The Story of White House Counsel Greg Craig: This is Not Bringing a “New Politics” to Washington

-


After publishing a Daily Beast piece titled “The Assassination of Greg Craig,” I did this interview above with Cenk Uygar of The Young Turks that some folks may find interesting.
— Steve Clemons

Comments

8 comments on “The Story of White House Counsel Greg Craig: This is Not Bringing a “New Politics” to Washington

  1. DonS says:

    Just for the record, and until Steve may get around to noting the resignation of Phillip Carter (head of WH detainee policy) from the WH staff, it’s more fallout from Obama’s drift into the right wing orbit on civil rights and detainee policy:
    http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2009/11/25/carter/index.html

    Reply

  2. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Obama Quietly Backs PATRIOT Act Provisions
    by William Fisher, November 24, 2009
    With the health care debate preoccupying the mainstream media, it has gone virtually unreported that the Barack Obama administration is quietly supporting renewal of provisions of the George W. Bush-era USA PATRIOT Act that civil libertarians say infringe on basic freedoms.
    And it is reportedly doing so over the objections of some prominent Democrats.
    continues……
    http://original.antiwar.com/fisher/2009/11/23/obama-quietly-backs-patriot-act-provisions/

    Reply

  3. kotzabasis says:

    Norheim, thank you for correcting me. But the question remains if Emanuel was sending “dead fish” to pollsters twenty years ago when he was OUT of power what would he be sending to critics of Obama now that Emanuel has the reins of power in his hands?

    Reply

  4. nadine says:

    “I am not saying that Rahm Emanual has changed, Kotz, but the dead fish was not sent to
    “recalcitrant media critics”, and it had nothing to do with Obama.
    It was sent to pollster Alan Secrest two decades ago.” (Paul Norheim)
    Oh, well, that’s all right then!
    Seriously, what did you expect of “Rahmbo”? He has sharp elbows. He doesn’t like rivals. He needed a fall guy. What a shock.
    As for Steve’s lament “What happened to the Obama we thought we were getting?” have you considered the possibility that the Obama you thought you were getting was an illusion of the campaign, while the Obama you see now is the real Obama?
    Maybe Obama looks weak because he IS weak. Maybe you do need executive experience to make a good President.
    The only thing I find surprising is the evident depth of Steve’s discomfiture; but then, I never found Obama impressive as a politician (which btw is a different statement from saying I disagree with all his policies). I didn’t even think he gave a good speech; to me it was like trying to make your dinner off cotton candy. There is not one of Barack Obama’s speeches that is worth reading the morning after he gives it.
    The enduring mystery of the 2008 campaign to me is how Barack Obama convinced so many very bright people (obviously Steven Clemons among them) that he possessed attributes of mind and temperament so superior as to outweigh all his deficiencies in accomplishments or experience or knowledge.

    Reply

  5. Paul Norheim says:

    “he was posting dead fishes to recalcitrant media critics of Obama during his presidential
    campaign.”
    Really?
    I am not saying that Rahm Emanual has changed, Kotz, but the dead fish was not sent to
    “recalcitrant media critics”, and it had nothing to do with Obama.
    It was sent to pollster Alan Secrest two decades ago.

    Reply

  6. kotzabasis says:

    Only political simpletons could have believed that the “dark side” of the White House dagger politics could be illuminated and eliminated by the angelic phosphorescence emitted from Chicago politics and brought to the White House by that benign figure of Rahm Emanuel, whom Maureen Dowd dubbed as the “knife throwing” consigliore, and who in his Marlo Brando role as Godfather while not placing horse’s heads in beds he was posting dead fishes to recalcitrant media critics of Obama during his presidential campaign.
    Clemons and many other liberals drinking profusely from the intoxicating cup of “change we can believe in,” might well be disappointed in the aftermath of their binge but they cannot blame anyone else for their inebriating chagrin other than their political adolescence.

    Reply

  7. John Waring says:

    1. http://harpers.org/subjects/NoComment#hbc-90006124
    2. http://harpers.org/media/image/blogs/misc/dark-truth-behind-gitmo2.pdf
    There’s a deeper issue here, and it goes to the heart of our constitutional democracy. Read the first link, “Hannah Arendt and the Political Lie” then read the second link, Scott Horton’s address to the Pace School of Law, “The Dark Truth behind Gitmo”.
    By not holding the Bush administration to account, President Obama himself perpetrates the worst form of corruption. He permits the actions of his predecessor to become valid precedent, thus weakening the rule of law permanently.
    By advising the president to go forward and not look back, Axelrod and Emanuel are permitting the roots of tyranny to grow ever deeper. That’s the real tragedy of this administration. The resignation of Mr. Craig is but one symptom.
    I did not vote for optics. I voted to restore the constitutional order, our nation’s very core.

    Reply

  8. Ben Rosengart says:

    Very interesting. Sounds almost like Steve is hoping for a
    progressive mutiny against Rahm Emanuel’s dominance.

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *