Skip to main content

The Washington Post editorial board, hardly a bastion of liberal progressivism, has in just over a week both endorsed President Obama in the election and slammed the Obama administration's secrecy on drones. WaPo's positions are not contradictory and prove what is too often forgotten on Kos: that criticizing the Obama administration, particularly policies that result in the deaths of at least some innocent people, does not make it impossible to support Obama.

WaPo endorsed Obama on October 25th.

That makes Mr. Obama by far the superior choice.

Eight days later, the same WaPo editorial board called for more accountability surrounding Obama's drone program. WaPo's analysis is far from perfect. For example, they massively underestimate civilian deaths. However, WaPo's point about accountability is well taken - that regardless of where you stand on the drone program, more transparency is needed:

Nevertheless, when that war ranges far from conventional battlefields, U.S. interests will be better served by greater disclosure, more political accountability, more checks and balances and more collaboration with allies . . .  to institutionalize a secret process of conducting covert drone strikes against militants across the world is contrary to U.S. interests and ultimately unsustainable.

In a democracy, it is not only our right but our duty as citizens to criticize and hold accountable elected officials, even the ones we voted for, but unfortunately, this perspective is too often ignored on Kos.

While many Kos readers recognize that it is entirely appropriate to criticize Obama, even during an election season, there is another substantial and vocal contingent that mistakes dissent for disloyalty, as if honest criticism is no longer welcome. Here are some of the comments on one of my recent diaries, which criticized the Obama administration policy of prosecuting whistleblowers under the Espionage Act:

. . . now is not the time to be undercutting Obama from the left.  Now is the time to keep quiet if you haven't got anything election-winning to say. . . the whistleblower stuff is important, but not as important as getting Obama back into the White House first. . . . Please renew your campaign for whistleblowers once we have reelected a Democratic president.
But there are times, places and ways in which to express criticism, and this is none of them.
Say what you have to say, I guess. But man, I'd be more in the mood to read it if you could hold your damn fire until after election day.  I got it.  You have a bone to pick with Obama.  (It's the same bone you've been picking since 2008.)  Can you please, for the love of god, pause in your picking of it until after election day? President Romney thanks you for your support.
I think this diary is just a reaction to the good will being engendered by the Administration and an attempt to dampen enthusiasm.
yes, please save this for another day Honestly.  You think Romney will be better... How?
JUST GO AWAY. Go vote Republican if you think they will do a better job.
As WaPo proved in the past week, criticizing is not demonizing. And, it should not be mistaken as such, particularly in a democracy.
EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  oh please (8+ / 0-)
    criticizing the Obama administration, particularly policies that result in the deaths of at least some innocent people, does not make it impossible to support Obama.
    no one has ever said it did, because we all know that isn't true, as evidenced by the many, many comments to the effect of "he's disappointed me, but we must re-elect him."

    and the rest of your diary is one giant strawman.  

    While many on Kos recognize that it is entirely appropriate to criticize the Obama, even during an election season, there is another substantial and vocal contingent that mistakes dissent for disloyalty.
    every comment you quoted speaks to the timing of your critiques, not that they exist.  and no one has called you "disloyal."  melodrama much?


    Die with your boots on. If you're gonna try, well stick around. Gonna cry? Just move along. The truth of all predictions is always in your hands. - Iron Maiden

    by Cedwyn on Fri Nov 02, 2012 at 06:22:29 AM PDT

    •  A distinction without a difference. (10+ / 0-)

      My book, TRAITOR: THE WHISTLEBLOWER & THE "AMERICAN TALIBAN," is Amazon's #1 Best Seller in Human Rights Books for February 2012.

      by Jesselyn Radack on Fri Nov 02, 2012 at 06:30:03 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I've been accused of running (12+ / 0-)

      an "anti-Obama campaign" for criticizing the president.

      http://www.dailykos.com/...

      My book, TRAITOR: THE WHISTLEBLOWER & THE "AMERICAN TALIBAN," is Amazon's #1 Best Seller in Human Rights Books for February 2012.

      by Jesselyn Radack on Fri Nov 02, 2012 at 06:34:12 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  like i'm going to wade through (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        OIL GUY, kestrel9000

        that whole diary to find the comment you mean.

        Die with your boots on. If you're gonna try, well stick around. Gonna cry? Just move along. The truth of all predictions is always in your hands. - Iron Maiden

        by Cedwyn on Fri Nov 02, 2012 at 07:09:25 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  99.9% of your diaries from my observation are (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        OIL GUY, Quicklund

        fervently critical or made from a position of attempting to discredit President Obama.

        You've attacked the President from so many angles, from the war in Afghanistan to drones, to "whistleblowers" which it seem are anyone who say anything negative against the President, not necessarily if they are blowing a whistle for the public good, to storm response or cleanup, your diaries are part of the anti-Obama central, and if it were up to you, I guarantee you, this President would not be close to being reelected.

        You would be facing a president elect Mitt Romney, because you would have driven up this President's  negatives to such a level, most people would not be able to stomach him returning to the White House.

        I am sure you are a great individual, we just happen to disagree. For it is my oppinion that individuals who say they are on the Left, and continuously bash this President almost EVERYDAY, aid the Right wing in defeating this President because they run around day after day calling the President a monster, immoral, anti-constitutional, or even a traitor. To turn around and say I will vote for Obama after fervently attempting to discredit him is a bit silly, and could easily lead to uncontrollable laughter.

