• Tips gratefully accepted here. Thanks!:

  • Recent Comments

    William on “Pet Peeves”
    Propertius on “Pet Peeves”
    William on The Welcome Escape of a M…
    jmac on The Welcome Escape of a M…
    William on The Welcome Escape of a M…
    William on The Welcome Escape of a M…
    William on “Pet Peeves”
    Propertius on “Pet Peeves”
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on “Pet Peeves”
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on Upon a painted ocean
    Propertius on A Very Good Day
    Propertius on “Pet Peeves”
    alibe50 on Upon a painted ocean
    alibe50 on And we’re off
    riverdaughter on Upon a painted ocean
  • Categories

  • Tags

    abortion Add new tag Afghanistan Al Franken Anglachel Atrios bankers Barack Obama Bernie Sanders big pharma Bill Clinton cocktails Conflucians Say Dailykos Democratic Party Democrats Digby DNC Donald Trump Donna Brazile Economy Elizabeth Warren feminism Florida Fox News General Glenn Beck Glenn Greenwald Goldman Sachs health care Health Care Reform Hillary Clinton Howard Dean John Edwards John McCain Jon Corzine Karl Rove Matt Taibbi Media medicare Michelle Obama Michigan misogyny Mitt Romney Morning Edition Morning News Links Nancy Pelosi New Jersey news NO WE WON'T Obama Obamacare OccupyWallStreet occupy wall street Open thread Paul Krugman Politics Presidential Election 2008 PUMA racism Republicans research Sarah Palin sexism Single Payer snark Social Security Supreme Court Terry Gross Texas Tim Geithner unemployment Wall Street WikiLeaks women
  • Archives

  • History

    October 2009
    S M T W T F S
  • RSS Paul Krugman: Conscience of a Liberal

    • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
  • The Confluence

    The Confluence

  • RSS Suburban Guerrilla

  • RSS Ian Welsh

    • How Peace In Ukraine Has Been Made Almost Impossible
      To make peace either one side has to be unable to fight any more, or both sides must want to make peace. One problem in Ukraine is that both sides (and I don’t mean Ukraine and Russia, but Ukraine/NATO v. Russia) have put themselves into a trap where the leaders of various countries can’t afford to lose the war, because they will lose power. Support for Ukra […]
  • Top Posts



The sticker from College Politico says it all. This is another WTF? Friday open thread.


Since Glenn Greenwald was kind enough to pay us a visit yesterday (and disagree somewhat) I’ll link to him again:

Remember how, during the Bush years, the GOP would disgustingly try to equate liberals with Terrorists by pointing out that they happened to have the same view on a particular matter (The Left opposes the war in Iraq, just like Al Qaeda and Hezbollah do! or bin Laden’s criticisms of Bush sound just like Michael Moore’s! ). It looks like the Democratic Party has learned and adopted that tactic perfectly (“‘The Republican Party has thrown in its lot with the terrorists – the Taliban and Hamas this morning – in criticizing the President for receiving the Nobel Peace prize,’ DNC communications director Brad Woodhouse told POLITICO”; Republicans are “put[ting] politics above patriotism,” he added).

Apparently, according to the DNC, if you criticize this Prize, then you’re an unpatriotic America-hater — just like the Terrorists, because they’re also criticizing the award. Karl Rove should be proud. Maybe the DNC should also send out Joe Lieberman’s 2005 warning that “in matters of war we undermine Presidential credibility at our nation’s peril.” Hamas also thinks that Israeli settlements should be frozen — a position Obama shares. So, by the DNC’s Rovian reasoning, doesn’t this mean that Obama “has thrown in his lot with the terrorists”?

I guess Lech Walesa is “with the terrorists” too:

“Who, Obama? So fast? Too fast — he hasn’t had the time to do anything yet.”

And BTD at TalkLeft, Lambert and the gang at at Corrente, Violet Socks at Reclusive Leftist . . . you get the picture.

As our regular commenter “Seriously” said in the last thread:

They don’t get Republicans and Democrats are different. They can’t just grab their playbook and expect it to work for them.

Since Obama didn’t ask for the award, the smart thing for him to do (besides turn it down) is act very humble and admit he’s not worthy of it, but promise to try his best to earn it. Attacking his opponents for disagreeing with the award (even by proxy) gains him nothing and could very well backfire.

digg!!! tweet!!! share!!! LOL!!!

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to FurlAdd to Newsvine

Add to: Facebook | Digg | Del.icio.us | Stumbleupon | Reddit | Blinklist | Twitter | Technorati | Furl | Newsvine

195 Responses

  1. Glenn Greenwald really nails why Obama DOES NOT DESERVE the award.

  2. This is one of the strangest (ridiculous) things ever. I disagree firmly with MANY things Carter did, but he won the award for something concrete. Obama was nominated some few days after he became president and won the prize while overseeing two wars, keeping Guantanamo open and basically going around the world saying nice things in a soft voice. How the heck is that a qualification? The Nobel committee has inestimable depreciated the value of the prize itself with this move

    • If Obama had made a major effort in arms reduction or the I/P conflict but failed, I could still see giving him the award.

      But so far he’s done nothing but talk.

      Without a major accomplishment he shouldn’t have even been on the ballot this early in his term. ( he was nominated less the 2 weeks after taking office)

    • Did you see Carter’s statement?

      “This is a bold statement.”

      It’s bold alright. Boldly ridiculous.

    • Actually, that already happened, didn’t it? Didn’t Henry Kissinger receive the Nobel Peace Prize? There is a precedent for giving it to war criminals.

      • Yeah, but wasn’t he given it for a specific peace accord? They don’t have even a slim pretext here beyond the traditional let’s give him credit for existing.

      • yes, if you look at my thread you see the story

  3. Jeez, I wish I could write half as good as Glenzilla:

    UPDATE II: Numerous commenters are angrily chiding me for failing to cheer for Obama’s award and, worse, for failing to refrain from criticizing him on this most special day. Those who are saying that sound exactly — and I mean exactly — like Chris Matthews, on April 9, 2003, when he scolded Democrats for criticizing George Bush and the Iraq War on the glorious day when the Saddam statute was pulled down:

    Why don’t the damn Democrats give the president his day? He won today. He did well today.

    Apparently — just like Chris Matthews taught Democrats back then and some Obama supporters are insisting today — Presidents are entitled to certain Special Days where citizens are obligated to cheer for the leader and refrain from expressing criticisms. And it’s excessively negative to point out the glaring inconsistency between (a) escaltating a war, killing civilians with air raids and imprisoning people with no charges and (b) receiving the Nobel Peace Prize. And anyone who disagrees that Obama deserves the Prize is a Far Leftist purist on the same side as the Terrorists and other America-haters. Today is one of those days when 2003 doesn’t seem to be too far in the past.

    I don’t always agree with GG but he always brings his “A” game.

  4. Well peace laureate Obama when accepting the award did say he knows he didn’t earn it, yarda yarda…
    It’s the DNC who says either you’re with us or you’re against us. So peace laureate Obama is above the fray once again, (aka he’s got plausible deniability.)

  5. This prize may do what I feared we could never accomplish. It may make him a laughing stock to the more general public. That would be a good thing, if you oppose him.

    • Coming just days after the CNN/SNL fact-checking kerfluffle it highlights the “done nothing” meme.

      • For the sheer lunacy of it, this prize ranks up there with the Wilbur Mills/Fanny Fox dip in the DC fountain as joke material.

        • That was about the time I started watching the Tonight Show (the monologue anyway, I had school the next morning back then.)

        • Yep! It’s like he stuck his finger in a Cracker Jack’s box and got a ring! I thought it was April Fool’s Day. Now my son totally understands how I felt when I lost my vote and everything was just “awarded” to Obama. At the time he could have cared less because he was into Obama. With this award, not so much! He actually wrote about it online, which is a big deal for him. Politics is just starting to interest him. He was blown away that Obama was in office for such a short period of time and was nominated and actually won! It took him back to that stupid Superman picture where Obama is standing in front of the statue. I guess we can all hope that he could actually “earn” it some day, but I’m not holding my breath!

    • I have wondered that too, if this could be the first Nobel Prize to actually result in decreased stature for the recipient.

  6. So when is the peace laureate bringing all our troops home? As Helen Thomas might say, I want his conscience to bother him.

  7. I hear the award ceremony will be sometime in December. Maybe they’ll do it on the 25th to coincide with his birthday, and move the ceremony to his birthplace, Bethlehem. We will all come to truly understand what “peace on Earth” means. It means a million bucks as a Christmas present and all he had to do was read (not write) some speeches.

  8. Remember Sarkozy fuming at Obama following the UN meeting? Please don’t say that Obama knew nothing about the Peace Prize:

    Unknown to the world, Obama had in his pocket explosive revelations about an illegal uranium enrichment facility that the Iranians had been hiding near Qom. The French and the British were urging him to use this most dramatic of settings to stun the world with the revelation and to call for immediate action.

    Obama refused. Not only did he say nothing about it, but, reports Le Monde, Sarkozy was forced to scrap the Qom section of his speech. Obama held the news until a day later — in Pittsburgh. I’ve got nothing against Pittsburgh (site of the G-20 summit), but a stacked-with-world-leaders Security Council chamber, it is not.

