and still be wrong and misinform people. You like them because they appeal to your sense of outrage about the political system.

Wall Street was bailed out because they have a death grip on our economy and could take down everyone with them. Obama simply does not have the power to end capitalism as we know it, and no amount of bellyaching about him will change that.

[ihavenobias]

87. I'm sure it depends on the issues and the specific arguments.

And obviously different people have different opinions. I think we can agree that attacks on President Obama's vacation time are a BS distraction, for example.

I have no interest in partisan bashing of the president but also I have no interest in partisan praise for the president either. I'm interested in the good AND the bad, but not false equivalency.

Healthcare reform is a good example. It's clearly not a socialist government takeover that will create death panels. However, it's also not 'historic' fundamental reform of the underlying system. I would go further to say it's highly unlikely that it paves the way for fundamental reform.

So, if I were looking for commentary on the healthcare reform back in 2010 I would have had no interest in people making it sound like a horror movie OR people claiming that it was an amazing, historic overhaul of the system. I would want to hear the good, the bad and the ugly:

The problem there of course is that you royally piss off the people who want either 100% criticism or 100% praise, even though logically speaking you'd expect the facts to result in some combination of pros and cons in many cases.

[RZM]

81. What's so bad about criticizing pundits?

These guys make a (probably very nice) living criticizing people. Who cares if they get it in return?

I don't feel the slightest bit of sympathy for any of them for being criticized. Greenwald's whining about what was written on DU was one of the most childish displays I've seen from a pundit in recent memory. And that's saying something.

[valerief]

91. Don't you know? The name of game is diversion. Mustn't actually hold the guilty accountable. nt

[Rex]

93. Good point, we don't expect them to lead.

And those that do, should know better.

[20score]

94. K&R!