        I sometimes wish many of these individuals would just come out and say, because I believe Obama is the cause of all that is wrong with my world, I simply cannot vote for him. Instead of pretending that they will vote for him....

        As far as the Washington Post is concerned, it is not supporting the President either, it is a news organization, and is just trying to make noise. Just like many on your side, the President would not be winning if it had to depend on the Washington Post, which has fact checked its own fact checkers for calling out Romney.

        •  What a former president said (14+ / 0-)
          "To announce that there must be no criticism of the president or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but it is morally treasonable to the American public."
          --President Theodore Roosevelt
          •  Well, here is my humble comback to that, when you (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Cedwyn

            go for your next job interview, something I hope you will never be burdened to do, highlight what you perceive to be all your "negatives" on the resume....

            •  We not the ones applying for the job (11+ / 0-)

              We're the ones who are doing the hiring. Voting for president is hiring someone for a job. We have the duty to probe and examine the work of our elected officials.

              The right to voice objections has long been a valued tenet of the left. When we attack our whistle blowers, it is a sure sign we have gone astray and have lost sight of our first responsibility: Telling the truth.

              When the stated goals are winning no matter what the cost, even to the point of sacrificing the truth, then winning becomes meaningless, for we have already lost the basic reason for winning.

              "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act". -George Orwell

              by ZhenRen on Fri Nov 02, 2012 at 10:44:02 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  If it were up to many of you eternal anti-Obama (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                blueyedace2

                critics this President would be 40 points behind Mitt Romney today. And would be on his way to losing reelection, so let's be straight with each other.

                You will claim: "Oh no no, our constant campaign of criticism is noble, because we seek the truth." Well, let's examine the truth:

                Most of you who have attacked this President since he entered office, deeply resent him, because you believe he represents everything that you oppose, and yet you mask this resentment under the laughable charade that you would vote for him.... And you call that the truth?

                The charge that many of the President's supporters are against your drumbeat of negativism because we are against simple criticism is false.

                Barack Obama has done more for the Democratic Party than any President this Party has seen for decades, so it is understandable why many don't view him in the same way that his habitual critics do.

                •  No more excuses (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  aliasalias
                  Ever since he was elected, there have been reasons offered, either publicly or privately, for why Obama has been unable to fully engage some of the nation's most important challenges.Despite the rampant increase in poverty in the worst downturn since the Depression, Obama supporters whispered that he couldn't do more for the poor and couldn't speak out more forcefully on their behalf because that would not be politically advantageous. So nearly all of his economic initiatives had to be couched in language that referred to the middle class, even though the poor were being hurt far worse. LBJ could launch a war on poverty but not Barack Obama.

                  Black Americans have been disproportionately clobbered by the Great Recession and its aftermath, losing both income and wealth at staggering rates. Much of the black community is enduring a full-blown economic depression. But Obama and his advisers have been unwilling to address this catastrophe openly and forcefully out of fear that the president would be perceived as too black by prejudiced white voters, thus losing their support.

                  There is always some excuse, some reason for not bringing all of the president's energy and resources to the fight.

                  Move Single Payer Forward? Join 18,000 Doctors of PNHP and 185,000 member National Nurses United

                  by divineorder on Fri Nov 02, 2012 at 10:38:45 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  It figures, the usual anti-Obama contingent. My (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    blueyedace2

                    question is do you people have a candidate that you could be for as opposed to just live in an anti-Barack Obama revelry every day? What are you contributing to the causes you say you are for, beyond criticizing this President?

                    As far as the Black community is concerned, do you want to go and spin to the Black community that Barack Obama is a failure? Why don't you go up to Harlem or the South Side of Chicago and tell the Black community how horrible Barack Obama has been to the Black community. It would be such a winning argument, I'm sure they would welcome you with open arms.

                    And as far as the poor is concerned, you anti-Obama people are for the poor now? You didn't seem for the poor when you fought against the President's Healthcare bill and some of you tried desperately to kill it. This President as not only passed a healthcare law that will benefit the poor, but as expanded Pell Grants so that many of the poor and disadvantage will be able to attend college.

                    According to Paul Tough of the New York Times:

                    "If you do count food stamps and other noncash aid, the poverty rate has, according to some calculations, not gone up much at all during the Obama administration, during the worst economic crisis in 70 years. That is a remarkable accomplishment. When I asked William Julius Wilson last month for his thoughts on the current administration’s antipoverty efforts, he said that Obama had “done more for lower-income Americans than any president since Lyndon Baines Johnson.”

                    http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/...

                    By the way, I guess Blacks are so disappointed with this President that their registered support is as high as 95 percent. I guess your propaganda hasn't reach them

                •  So, I take it you don't mind prosecuting (0+ / 0-)

                  whistle blowers and attacking dissent, no matter how needed and vital the criticisms are; no matter how important it is to voice the truth. Your loyalty and support for a personality transcends all other considerations, no matter how serious, to the point that you can ignore such things as innocents being willfully killed in drone strikes (which the UN now is calling war crimes).

                  Your criteria seems to be that unless the critic is still willing to offer praise to Obama, said critic is unfit to criticize. Thus, all criticism is invalid if the criticisms rise to such a level that a critic can no longer justify remaining in support.

                  That is an entirely ad hominem approach which conveniently allows you to wave away factual criticism from all except the most mild of critics.

                  Its saying, essentially, that hey, that guy who is concerned about drone strikes? He's probably not even going to vote for Obama, so fuck his human rights concerns.

                  And that, sir, is not reality based. It is a position that embraces an entirely misguided set of values, one of achieving empty electoral power at the expense of acknowledging and speaking the truth. It is a flawed compromise, because one cannot compromise human life and human rights, to mention just one area of policy that merits criticism.

                  That supporters like you are willing to ignore these outrageous acts is appalling to me. This is how the worst of political movements begin: Partisanship, nationalism, support of a charismatic leader at the expense of all that we hold dear.

                  The price is too much. I choose to be a whistle blower. And when so many are willing to look the other way and even persecute the truth tellers, those willing to stand up in dissent are more important than ever.

                  "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act". -George Orwell

                  by ZhenRen on Sat Nov 03, 2012 at 01:19:00 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  No, what I'm saying is if Barack Obama is engaged (0+ / 0-)

                    in "war crimes" and you believe him to be a war criminal, don't then turn around and claim you support him. How much more clearly can I say this? Do you support war criminals?

                    This diarist has written this diary to suggest that she supports this President despite her continuous campaign of trying to discredit him. And my point is: You cannot CONTINUOUSLY try to discredit an individual and then turn around and claim you are supporting said individual. It is counterintuitive, and ridiculous.

                    You claim Barack Obama is a war criminal, a ridiculous claim that I obviously disagree with, nevertheless, my point is, you should stop pretending, stop hiding and just come out and say you do not support this President, because he is a war criminal, and stop trying to give the impression that you are attacking him as a supporter.

                    You refuse to do that, because you know most people who do not buy into your ridiculous arguments would dismiss your opinions as arguments made with the intention of defeating the President, so you try go around the issue with silly rhetoric which offers "No one is above criticism".

                    You characterize the President as a war criminal, that is not simple criticism. Stop hiding under rhetoric and stand up and admit you oppose him. I think I've made myself clear..... Give up the charade.....

                    •  This notion of pretense (0+ / 0-)

                      is something you've invented.

                      The real situation is far more complex and nuanced than you are willing to comprehend.

                      The diarist, if you bother to review her history of recs and other observable behaviors, is a natural Obama supporter. I think she would like to support him, but unfortunately has run into some glitches that leads her to voice her dissent.

                      And in my case, I gave him money, despite being rather lacking in funds, back in 2008. I also canvased and knocked on hundreds of doors and made hundreds of phone calls.

                      I may have sacrificed relatively more time than you have in the 2008 campaign.

                      No, you're resorting to ad hominems (look it up, too many people think they understand the logical fallacy of the ad hominem but don't really get it). In any case, the people you're making your claim of are far more the natural Obama supporters than you would give them credit for. That people who are so political aware would find problems with his policies should give you pause, but you're so far up there, perched in your ivory tower all you can manage is condescension.

                      But you still don't get it and keep raising this red herring of whether critics support Obama or not as if that somehow invalidates the criticism.

                      So, you're willfully not engaging here, because I'm assuming you're smart enough to understand the point, thus I interpret your answer as simply a refusal to dialogue in good faith, but instead resort to recriminations, and since you really don't have any that are truly valid, you make them up.

                      "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act". -George Orwell

                      by ZhenRen on Sat Nov 03, 2012 at 10:29:46 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

          •  Did he say (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            NedSparks, stellaluna, blueyedace2

            That nothing should be said but criticism?

            Or put another way, had this diarist ever posted a positive message about our country?

            Criticism is fine. But how it's done should count for something too. And a modicum of balance adds miles of credibility.

            •  I have praised Obama (8+ / 0-)

              Two examples are in the comment below.

              My book, TRAITOR: THE WHISTLEBLOWER & THE "AMERICAN TALIBAN," is Amazon's #1 Best Seller in Human Rights Books for February 2012.

              by Jesselyn Radack on Fri Nov 02, 2012 at 08:56:44 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Pull the other one it has got bells on (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                stellaluna, Cedwyn

                Back-handed compliments don't count for much.

                Never do you post on political matters. Nothing about elections, candidates, polling, GOTV efforts, opposition research or observations, none of the nuts and bolts of the politics this site was created to foster.

                Your comments never appear in anyone else's diaries. You don't participate here. You post your hit pieces here but that's it.

                •  Not only that. But when the Presidemt's (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Cedwyn

                  opponent in the election finally gave an opinion on drones, which happened to be how much he likes them and how he would continue to use them....nothing....crickets. It's hard to believe she supports the President when our very own anti-drone expert hasn't even got a comment on the future of drone use under Romney. Though that very week she was all over a story by comparing the President to a psychopathic, kidnapping, raping cannibal. Supports the President?  I think not.

                  "Speak the TRUTH, even if your voice shakes."

                  by stellaluna on Fri Nov 02, 2012 at 10:02:54 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

        •  I have praised the Obama administration (8+ / 0-)

          My book, TRAITOR: THE WHISTLEBLOWER & THE "AMERICAN TALIBAN," is Amazon's #1 Best Seller in Human Rights Books for February 2012.

          by Jesselyn Radack on Fri Nov 02, 2012 at 07:58:58 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  It's funny how many (13+ / 0-)

            people are confirming your argument with their comments (and with their troll ratings.)

            This is a partisan outfit - that's just what it is.

            You can write supportively of fascism and drone warfare but not the Green party. It's kooky but there it is.

            •  This is a partisan outfit - that's just what it is (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Cedwyn

              Of course. That is how it is self-described.

              Spoiler Alert:

              (It's known for its orange color scheme.)

              •  Democratic Party Needs to change - DK himself (6+ / 0-)

                The 2006 book with Markos and Jerome Armstrong

                Here is the publication blurb.

                Note the criticism of the Democratic Party Establishment. That gets a HR now on DK.

                Book Description
                Publication Date: September 1, 2006

                Crashing the Gate is a shot across the bow at the political establishment in Washington, DC and a call to re-democratize politics in America.

                This book lays bare, with passion and precision, how ineffective, incompetent, and antiquated the Democratic Party establishment has become, and how it has failed to adapt and respond to new realities and challenges. The authors save their sharpest knives to go for the jugular in their critique of Republican ideologues who are now running--and ruining--our country.

                Written by two of the most popular political bloggers in America, the book hails the new movement--of the netroots, the grassroots, the unorthodox labor unions, the maverick big donors--that is the antidote to old-school politics as usual. Fueled by advances in technology and a hunger for a more authentic and populist democracy, this broad-based movement is changing the way political campaigns are waged and managed.

                A must-read book for anyone with an interest in the future of American democracy.

          •  Priceless: One of the TWO "praise" Obama diaries (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            stellaluna, Quicklund, Cedwyn

            you linked has the headline:

            Hey, Something DOJ Gets Right: Opposing Voter Photo ID Law
            Even when you try to "praise" team Obama you can't help but being brimming with sarcasm.... I've seen you're diaries, it's silly to try to pretend your campaign is less than an anti-Obama one....
            •  If all critics must praise (11+ / 0-)

              in order to prove they are loyal as well as objective, then shouldn't all those who lavishly praise be required to also criticize in order to prove they are objective as well as loyal?

              Heh.

              The fact is, there is so much lavish praise that no amount of objective criticism would balance this.

              What's important is not that a critic prove themselves by including praise, but rather must prove themselves by being factual.

              Lack of praise does not make the critic wrong.

              One of the main tenets of the left is to be factual and reality based. It is thus the duty of the left to be as loyal to the truth as we are to our causes or our electoral choices.

              Once this basic tenet is abandoned, then we have truly lost our way.

              We must all be vigilant to the signs that truth has become the victim of our own admitted biases. And we need people who serve this function among us. When our whistle blowers are criminalized and persecuted, it is an ominous red flag that we have strayed far from the path the is supposed to primarily serve the truth.

              Shame.

              "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act". -George Orwell

              by ZhenRen on Fri Nov 02, 2012 at 10:35:28 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  Behind all the sturm and drang (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      stellaluna, blueyedace2

      It seems like it's always really all about Ms Radack.

      Well, I suppose it helps pay the bills.

    •  This claim is absurd ... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LaEscapee

      no one has ever said it did, because we all know that isn't true, as evidenced by the many, many comments to the effect of "he's disappointed me, but we must re-elect him."

      The purported evidence does not support such a universal claim, since "a happened many times" can not prove a claim of "the opposite of a never, ever happened".

      Support Lesbian Creative Works with Yuri anime and manga from ALC Publishing

      by BruceMcF on Sun Nov 04, 2012 at 10:10:12 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  This is not much of a diary (6+ / 0-)

    It is indeed what I would call a "vanity."   This complaint about Dailykos and many of its members, the site you are writing on, would have been better off as a simple comment for digestion inside the diary that got you so peeved in the first place.  

    •  It is not vanity to point out (10+ / 0-)

      that WaPo's positions demonstrate that it is possible to criticize a president you support.

      And, I've received comments like the ones cited above on almost every diary I've written that criticizes the Obama administration.

      My book, TRAITOR: THE WHISTLEBLOWER & THE "AMERICAN TALIBAN," is Amazon's #1 Best Seller in Human Rights Books for February 2012.

      by Jesselyn Radack on Fri Nov 02, 2012 at 06:30:11 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  But it is a "meta" diary that encourages (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        OIL GUY, Quicklund

        infighting among members here. I thought "call out" diaries and bringing up comments from other diaries was discouraged here. But even if it isn't I honestly don't see any reason for you to come here to start a fight with other Kossacks who disagree with you. If you can't see there are other more important things to do then that reflects your own small-mindedness.

        "Speak the TRUTH, even if your voice shakes."

        by stellaluna on Fri Nov 02, 2012 at 06:56:58 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The meta is used to support a bigger point (11+ / 0-)

          and to argue with a dominant view on dkos about criticism of the president.

          The main point is that it is possible to both criticize and endorse a sitting president.  The meta (comment links) are used to support the point that people get trashed for valid, well supported criticism.  The link to the WaPo articles show that a major media outlet both endorses and criticizes.

          The argument being made is that the same nuance should be allowed and encouraged here but it is not.

          And the underlying, even larger point, is that dissent and pointing out failures is healthy for democracy.

          So it's a lot more than just a meta diary. Even if it was, since when is that against any kind of rule here?  I'm sure you've supported the occasional meta diary if it was something you agreed with.  It's when people don't agree with meta that they start complaining, usually, or when they've got no valid way to criticize points being made.


          "Justice is a commodity"

          by joanneleon on Fri Nov 02, 2012 at 08:37:12 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Of course criticism is possible (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Cedwyn, stellaluna, blueyedace2

            How the criticism is made should count for something.

          •  I'm not denying Ms. Radack's right or ability (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            blueyedace2

            To post her opinions here no matter how biased. But I don't believe  there was any point to this diary other than to respond to her critics in another diary. I think that, at this time is self-indulgent and vain. If you think otherwise that's fine. I realize many people respect Ms. Radack.  I don't. I think her obvious (to me) agenda detracts from the issue. I think her constant posting of diaries in criticism of the President detracts from the message with her hyperbole and shrillness.  I don't think she contributes to this site other than her constant contortions of public issues into an anti-Obama position. I don't see her participating here in any positive way. She very, very rarely comments except in her own diaries. When challenged factually she generally ignores the challenge.  I think this diary, which doesn't add anything constructive to the discussion is ill-timed and counter productive. Only the most politically unengaged would be oblivious to the stress and fatigue that working to get this President re-elected creates. I absolutely get it that some people dont approve of or encourage that kind of commitment in this campaign.  I am not one of them. If you believe this diary was posted with good intentions then that's fine. I don't see it. And while there may be other people in the past who won't accept any criticism of the President I am not one of them. But right now no, if you can't be part of the solution, then you are the problem.

            "Speak the TRUTH, even if your voice shakes."

            by stellaluna on Fri Nov 02, 2012 at 08:53:07 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  So basically (8+ / 0-)

              you choose to double, triple down on the ad hominem rather than cite any examples or facts?  

              Can you give some examples of the hyperbole?  I have found her to be one of the least biased writers on this site and have found her diaries to be full of facts, sources and examples, unlike your comment.


              "Justice is a commodity"

              by joanneleon on Fri Nov 02, 2012 at 10:10:40 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Is this a new rule (8+ / 0-)

              that I am not aware of?  Are there appointed comment police who publish the rulez somewhere or a Minister of Commenting Rulez?

              Do you ever apply this rule to any other users besides Ms. Raddack?

              She very, very rarely comments except in her own diaries.
              Given that she writes diaries pretty often and sounds like she has a busy career, I don't think that she or anyone else should be penalized for not commenting in however many diaries yo find to be acceptable.

              Do you ever criticize other people for this?  If so, can you show me an example where you did?  Or do your rules only apply to people who you disagree with and don't like because they criticize a hero of yours, no matter how valid and well supported their arguments are?


              "Justice is a commodity"

              by joanneleon on Fri Nov 02, 2012 at 10:14:55 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  very few diarists except Ms. Radack (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                indubitably

                write such frequent diaries. Honestly the reason I went to check her comment history the first time is that I wanted to make sure I was being fair and not misreading her diaries.  And that her diaries were in good faith. I thought her comments on other issues might show her progressive values as well as show that the intent of her diaries wasn't to promote herself and her own issues. Normally I wouldn't feel the need to "prove" myself with examples of hyperbole but I respect you and I would like you to know I don't make these comments irresponsibly. I also dont make them because the President is my hero.  Check her diary from hurricane Irene where she prematurely blamed the Administration for the levies failing (hint: they didnt) because of prosecution of a whistleblower and her reference to a family barely hanging on in their attic awaiting rescue when it wasn't true. Or at least not for the point she was making. I think she is a bad spokesperson for the issues she writes about because of her misrepresentations and self-aggrandizement. Obviously I don't think her arguments are well made or supported. If you don't consider the timing of this diary suspect then maybe you shouldn't be so quick to cry "hero" worship. I'm sorry I haven't provided the links but I am on my phone and am not good at it here.

                "Speak the TRUTH, even if your voice shakes."

                by stellaluna on Fri Nov 02, 2012 at 10:46:10 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Wow (9+ / 0-)

                  So she was wrong once, she focuses on a single issue that is important to her (whistleblowing), and her timing inconveniences you. What an outrageous standard.

                  •  no, that was one example as requested. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    indubitably

                    And there was nothing in my comments about inconvenience.

                    "Speak the TRUTH, even if your voice shakes."

                    by stellaluna on Fri Nov 02, 2012 at 10:55:47 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Hmm (4+ / 0-)
                      If you don't consider the timing of this diary suspect
                      •  I actually mean it much more strongly. (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        indubitably

                        Not inconvenient. Deliberate attempt to hurt the President is more like it.

                        "Speak the TRUTH, even if your voice shakes."

                        by stellaluna on Fri Nov 02, 2012 at 11:01:20 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Ah then I'll lump you in with the others (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Don midwest, divineorder

                          And just repeat, disgusting personal attack. Disgusting.

                        •  Suspect? (3+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          joe shikspack, quince, aliasalias

                          What is it that you suspect Jesselyn of?  A secret Romney supporter or something?  Have you looked at her writing from the Bush admin era?  She says the same things now that she said then, same principles, with specifics about one admin or the other.

                          I don't recall a diary about a hurricane by her. I remember many many diaries about transparency, applying laws fairly to everyone ("playing by the same rules") and about whistleblower protections with info about specific whistleblowers and the various situations that apply to them. I recall diaries about torture, illegal domestic surveillance, about other egregious things that the whistleblowers reported to their own government and possibly to the media after that failed.

                          These are things that, if you look back far enough, are issues that used to be deeply important to the vast majority of writers and commenters on this site when the other party was in power.

                          Diarists who wrote about the very same issues under Bush were supported tremendously, but now that it's our guy doing some of the same things, they are somehow "suspect"?  It is a partisan double standard.  I strongly believe that the very same topics would again go back to being very popular and supported at whatever point that another Republican is in office.  How can you justify something like that?

                          Anyway, I don't find the one example that you gave to be very convincing and there are no blockquotes or links, we just have to take your word for it.  And given the amount of ad hominem that you have thrown at this diarist, and the egregious accusations you have made, you need a lot more than one example, stella.  When you do a character assassination like the one you've attempted here in multiple lengthy comments full of attacks, you really better damn well support those extraordinary claims with extraordinary evidence.


                          "Justice is a commodity"

                          by joanneleon on Fri Nov 02, 2012 at 12:17:16 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

      •  Daily Kos must be like a street on the sidewalk (0+ / 0-)

        to you. It's not. Why do you think it is? Is it the internet thing that is tripping you up?

        vigilant "Dear Religion, this week I safely dropped a man from space while you shot a child in the head for wanting to go to school. Yours, Science."

        by GoGoGoEverton on Fri Nov 02, 2012 at 07:16:18 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  But you don't support him (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        stellaluna, blueyedace2

        Support is an active verb. In order to support someone, one must do something that lends support.

        I have never seen you post a positive-minded diary ever.

        You are a professional **-stirrer.

  •  and let's not fall into the Fox News trap (16+ / 0-)

    of demonizing anyone who dares to question the President's policies.  Remember some of the ways the Fauxites did this when W was in office:

    “You don’t criticize the Commander-in-Chief in the middle of a firefight. That could be construed as putting U.S. forces in jeopardy and undermining morale.”

    —Bill O’Reilly, 04/04

    “And furthermore, one of the fundamental principles we have in America is that the president is the commander in chief of the armed forces and attempts to undermine the commander in chief during time of war amounts to treason.”

    —Pat Robertson, 12/07/05

    Bob Cesca has a great article about this "convenient patriotism" this week at HuffPo.

    I'm as ardent a supporter of the President as they come, but I also think it's hypocritical to demand that the media refrain from criticizing the President (or any other candidate) during election season.  We certainly called for more media criticism of Bush and McCain in 2004 and 2008, and of Romney this year.

  •  Sigh (10+ / 0-)

    You needn't worry that this site is composed of a bunch of mindless lemmings.  It's not all about you.

    Nobody puts Baby in the binder

    by chicago minx on Fri Nov 02, 2012 at 06:27:22 AM PDT

  •  I'm with you. n/t (8+ / 0-)

    Moderation in most things.

    by billmosby on Fri Nov 02, 2012 at 06:29:12 AM PDT

  •  The problem isn't criticism in general... (14+ / 0-)

    but rather the inflated rhetoric that you use in your criticisms. Likening the President to a "mob boss," to a "psychopathic dictator," to a sport-hunter or to the NYC cop planning to abduct and cook women may engender page-hits, but it's flat-out idiotic. So "no," the problem isn't criticism of the Administration per se, but rather your style...

    Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time. (Terry Pratchett)

    by angry marmot on Fri Nov 02, 2012 at 06:32:01 AM PDT

    •  I've been writing on Kos (13+ / 0-)

      since the Bush administration, and no one objected to my rhetoric when used to criticize Bush administration policies on indefinite detention or extraordinary rendition or secret Justice Department memos "authorizing" previously illegal actions like warrantless surveillance and torture.

      My book, TRAITOR: THE WHISTLEBLOWER & THE "AMERICAN TALIBAN," is Amazon's #1 Best Seller in Human Rights Books for February 2012.

      by Jesselyn Radack on Fri Nov 02, 2012 at 06:49:26 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yes, my objection isn't criticism of the (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Quicklund

      President on the issue of drones. It's the self-serving use of every news report to draw attention to herself using the issue of drones. And on occasion misrepresenting the news story or issue (see diaries on recent hurricane in LA and fast and furious).  That coupled with an absolute refusal to discuss the problem that underlies the issue of drones, ie. terrorism, makes me question her motives. Perhaps she just likes the attention her constant diaries give her. But I think the case can be made that she is absolutely trying to undermine the President. Why else would she mislead on certain stories?  And why no mention of Mr. Romney's very clear statement during the last debate that he likes the use of drones and will very much support it?  Failing to address the continuance of the drone problem under Romney in favor of constant criticism of the President seems to reek of a political agenda.  No matter how many times she claims she really supports the President.

      "Speak the TRUTH, even if your voice shakes."

      by stellaluna on Fri Nov 02, 2012 at 06:51:47 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Do you want Jesselyn to sign the loyalty oath (11+ / 0-)

        before she is allowed to post a diary, stellaluna?

        But I think the case can be made that she is absolutely trying to undermine the President. Why else would she mislead on certain stories?  

        --

        No matter how many times she claims she really supports the President.

        "Who are these men who really run this land? And why do they run it with such a thoughtless hand? David Crosby.

        by allenjo on Fri Nov 02, 2012 at 07:26:20 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  There has got to be a better place for you (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          OIL GUY

          than this horrible, terrible, no-good, very bad authoritarian Democratic Party temple that is DailyKos.

          anyone else want to forget the point of this site, feel free to either STFU, or go the fuck away.

          vigilant "Dear Religion, this week I safely dropped a man from space while you shot a child in the head for wanting to go to school. Yours, Science."

          by GoGoGoEverton on Fri Nov 02, 2012 at 07:32:22 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  No, but I also don't think we have to take (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          OIL GUY, Quicklund

          general assertations of support as true when her actions speak louder. She has misrepresented the Administration in some diaries (see hurricane diary), she has posted this diary as a distraction as it calls out people who have disagreed with her at a crucial time in the reelection of the President, and she is completely silent about the position of the President's opponent even though it should be at least as abhorrent to her as the President's. So no, I don't expect a loyalty oath, or even agreement. But I think her action call her support of the President into question.

          "Speak the TRUTH, even if your voice shakes."

          by stellaluna on Fri Nov 02, 2012 at 07:37:04 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  ^^^ THIS ^^^ (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      stellaluna, Cedwyn

      With some critics, PBO never makes a mistake. Instead he is always gleefully rubbing his hands together as he cackles in conspiratorial glory with Karl Rove. And when that description runs into criticism, the rhetoric grows really heated.

      One-note bands like this diarist play those tunes all the time. When called out for their shallowness, they whimper on how their nonsense is not accepted as gospel.

      Kitchens are hot.

  •  I think you need to (4+ / 0-)

    revisit the FAQ and become more clear on what the purpose of Daily Kos is.

    "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State ..."- Vermont Constitution Chapter 1, Article 16

    by kestrel9000 on Fri Nov 02, 2012 at 06:34:25 AM PDT

  •  Thanks for the endorsement, Jesselyn! (7+ / 0-)


    OBAMA18

    "I'm Bronco Bama, and I approved this message."

    I would tip you, but the man took away my tips.

    by Tortmaster on Fri Nov 02, 2012 at 06:46:34 AM PDT

  •  Founding fathers made president a weak office (13+ / 0-)

    They knew about power in a monarch.

    They knew how war could be used to consolidate power. That is why they put the declaration of war in the hands of the house of representatives. Funny that we have not had a declared war in at least 50 years. Maybe since WWII. And we now have 1,000 military bases around the world.

    There was a long interview of Steven Coll on NPR the other day about his new book The Generals: American Military Command from WWII to the Present. The military leadership is now corrupt was the basic message. In WWII generals who performed badly were fired, not today. Also in WWII there was a better job of putting the right person in the right job. Now it is about getting ahead and accountability is lacking.

    Anyone who is concerned about our country, must be concerned about the militarization and how it will expand to lessen civil liberties here at home.

    Here is an article today about Drone Warfare.

    http://www.commondreams.org/...

    Freedom of speech should welcome a discussion about important issues.

  •  Callout diary, HR'd. WaPo not DailyKos. (0+ / 0-)

    One is supposed to be objective (though facts have a liberal bias), the other is as PARTISAN DEMOCRATIC blog.

    Please remove the links to the comments/users and I will remove my HR.

    vigilant "Dear Religion, this week I safely dropped a man from space while you shot a child in the head for wanting to go to school. Yours, Science."

    by GoGoGoEverton on Fri Nov 02, 2012 at 07:13:41 AM PDT

  •  welcome to the silly season... (10+ / 0-)

    it's time for your irony supplement.

    i'm part of the 99% - america's largest minority

    by joe shikspack on Fri Nov 02, 2012 at 07:19:32 AM PDT

  •  What does a past president say about this? (11+ / 0-)
    "To announce that there must be no criticism of the president or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but it is morally treasonable to the American public."
    --President Theodore Roosevelt
    •  Please cite this: (0+ / 0-)
      To announce that there must be no criticism of the president or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong,
      Who said this that is a notable poster/diarist on on Daily Kos?

      vigilant "Dear Religion, this week I safely dropped a man from space while you shot a child in the head for wanting to go to school. Yours, Science."

      by GoGoGoEverton on Fri Nov 02, 2012 at 07:33:27 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Full quote and source (14+ / 0-)

        An editorial he wrote for the "Kansas City Star" during World War I.

           "The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."

            May 7, 1918

        Link

        Am I a notable poster/diarist on on Daily Kos?
        Who cares? The quote is accurate.

        BOHICA
        RA18960500
        Repentant ex member of Murder Inc.
        Southeast Asia Division

        White-collar conservatives flashing down the street, pointing their plastic finger at me..

        by BOHICA on Fri Nov 02, 2012 at 07:55:20 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  As someone who agrees with you, (7+ / 0-)

    I still find this diary to be little more than scab-picking.

    Can you call yourself a real liberal if you aren't reading driftglass?

    by CJB on Fri Nov 02, 2012 at 07:36:26 AM PDT

  •  I'm ready for my bumper sticker (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Don midwest, Nada Lemming
    My guy sucks less than your guy
    It's great that there are some politicians to whom this does not apply (and this year, some superb people are running), but in the majority of races, that sentiment fits quite well.  

    I am become Man, the destroyer of worlds

    by tle on Fri Nov 02, 2012 at 07:41:50 AM PDT

  •  Two HRs to prove the reality of the problem, (13+ / 0-)

    suppression for failure to clap loudly enough.

    That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

    by enhydra lutris on Fri Nov 02, 2012 at 07:50:35 AM PDT

    •  Thank you! (11+ / 0-)

      Being HR-ed is a new phenomenon since I've criticized Obama. It didn't happen when I criticized Bush.

      My book, TRAITOR: THE WHISTLEBLOWER & THE "AMERICAN TALIBAN," is Amazon's #1 Best Seller in Human Rights Books for February 2012.

      by Jesselyn Radack on Fri Nov 02, 2012 at 08:04:03 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The only reason that I see for posting this (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        stellaluna

        diary today is your desire to get attention. Obviously getting attention is very important to you.