    Why forgo the opportunity? Because Obama wanted the Security Council meeting to be about his own dream of a nuclear-free world. The president, reports The New York Times citing “White House officials,” did not want to “dilute” his disarmament resolution “by diverting to Iran.”

    Diversion? It’s the most serious security issue in the world. A diversion from what? From a worthless U.N. disarmament resolution?

    Yes. And from Obama’s star turn as planetary visionary: “The administration told the French,” reports The Wall Street Journal, “that it didn’t want to ‘spoil the image of success’ for Mr. Obama’s debut at the U.N.”


    • Yup.

      I think he knew he was nominated.

      I think his “image of success” was what he was all about at the UN, and why he pushed Brown & Sarkozy aside when they wanted to confront Iran at the UN instead of the G-20.

      I suspect that privately, Brown and Sarkozy know it now, too.

  9. The firewall is open briefly so I can sneak in a comment.

    I want to get the committee in a room and ask them what the f^&* they were thinking because I find it unfathomable. All I can think of is the condescending attitude of some of my European colleagues who are convinced, wholly without evidence, that all Americans are still deeply conflicted on the race issue and that those of us who want to hold Obama accountable are resisting him because we are latent racists. Every time I see that smirk on their faces I am instantly infuriated.
    When I listened to The Clinton Tapes, there is quite a lot of coverage of Bosnia. It turned out that the French were very reluctant to get involved because they didn’t want a Muslim state in the EU. It violated Europe’s image of itself. So, verily I say to the Norwegians that when they decide to elect a Muslim to head one of their nations, no questions asked about whether he qualifies (and it will naturally have to be a he), or has experience but runs a mighty fine advertising campaign based on the unity of the religious cultures in Europe AND agree that this man must not be held accountable for anything he has or hasn’t done simply because he is “historic”, then we’ll accept this Nobel as legitimate.
    Until then, it’s a joke and cheapens the prize for all of the more worthy recipients past and future.

    • The French are still pissed that Napoleon lost and they aren’t running everything.

    • I saw a comment over at lj that said “most of us in Norway are puzzled too.”
      It must be either serious koolaid-glugging by the committee or a campaign to get it.

      • The only two reasons that even kind of make sense for giving Obama the award are “he’s the first black POTUS” and “he’s not Bush.”

        But the first reason justifies an award to the people who elected him (and the many people in the past who cleared the way) and the second reason is bogus – he IS Bush.

        But according to the committee, he won based on what they HOPE he will do to CHANGE the world, not what he’s accomplished.

        • “he won based on what they HOPE he will do to CHANGE the world, not what he’s accomplished.

          Just like the general election. Too bad the committee has not been paying attention.

      • Pips has been saying for the past year that the Scandinavian press was incredibly full of kool-aid, and still hadn’t stopped.

    • In a funny way, I kind of think the committee is the one being racist. In that they’re patronizing Obama and patting him on the head and saying we want to motivate you to do a good job. Like he needs to be motivated by them or something.

      • I agree. It’s like an affirmative action award.

        • Yup. Like a T-ball trophy given to the boy who needed the most encouragement.

          Very patronizing.

          Not that Obama will get that , at all.

        • I heard someone on my local talk radio say it was a ‘leave no president behind’ award. It is really sad that the people that have dedicated their lives to peace and were rightfully nominated to the prize have been denied.

    • Yeah. I see that alot. There is no country more multicultural in the world than the US. It’s at the heart of the nation’s character. America has not been and is not today without significant internal faults or conflicts, but we try, and we keeps on trying. But nations in Europe or Asia so often point to racism in the US as the distinguishing feature in its domestic society. Therefore, everyone who did not vote Obama must be a latent racist. Meanwhile, there is harsh subjugation of minorities in those very nations who are quick to judge: the Koreans in Japan, the Tibetans in China, the Chinese in Indonesia, the Algerians in France, the Pakistanis in Britain, the Turks in Germany, on and on. Somehow, pointing the finger at the US makes them feel better about themselves. I don’t know. I find it hypocritical. And in a land like Norway with virtually no minorities, no deep experience actually living and resolving racial or ethnic tensions, who are they really to judge the social politics of large nations. Why should we care.

      • Most of us “racists” here in the US inherited our racial views from our ancestors – in Europe.

        The Dutch, Portuguese and Spanish brought the Africans here as slaves. By the time we were a “seafaring” nation the slave trade was about two centuries old. Most of the slaves brought to the US came from Jamaica and other European colonies.

        We didn’t get “imperial” ambitions until the end of the 19th Century, and mostly we just took control of former European colonies. Europe left their slaves back in the colonies and just shipped the cotton, tea and other plunder back home.

