I quoted you. But I think if people are going to make the claim that there is this vast network of Obama supporters who are unwilling to criticize him than point me to that site. I go to Salon and I see criticism, TPM criticism, DailyKos criticism, Crooks and Liars criticism, NY Times criticism - that is pretty much every blog I read. Now, I'm not saying the criticism is unfair. I just think its a cheap tactic to constantly make note of "blind Obama supporters" when really Glenn is talking about 5 or 6 people who post in his blog, who may or may not be blind Obama supporters, but who usually just disagree with Glenn's point or his framing of the issue. Its the labeling I have a problem with. Just as Glenn doesn't like to be marginalized as some leftist with fantasies about civil liberty abuses, I don't believe he should marginalize criticism with such broad and dismissive labeling. And frankly, I think there are some things worthy of criticism in Glenn's columns.

For the record I think people were right to criticize Obama on FISA, on Gates at Defense, on his economic policy he just laid out. I just hate this tactic of complaining about people criticizing your work. It reeks of Joan Walsh style whining. Either address their concerns or ignore them. But to imply that there are vasts number of people trying to stop others from criticizing Obama - not on the websites I read, the news that I watch, or the papers I read. On any issue there are going be people who support one side or another, I mean Bush still has a 29% approval rating... address there concerns or don't. I feel like Glenn prefers to preach to the choir in his blog anyway.

because they don't exist.

CasualObserver wrote: " I have not read the blind Obama apologists Greenwald refers to , but this comment from their Hero seems to indicate that Obama himself wants to hear input from a wide range of sources. To his credit, he has explicitly stated a fear of becoming walled off and isolated in the WH."

What Glenn is using is a familiar tactic at Salon. When you get criticsm regarding your column, imply that there are a vast number of people, unseen of course, who are unfairly attacking you because of their blind devotion to the subject. That way you can insult and ignore any criticsm.

I just think of all this fretting is a whole lot of nothing. Obama did claim that Iran was pursuing nuclear weapons. He did not claim he was going to bomb them into the stone ages or release the dogs of war on Iran. He spoke of continued engagement and diplomacy. He did not label Iran a member of the axis of evil. So he basically has been saying the same things for 2 years now.

Update 2 also misstates Obama's position.

Obama said - "By reporting that Iran halted its nuclear weapon development program four years ago because of international pressure, the new National Intelligence Estimate makes a compelling case for less saber-rattling and more direct diplomacy. The juxtaposition of this NIE with the president's suggestion of World War III serves as an important reminder of what we learned with the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq: members of Congress must carefully read the intelligence before giving the President any justification to use military force."

Glenn writes: Back then, Obama was touting as authoritative the NIE's finding that "Iran halted its nuclear weapon development program four years ago." Yesterday, with no explanation, he embraced the opposite of the NIE's finding and claimed that they were still pursuing nuclear weapons.

---------------------

Holy Conflation Batman! Obama did not tout the original NIE as authorative, he just said it made a "compelling case" for more diplomacy. He didn't say he agreed with those findings, he said the NIE findings, not his own, make a compelling case and that Bush was irresponsible for his saber rattling rhetoric.

Glenn tries to cover his tracks by writing - "It should be emphasized that Obama doesn't seem to have changed his policy approach -- he continued in yesterday's interview to stress the need for "engagement" with Iran which would be a real and important change from the Bush approach. Still, at the very least, some explanation is in order as to what the basis for yesterday's claim is about Iran's pursuit of a nuclear weapon."

So if his policy approach hasn't changed than WHAT EXACTLY IS THE PROBLEM. Maybe he is setting a high bar for the Iranians to impact negotiations and get the Right off his back. I mean isn't the crazy right a reality in this country - don't you have to talk tough on Iran before you can begin even being taken seriously on the subject in the US. Obama has to play the game - Glenn does not and gets to sit back and criticize everyone who does. There are certain rules to being taken seriously on American foreign policy. Glenn so busy speaking truth to power he has no sense of an overall strategy. And one other thing, how in the hell does Glenn know Iran isn't pursuing nuclear weapons. Is the NIE decreed from Mt. Sinai? Perhaps they have halted their production but still would like the weapons? Its not a justification for war, but who in the hell mentioned war anyway? Nothing has changed.

I would love to play Glenn in poker. He would start off every hand by declaring what he has in his hand and than act with complete and total anger when he found out you were bluffing.

make me want to puke. That is all.