        I assume that is why you refer to the President as a murderer and liken him to psychopathic killers. Such language serves no purpose other than to rile people up and get lots of attention, both positive and negative.

        It is certainly not language that might lead to a nuanced discussion about how we pursue the networks of terrorists who have declared war against the United States.

        It is language used purely for shock value. You seem to relish the negative reactions you precipitate. They enable you to adopt the role of 'martyr for the truth.'  You are able to claim that you are being persecuted for your legitimate criticism of the President.

        Call out diaries like this enable you to pick at the wounds you have inflicted on this community with your hyperbole and feigned victimization.

        In the end, this isn't really about the use of drones or the prosecution of whistle blowers. It's all about you crying out for attention. The Book of Ecclesiastes speaks to this need for attention.

        Vanity of vanities; all is vanity.
        Maybe some self-reflection might help you to promote your cause in a manner that was more about the cause and less about you. I don't doubt that you are capable of making a positive contribution to  the discussion on this blog, but you clearly have not done so up to now.

        Here's my take on it - the revolution will not be blogged, it has to be slogged. - Deoliver47

        by OIL GUY on Fri Nov 02, 2012 at 08:51:49 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Five more days (13+ / 0-)

    then there will be another excuse to avoid criticism. Then you'll be hurting the chances for 2016.   The election season is now all the time.  They got us right where they want us.  
    I guess it doesn't really matter what you're fighting for, it's winning that counts, everything else is gravy.

    "The Global War on Terror is a justification for U.S. Imperialism. It must be stopped."

    by BigAlinWashSt on Fri Nov 02, 2012 at 08:09:04 AM PDT

  •  I find the secrecy of the drone program (13+ / 0-)

    interesting because everyone knows about it. Don't we read about kids and dissidents being killed almost every day by US drones in numerous countries?  It's like a secret everybody knows about.  It appears that the democratic party supports the program so I'm not sure how that could change after the election.  Perhaps if Romney wins, then it could become an issue.  We'll find out soon enough.  

    "The Global War on Terror is a justification for U.S. Imperialism. It must be stopped."

    by BigAlinWashSt on Fri Nov 02, 2012 at 08:33:01 AM PDT

  •  DK used to allow criticism of Democrats (9+ / 0-)

    These days criticism of Democratic establishment gets a HR.

    The 2006 book by Markos and Jerome Armstrong

    Here is the publication blurb.

    Book Description
    Publication Date: September 1, 2006

    Crashing the Gate is a shot across the bow at the political establishment in Washington, DC and a call to re-democratize politics in America.

    This book lays bare, with passion and precision, how ineffective, incompetent, and antiquated the Democratic Party establishment has become, and how it has failed to adapt and respond to new realities and challenges. The authors save their sharpest knives to go for the jugular in their critique of Republican ideologues who are now running--and ruining--our country.

    Written by two of the most popular political bloggers in America, the book hails the new movement--of the netroots, the grassroots, the unorthodox labor unions, the maverick big donors--that is the antidote to old-school politics as usual. Fueled by advances in technology and a hunger for a more authentic and populist democracy, this broad-based movement is changing the way political campaigns are waged and managed.

    A must-read book for anyone with an interest in the future of American democracy.

    Note: I added the bold for the book title. Got this from amazon.com
  •  A contrast - O and Romney on poverty (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    priceman, aliasalias

    Questions asked to both candidates on poverty.

    Romney refused to answer. Here are the questions and the full Obama answers.

    http://www.commondreams.org/...

    But the democrats are not doing well on the issue of poverty. They walked away from it by 1980.

  •  No principles allowed, even Democratic principles (7+ / 0-)

    This is the reality that is Daily Kos now. I'll wait until the SS age is raised and we get chained CPI and then have people scream about how I'm not a Democrat when I call it out. Maybe I'll be banned, who knows, but this certainly won't be a "Democratic"site.

    I appreciate your work here and hope the orange powers that be let you stay.

    I don't negotiate grand bargains with deficit terrorists!

    by priceman on Fri Nov 02, 2012 at 11:38:57 AM PDT

    •  I have a feeling that when the Grand Bargain (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      priceman, billmosby

      (aka swindle) happens you'll see the same people trying to  rationalize raising the age limit, the CPI, or any freakin' thing Obama proposes. Right now bombing weddings, funerals, first responders and strikes called 'signature strikes' because even the names aren't known are just dandy. Gag me. But blowing them up, and anyone nearby must be perfectly alright until it's done by a Repub. Just like indefinite detention, FISA, Patriot Act, renditions, Drone bombings, cuts to Social Security, Charter schools, immunity for crimes both financial and war related (while prosecuting those that blow the whistle) and it's just an inflated sense of importance for people to think what gets said here is of any importance on the larger scene.
       I only wish that in the case of someone like Jesselyn Radack it would matter on the larger scene but this is just a blog among a zillion others on the political spectrum from the far wrong to the drum majorettes. In fact a lot of people don't even know the place exists.
      Sometimes it's like a part of the Democratic party represented by statements by Robert Gibbs and Joe Klein where blowing up four year old kids in the middle east means protecting a four year old child here and turning a 16 year old american boy into pink mist is blamed on the father.

      without the ants the rainforest dies

      by aliasalias on Fri Nov 02, 2012 at 10:58:11 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site