Isn't there anything flammable in or around your home?  Might you consider availing yourself of it?

Yes, and in the last two weeks you also wrote an Obama birth certificate diary.  You know, in the interests of full disclosure and all.  

That was a terrible job at pretending like you care about any issues.

If you care, what are you doing about it.

I have a new policy - no commenting on diaries that say "threw under the bus." It's a very tired phrase and way simplistic.

#2 is the only one I'm really pissed about. #1 seems overly partisan (speaking for myself), 3-5 are completely subjective (Betrayus? Really??). Too see #6 as an awful thing (or even a Right thing) requires a certain ideology.

I'm sure it seems like a mad dash to Glenn, maybe not so much to everyone.

While I love the fact that Glen is such a purist and can afford to be, I have to disagree .

I didn't take his comments re: Clark as throwing him under a bus. Disagreeing is not a bus accident.

MoveOn. Saying that one disagrees with a particular tactic of MoveOn again is not a under the bus moment. As a MoveOn member and ongoing supporter I disagreed with the Petraeus ad and told them so. I thought it was counter productive.

SCOTUS: His position on the death penalty ruling is the same one he has always had. Glen needs to do a bit more reading. Gun Control Yea not so fond of this position. I get it , but not fond of it.

Faith Based- Again this is not a new position and Obama even spoke of it in Audacity of Hope (http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=2758) Again Glen failed to do his research.

As a 60s radical I heard Obama;s comments differently. In retrospect some of the things we/I did, I do not consider my/our proudest moments. We degraded and literally and figuratively pissed on the people (soldiers) who had no say about policy. And in the long run hurt what we were fighting for more than helped.

1) True, but more of an issue with the netroots than anyone else. What is the party position on this race?

2. Stated that the FISA compromise was a better bill, but also stated that he would fight against telco immunity. Where's the change here? Yes, he did make earlier statements that he would filibuster the bill, but that is off the table now, so what do you expect him to do? I don't like the FISA compromise and I wrote a letter to my rep stating my opposition and disappointment in him for voting aye. The way you anti-Obama posters try to spin it you'd think Obama already voted yes on this bill.
   
3. Restated the same positions on those issues that he has taken before. No change in his position and no qualifying or waffling. You fail once again.
   
3. He did not 'throw Clark under the bus'. Pure BS on your part.
   
4. Did not throw moveon.org under the bus. He followed up on a promise he had made earlier in the campaign. Pure BS on your part.
   
5. BS times 3. He did not impugn the patriotism of others. Please provide proof of this claim.
   
6. And once more, BS. He clearly stated that discrimination based on religious affiliation is wrong and should not be allowed. This is a lie, like so many of your posts about Obama. I say that even though I do not like any federal funding of religious programs. I would just as soon see all churches and church property subject to taxes.

This diary is pure spin. You fail. Guess it's time to try again.

Greenwald included this in an update:

"To clarify, I don't disagree with every position Obama has taken over the last two weeks (he was very emphatic in support of the Supreme Court's habeas corpus ruling, for instance), nor do I even disagree with all the positions I listed here (I'm against gun control, for instance, and -- like virtually everyone I know -- don't think that troops should be blamed for unjust wars). The point isn't that Obama should be held to some test of ideological purity; it's that he's rushing to embrace every standard Beltway platitude for how a Democratic candidate must loudly repudiate the values of the party's base and can only win by attacking the standard though largely-irrelevant Leftist demons."

Another possibility, I'll suggest, is that Obama is simply acting from his convictions on all of these issues, we're finding out he's not a Michael Moore-like progressive (which shouldn't surprise anyone) but is a lefty-leaning centrist, and people like Greenwald are getting antsy because they don't have as much to write about between primary season and the convention.  

Those who have doubts about this should read the whole piece (which the diarist linked to).  Of the seven listed points of concern, it's not clear that Greenwald really has strong disagreements with Obama about four (the dispute seems to be over emphasis), the situation regarding the last seems to be murky (check out another update), and the first, c'mon, is about a primary election in a marginal, seat.  We're really back to FISA.

Btw, can we retire the phrase "thrown under the bus"?  Talk about a coinage that's outlived its usefulness.  Step on someone's toe and they'll start whining, "Waaah, I got thrown under the bus".  This belongs in the graveyard with "Don't go there" and "you go, girl!" (and those who use "drank the kool-ade", you're on notice").

Fewer than three complete sentences?  Check.

Stale Republican framing?  Check.

Lack of insightful analysis?  Check.

Diarist absent in comment thread?  Check.

Repetitive use of PUMA's call to arms: "Under the Bus"?  Check.

Rocketed to Rec list by the usual suspects?  Check.

MyDD is coming apart at the seams.

The Following Users Have Recommended This Diary:

wblynch
Carl Nyberg
TarHeel
LakersFan
indus
Ignored and Disgusted
catfish2

You really took this long since your Tony Rezko diary on June 5th?

Early and dumb is bad enough. Late and dumb, well....