        (Don’t forget, slavery started in the US when it was a colony and was well established before we gained independence.)

        • BTW – Latin America banned slavery centuries before we did, but the “Indios” and “Mestizos” were feudal surfs, which is a distinction without a difference.

          (They went with the land, and could not be sold separately)

  10. To put this in perspective, Gandhi never won the peace prize.

  11. This is going to backfire hugely. It takes away the moral high ground. How are you going to complain about hyperbole with “death panels” etc when you’re running around calling everyone Nazis and terrorists? They’re going to singlehandedly resurrect the Republican brand. I predict teabots will soon be wearing shirts with “terrorist” on them, and they won’t be alone. Progressives run scared, average Americans are not going to start supporting Obama to prove they’re not in tge Taliban, for god’s sake. Lol

    • Unless Obama tries really hard to earn the award it will be a joke.

      • He’s going to use it as justification for doing whatever he damn well pleases. War is peace and PR is priceless. Now Failbots can say he must be doing the right thing, his commitment to peace is on record. He doesn’t want to do it but there is no alternative.

      • Try to earn an award he’s already won? That’s the irony.

        What a farce!

        • Obama won’t make a big deal out of the award or want to mention it ever again because it will be used by the Left to demand accountability and that’s the last thing he wants to happen right now. Most of us here knows that Obama isn’t going to try and “earn” the award now that he has it. He decided to “earn” the presidency through disenfranchisement and accepting millions of Wall Street and big business. He has done nothing to actually earn the office and title of president through actions rather than words or dirty money. The Nobel committee will regret their decision.

      • He’s too lazy. Where in his history has he stood up for, really put it all on the line, for any knid of injustice?

        • Obama’s Muslim advisor is now saying Sharia Law is just “misunderstood.”

          Paving the way for abandoning the women in Afghanistan, anyone?

  12. Let me put it this way and I’ll shut up:
    If Hillary Clinton had been elected POTUS, can anyone imagine she would be the recipient of the Nobel Prize after less than a year on the job?

    Me neither.

    He must have some pretty powerful mojo or a damned good PR manager to get this. Never has someone so unworthy gotten so much for so little. And Hillary will be carrying his books and doing his homework for 3 more years without any reward at all.

    • “Never before has so much been given by so many to someone who has done so little.”

      • Never (5.00 / 3) (#37)
        by sas on Fri Oct 09, 2009 at 11:01:18 AM EST

        before has so much been given to one who has done so little.
        Story of the guy’s life……….

        [ Reply to This | 1 2 3 4 5 ]

        This seems to be the song of the day 🙂

    • Hear ,hear.

      If I may use a distasteful metaphor:
      The world is having the ultimate rebound relationship with the POTUS. After the abusive relationship with the last POTUS – the world is in love. The Nobel Peace Prize is just a symptom of this bad love.

    • Hillary is contaminated. If she and that snake had more self control in the face of Red Deliciousness, we’d still be living the good life. Don’t try to defend her and her evil ways.

    • It would have been a lot more appropriate if Bill Clinton had won.

  13. Peter Beinart:

    The Nobel Prize Committee should be in the business of conferring celebrity on unknown human-rights and peace activists toiling in the most god-forsaken parts of the world; the people who really need the attention (and even the money). It should be in the business of angering powerful tyrants by giving their victims a moment in the sun. Choosing Barack Obama, who practically orbits the sun already, accomplishes the exact opposite of that. Let’s hope Obama eventually deserves this award. And let’s hope the Nobel Committee’s decision meets with such a deafening chorus of chortles and jeers that it never does something this stupid again.

    (h/t Violet)

    • oooh, that’s good!

    • Question to the DNC: Is Peter Beinart a terrorist?

    • What angers me the most is not that Obama and his minions used money and PR to win the award – we know that money and power can buy almost anything in our society. It’s that so, so many other people – some of whom were nominated for this year’s Nobel Peace Price – deserve recognition for spending their lives and putting their lives on the line to improve the lives of others in developing nations. Obama buying the election or getting a deal on his million dollar house is one thing. But how his minions take away this prize from the invisible heroes who go largely unnoticed while toiling away in dangerous lands to actually bring change to the world. It’s outrageous. The Nobel committee and the douche who nominated Obama should be ashamed of themselves.

    • Perfect!

  14. Who NOMINATED Obama is what I want to know?

  15. It makes me so angry that the guy who is operating all the rape victims in west Africa didn’t get the prize. He could have really done with the money.

  16. After being in stunned disarray all day, Obots are back on message with “It’s not his fault he’s so useless, there are people in the US who disagree with, oppose, and dislike him! Until we achieve unanimity, our hands are tied! You’re killing Tinkerbelle and preventing tge Pentagon from levitating, HATERS!” At least they’re consistent.

  17. What is strange – the nominations are usually done in February (weeks after Obama taking office). And every year, people usually know who the nominees, favorites are – we knew about Gore many months ahead. Same with Carter. The secrecy of this year makes me suspect there was a campaign by Obama – in spite of the feigned surprise. He must’ve also known the timing – and that’s why he postponrd acting on both Afghanistan and Iran.

  18. Has the international community become drunk on koolaid as well?!!?

    Someone at another blog was mentioning that Obama is getting nominated for “not being George Bush”


    He is continuing ALL of Bush’s policies (including an increase in covert operations & suppression of whistle-blower rights)

    Hell!, he IS George Bush (wearing an Obama costume)

    Unfortunately he will be wearing the costume for 4 years & not just for Halloween :-/


    Ack, why do I feel that the world is just like high school??

    It is all a F**cking popularity contest!

    (Madrigal shakes fists at the sky, mumbles to self, & wanders off in a huff…..)

    • Sadly, the older you get the more you realize that the world is exactly like high school, and most people never actually mature into real adulthood.

  19. Did we ever find out who nominated Obama?

  20. Via Cinie:

  21. Think they will now award the Heisman Trophy to Stephen Hawking?

    Those nutters who’ve been saying that Obama is the Anti-Christ may have a point.

    • What would really be great is if one of the European countries that thinks Obama is so great would just make him THEIR president. Then maybe we could get a real POTUS insead of this fake one.

      • They think he’s great for us because they hate us. Lol They won’t take him for themselves.

        • I sure wish someone would take him. I’m getting really sick and tired of him, and he’s got more than three years left before we can dump him.

  22. This is nothing new. The dems were also calling tea partiers terrorists and Timothy McVay (sp) wannabes.

  23. In one of the articles I read today , they expressed the view that Obama probably had more calluses on his lips than on his hands. This has been a source of amusement throughout the day.

  24. From CNN and the State Department:

    State Dept. on Nobel: ‘Better to be thrown acolades than shoes’.

    WASHINGTON (CNN) – “Certainly from our standpoint, this gives us a sense of momentum — when the United States has accolades tossed its way, rather than shoes.”

    That’s the take of Hillary Clinton’s State Department on President Obama being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, according to her spokesman, Assistant Secretary PJ Crowley.


    “There is an opportunity here,” Crowley said. “The tone has changed — but obviously we recognize that, while the tone in the world has changed, the challenges remain. They are very significant.”

    This “call to action,” Crowley said, will fall primarily on the shoulders of Secretary Clinton and the State Department, who will look “to advance the president’s agenda and confront the challenges of the 21st century.”

    • Does that mean if people stop sucking up to Obama and start throwing shoes at him, he’ll end the wars? This is how progress is measured?

    • Of course the call to action falls on the workhorse.

      • I wonder if Hillary’s dentist has prescribed that she wear a night-guard when she sleeps, to prevent her teeth from being ground down to nubs… what with all the political inanity that she has to put up with.

    • Is that their way of saying, “well, if you’re incompetent and can’t get the job done, at least you can be grateful not to have shoes chucked at you”??? Are they comparing him to Bush?

      Weird comment, to me, anyway….

  25. Hello again:

    Please cease and desist copying and pasting large portions of my work. Upon further reading of posts here and your mission statement, I must say that your opposition to the Obama administration and my own come from very different places.
    It is not my policy to visit someone else’s blog and start an argument(unless I am invited)so I will just say that my blog at Salon is not a “puma” blog nor do I consider myself part of the “puma” movement.
    Unlike The Confluence,I am not interested the 2008 primary, it is over and done,my opinions on that topic can be found at my Salon blog. If you continue to paste large passages of my writings, it may give the impression that I am part of your movement.

    If you wish to discuss my blog I cannot and will not stop you from linking to it. Thank you for complying with my request.


    • Wow Glenn – that is quite a broad brush.

      I don’t believe that “puma movement”,as you call it ,even exists. OTOH maybe I just don’t get the memos.

    • A better place for that request might be to email the poster or blogger directly. There will probably be some interesting comments added to your comment. 🙂

      • And on that note, let me start:
        your opposition to the Obama administration and my own come from very different places
        I actually doubt it. I don’t know about puma in general, there are a wide range of people using that name. But here we’re pretty liberal. Quite a bit more liberal than Obama for example. A lot of our disagreement comes from that place. Some of it does indeed come from the lack of democracy and shame that was the 2008 primaries. Like the 2000 general, it’s a bit hard to get over that. But perhaps democracy is not really your thing.

        • I’m, frankly, kind of hung up on quoting my work might give the impression I’m part of your movement. Is believing that Americans are complete idiots and lack basic reading comprehension skills a prerequesite for working at Salon? Lol You’d think They’d have a better handle on the mysterious workings of the Internet and information dissemination. 🙂

          • Yea, that is a bit puzzling. Quoting others is sort of journalism 101. And feeling like it might mean something more than a point of discussion is odd.

            You know, sort of sounds like others who ran away afraid of lady parts.

          • Help me out–I quoted Luke Skywalker before, does that make me Princess Leia? Cuz that’d be cool.

    • Hi. I’m a frontpager here. What pumas? Where? I don’t see any Puma identification here or any Puma label. We got over the 2008 Primary. We moved on. I’m personally working on holding the current president who seems to be more aligned with traditional republican values that I am to his campaign promises.

      • Oh, Obama didn’t fool me, perhaps that’s the difference between us.

        • Nail meet head.

          • I would be embarrassed too if I was fooled by such shallow rhetoric.

            Never mind the caveats large enough to drive a bus through which signaled the truth. Those were just Obama being realistic during the election….LOL

      • That is quite interesting that he would use that term when it isn’t referenced on this site. Sounds like he’s been listening to some propaganda.

        • we dropped the term a long while ago and moved on … I’m not exactly sure where that canard is coming from

          • I think it relates to the issues Steven brought up some weeks back in his post about how people can’t deal with how stupid and wrong they were about Obama, and instead of dealing with their mistake, they instead hate the ones that knew all along. And by getting ride of the ones who know all along, they can’ comfortably say it’s not my fault because no one else knew, no one could have known.

            Glenn fits that perfectly. He was completely wrong about Obama. And in fact helped get us into this mess. Now he acts all noble about keeping Obama honest (now). What he can’t handle is looking back because he would have to see himself as the same as the Nobel committee.

      • Just speaking for myself, I still struggle with the 2008 primary. Learning that my own party was willing to make a full frontal assault on the democratic principles I hold dear and that I believe are part of the bedrock of this country was a bitter pill to swallow.

        Finding out that the Dems are as corrupt as the Repubs was another shocker.

        Realizing that elections in this country are driven by who/what/whom??–not the voters at any rate, has been entirely unsettling. The corruption was deep, and Obama is part of it. That really changed my entire outlook about politics and this country.

        • If other people don’t want to discuss (relitigate, refight)) last year’s primaries then they don’t have to.

          It’s a big blogosphere and there are lots of other things to discuss.

          The people who aren’t “over it” can talk about last year all they want.

    • Very odd. We are not a “movement.” You initially stated that you are going to criticize whichever administration is in place based on liberal/progressive principles. That’s exactly what we do here–and as a result, that includes a lot of criticism of Obama, because his actions continually defy liberal principles. We don’t sit around here all day bemoaning the 2008 primary, though your blithe dismissal of voter fraud and disenfranchisement doesn’t really square with your own stated goals.

      • I thought frontpagers were quoting Glenn since last year so I’m assuming that he has known about this blog for a while. Odd that he now has a problem with being quoted on this site now. Frontpagers quote a lot of journalists we happen to agree with. I don’t think anyone believes that these journalists who work for Salon, the New York Times, The London Times, the New Statesman, etc. have anything to do with PUMA or this blog. If Glenn is so worried about being associated with us then I think the frontpagers should stop quoting him and giving his blog traffic. It’s kind of ridiculous the fear that is associated with being linked to anything that might be in opposition to Obama. We’re not a Republican blog.

        • Could Glenn have gotten a call from “The One?” It seemed to work on Krugman….

          • Doubt it. He’s not as influential or important as Krugman. He’s just scared that his disapproval of Obama will be confused with the liberals here whom many of his colleagues called “racist” and “Republican” last year for not voting for Obama. It’s a tactic that continues to be used to this day. Anyone who disagrees or disapproves of what Obama does is called a terrorist, a Republican, anti-American, racist, etc. Last year PUMA and anyone associated with the coalition faced the brunt of those attacks. Glenn somehow doesn’t connect what happened last year to what he has written about TODAY concerning the terrorist accusations against anyone who questions Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize win.

    • Well Glenn, thanks for sharing.

      Interesting that it is ok for YOU to question the MSM reporting about, let’s use the anthrax case, while you mock other blogs for doing the same questioning of the MSM . After all you only questioned the reporting of the anthrax case how many years afterwards? By your logic, the anthrax case was over and done with by the time you picked up your pen.

      However, the primary isn’t this blog’s sole source of concern. And if you would have checked a bit deeper than some icons and old posts you would have realized that.

      So, please stop embarassing yourself….hypocrite looks bad on everyone.

      • No, I think it is okay to criticize Obama only if you voted for him or supported him over Hillary or Edwards. If you decided to not vote in last year’s election farce or vote for McCain or a Green Party candidate in protest then you are automatically labeled a PUMA or a Republican.

      • Speaking of hypocrites, I think Glenn should be the last journalist to come here and tell us that this site is not good or liberal enough to quote him. This is from his Wiki entry so not sure if all of this is accurate:

        In the “Preface” to his first book, How Would a Patriot Act? (2006), Greenwald begins by giving some of his own personal political history, describing himself as at first neither liberal nor conservative but as one who had taken positions that can be ascribed to both liberals and conservatives, voting neither for George W. Bush nor for any of his rivals, indeed not voting at all.[21] Bush’s ascendancy to the U.S. Presidency “changed” Greenwald’s previous uninvolved political attitude toward the electoral process “completely”

        Hmmm…don’t tell me Glenn was one of those people who didn’t vote for Al Gore in 2000, probably the most important election of our lifetimes that would lead to eight years of Dubya, 9/11, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? So please get off your high horse as if you are somehow more liberal than the people who gather here at The Confluence. Most if not all of us voted for Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, and all the other Dems before them. So the problem must stem from the fact that we did not get down on our knees for Obama last year. Funny how YOU can admit to not having voted before but we are somehow toxic to you’re site because we didn’t vote for Obama due to very legitimate, liberal reasons.

        • Glenn flatters himself. If he doesn’t want the traffic–no problem. He should be flattered to be included with the posters here.

    • The Confluence is a liberal blog. I am a liberal.

      I have “fair used” portions of your work, quoted accurately and in context, and linking to your posts. I have never tried to imply that your views (or Salon’s) are anything but what you say they are, nor have I tried to suggest you support any person or organization.

      PUMA was born here as a coalition of “Democrats in exile” that refused to support Barack Obama in the name of “party unity.”. That refusal was based on what transpired during the primaries as well as our judgment on the qualifications and character of Obama himself.

      A number of other individuals and groups have claimed to be part of PUMA. Many (but not all) of them are people we have no desire to be associated with either. We have never allowed racist attacks on Obama and we have denounced bogus rumors and stories regarding his birth and background.

      After the election was over we chose to drop the PUMA label and allow others to continue without us. It was a choice made by the unanimous agreement of the frontpagers here.

      Our focus now is on promoting liberal/progressive candidates and legislation. We are not associated with the Republican party, Birthers, Tea Party Protesters, or any other right-wing groups.

      Our opposition of Obama originates from our liberal/progressive beliefs. We are also critical of GOP politicians and candidates who do not share our ideology. We have defended Sarah Palin from sexist and misogynist attacks, but we do not support her as a candidate.

      • “Upon further reading of posts here and your mission statement”

        What mission statement is that?

        Our Credo?

        The “Invitation to Democrats in Exile?”

        The “About Us” page?

        They are all a little dated but I can’t see anything objectionable there. What are you referring to and what do you find objectionable?

        Please be specific.

        • Just out of curiousity Glenn, why are you using a dial-up service in Virginia?

          Don’t you live in Brazil or something?

          If you’re traveling, won’t Salon spring for a hotel with WiFi or cable?

        • is that really Glenn Greenwald? or just a poser?

          • I’m guessing the latter.

          • Come to think of it, the punctuation barely passes high school level.

          • Let’s hope it’s a poseur, because anyone who writes for the largest online mag should have better things to do than spend days obsessively googling himself. Lol Not to mention coming off as a pretentious, obsessive Luddite who’s flummoxed by that box the kids use and may not have mastered the technological intracacies of zippers. 🙂

          • The writing doesn’t have Glenn’s style.

            Read the stuff up top and then read that comment – two different people wrote them.

          • I don’t think it is him – just someone screwing with us…

    • People in this country are suffering. We actually wanted real change.

      • I think anyone who says that they refuse to discuss the 2008 primaries is likely someone who supported the caucus fraud and disenfranchisement of Michigan and Florida OR they brainwashed themselves into believing the Hope and Change propaganda so that it would be easier to bite their tongue and vote for Obama. I didn’t read much of Glenn during the primaries but I am not surprised if you won’t find anything that challenges what the DNC and the Obama campaign did to the voters in MI and FL as well as the caucus states. Just a hunch.

    • What “movement” are you talking about? This isn’t a “puma” blog. It’s a *liberal* blog.

      I don’t know for sure what your political philosphy is–I thought you were a liberal, but now I’m confused.

    • What an odd comment. Tons of sites quote Glen copiously. Does he write them all and tell them to stop because someone [who’s never read a political blog and hasn’t noticed that copious cross-quoting pretty much defines political blogs] might associate him with their “movement”?

