Wicked, isn't it?

I commented on this over at John Aravosis's blog, and I'll say it here, too: I think it's a huge mistake to take Harwood's "White House advisor" line yesterday with any seriousness whatsoever. I don't say that because I disagree with the conclusion that this White House has been blowing off issues important to gays and lesbians, not doing nearly enough, not turning pretty words into concrete actions. All of that, imo, is true.

But to the extent that this specific incident is inflaming and infuriating gay and lesbian activists who already have more than enough reason to be outraged at the Obama administration's inaction, I think they are playing into a "divide and conquer" strategy -- one that's at least as old as the hills.

John Harwood, as I certainly don't need to remind anyone smart enough to be reading Glenn Greenwald, is extremely right-wing -- I mean, more so even than most. He's vile. The first insult he passed on -- "Internet left fringe" -- he didn't even attribute to the White House. HE characterized the gay rights marchers and bloggers that way, and because he said those words in the context of White House reaction to the march, insinuated that these were White House sentiments.

Then the other comment -- the reference to "a White House advisor told me" -- was tossed off like an afterthought, with no attempt at specificity. It's not just the fact the White House advisor was unnamed -- it's worse than that. He didn't provide any descriptive tags that might have made the reference more credible. "A senior White House advisor," "a high-level White House source," "a White House aide very familiar with Pres. Obama's thinking" -- any of these would have made the quote at least somewhat more believable. Instead he says, 'To show you how much the White House cares or doesn't care, a White House advisor told me...' That could be anyone, or no one at all.

I am very disgusted with the Obama administration's dismissive attitude toward marriage equality, DADT, and other pressing issues, and I don't minimize those issues, but-- I am even more disgusted with the way the corporate media jerks people's chains and manipulates legitimate public emotion and concern -- about lots of issues -- by using vague, unnamed supposed sources, insinuation, and personal editorializing disguised as reporting to suggest that they have informed insight into the administration's policy positions or plans or thinking that they don't really have at all.

Bottom line: Hold Obama's feet to the fire on gay and lesbian rights, but don't get thrown off track by every wildly irresponsible, unsourced claim attributed by right-wing "journalists" to the White House. On this particular news report, I wish that gay and lesbian activists would focus their outrage on John Harwood and not Obama. (And to underscore that, NOW Harwood says his "White House advisor" was not referring to gay and lesbian activists, marchers, or bloggers at all -- just to bloggers and activists on the left generally.

I'll say it again, Harwood is vile. He's a snake.

To Unabannable,

With friends like you, Obama does not need enemies.

I just read the news of Obama's Nobel Peace Prize win (what can I say, that's what happens when you stay up all night and sleep until 2 pm). Which is to say, I haven't read anything extensively yet, so I'm not sure how I feel about this yet. I *will* say that when I saw the news at Memeorandum just now, I had the same reaction of jaw-dropping disbelief that everyone else had -- immediately followed by a knee-jerk feeling of "Ohmygod that's awesome!" That feeling may modify upon reading more of the coverage and reflecting a bit more.

But here and now, I just want to comment on Glenn's update noting the criticism he is getting from some of his readers here.

One of the (many) things I find so impressive about Glenn's writing is that he is so consistent and so honest.

Intellectual consistency is really important to me -- the kind of consistency where if you are critical of a policy when Republicans do it, you're also critical when Democrats do it. And Glenn has that kind of consistency.

The other aspect of Glenn's writing that feels so extraordinary to me is his honesty about his own opinions and responses -- even when it may feel a little awkward or uncomfortable, as in this case.

I aspire to that level of braveness, and I don't always hit the mark in my own writing. Sometimes I'll just quote other people who are taking a maverick view I agree with, instead of coming right out and saying it myself, because I don't quite dare. Glenn doesn't do that. Glenn comes out and says it -- and, significantly, he then supports his point of view ten times over.

As I said, I'm not sure what I think of this award right now -- although my very shock and disbelief tends to whisper in my ear that maybe it isn't entirely deserved. But even if I end up concluding that I think it's just and defensible and totally wonderful, I still so value being able to turn to the writing of someone I know will tell the truth, not simply as he sees it or would like to see it, but as the evidence and the facts and the truth lead him to conclude.

Just my two cents.

... next semester at Georgetown: Karl Rove teaches Civility in a Post-Partisan Age, Bill Kristol lectures on Accountability in Punditry, while David Gregory examines The Role of Intellect in Adversarial Questioning).

Glenn, you know how bad things have gotten? When I read this part of your sentence, I believed it and felt a surge of outrage. Then I looked at it again, and thought, "Wait... he's joking!" That's how bad it's gotten. I did realize you were joking, but it *could* have been true.