      As far as I’ve ever been able to tell, quoting another site indicates agreement of the quoter with the quotee, so to speak, not the other way around.

      Sounds to me as if he got astroturfed (or astroswarmed) by someone(s) warning him about The Scary Confluence where we’re all bitter, racist, old, sino-peruvian-lesbians (I think I missed a step in there)!

    • Who’s afraid of the big bad PUMA?

    • The above comment under the name “Glenn Greenwald”was not, in fact, left by me

      In fact, I don’t believe I’ve ever left a comment at your blog, so if there are other comments there under my name — especially recently — they are not from me.

      Anyone from this blog can email me at my published email – GGreenwald@salon.com — to confirm this.

      Glenn Greenwald

  26. Well, I nor anyone in my field can get a Nobel prize. So a pox on them all. If you exclude Mathematics what do you expect but prizes that don’t add up.

  27. The Norwegians have cheapened the Nobel & turned it into a bad joke. How sad

  28. He is–Moore has lost all liberal credibility. He is just an Obama cultist, and no matter what Obama does–how much it contradicts true liberal principles–he genuflects and rationalizes. Pathetic.

  29. I did some reading after work and found a few responses to the day’s big news. Seems it’s fairly unanimous from liberals and conservatives alike that this is preposterous:

    Obama’s Nobel for Good Intentions

    At first I thought the announcement of the prize was a joke. On further reflection, the Nobel Committee has made itself a joke. It has decided to give a ribbon before the race, a trophy for aspiration, a gold star for admirable sentiments. Which means that the decision it made is entirely, purely, solely political. Members of the committee like Obama’s goals and rhetoric. And since they aren’t American citizens, this is the only way they could vote for him. In the process, they have forfeited any claim to seriousness. Peace — the kind of peace that keeps people from being killed and oppressed — is an achievement, not a sentiment. The Nobel Peace Prize Committee can no longer distinguish between the two.


  30. By Ruth Marcus, no less. One of O’s biggest boosters.

    A Nobel for a Good Two Weeks?

    This is ridiculous — embarrassing, even. I admire President Obama. I like President Obama. I voted for President Obama. But the peace prize? This is supposed to be for doing, not being — and it’s no disrespect to the president to suggest he hasn’t done much yet. Certainly not enough to justify the peace prize.

    Obama’s cheerleaders don’t need the encouragement — and his critics will only seize on the prize to further lampoon the Obama-as-Messiah storyline.

    Speaking of which, what does he do for an encore? Somebody, quick, call the pope.


  31. Most Embarrassing Moment
    The Norwegian Nobel Committee makes President Obama look ridiculous.


  32. The Audacity of the Nobel Committee

    The sound you could hear this morning was of heads being scratched around the world.

    Very quickly, the Nobel Committee found itself having not just to explain its choice of President Barack Obama for the Peace Prize, but to defend it.

    There have been controversial selections before, but rarely one that caused this much puzzlement.


  33. never mind

  34. Michael Moore’s not pleased

    • Oh puke…

    • So that means anyone who attempted to run for president and clean up the mess Bush II made deserves the Nobel Prize. I guess that means Hillary and even John Edwards should be getting their award in the mail any day now.
      I can’t stand Moore. He’s the biggest Obama apologist around.

      • I guess that means Mike Gravel will be getting some mail also.

        • What about the Repubs? It took bravery to run to replace Bush, knowing you would lose to literally anyone.

          • I assume that Sarah Palin was nominated. She meets and exceeds Moore’s high standards.

          • Why not just give it to “the people of Planet Earth, who opposed Bush.” I’d say Obama could claim it on our behalf except his trackrecord on that score not so good.

      • Moore sure is. I find it very disappointing.

        At least Gore Vidal has seen the light re Obama. I just started to get a migraine when I heard the Nobelol news. I wonder what Mr. Vidal has to say about this absurd decision.

        What is the world coming to?
        . Then again, once I am slowly getting over the shock, I am starting to believe it is perfectly fitting re Obama.


    • pffft.

    • I’ll bet he’s lighting one of these as we speak.

    • MM has not a nano-shred of credibility anymore.

    • I really, really used to like Michael Moore. Hell, I even went to a book-signing a few years back-

      When he stuck the knife in Hillary (perpetuating the fake-racism meme), during the primaries, for self-serving & self-preservation purposes … my jaw hit the floor

      then I gave away my signed M.M. book (“gave” to a trash can)

      now I give him the middle finger

  35. […] Nobelol The sticker from College Politico says it all. This is another WTF? Friday open thread. UPDATE: Since Glenn Greenwald […] […]

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: