Creamed Corn

Jeremy Scahill just wrote an article titled "This Is Change? 20 Hawks, Clintonites, and Neocons to Watch for in Obama's White House."  And David Corn, looking at the same reality through the lens of his soggy accommodationist liberalism, wrote another article titled "The Agents of Change on Obama's Transition Team."

How to resolve this contradiction?  A brutal cage match, of course!  Which is well worth reading (or watching) in its entirety to see the principled and ferociously acute Scahill dismantle Corn's attempts to put a positive spin on Obama's Clintonhawk coterie.

I'm sure you'll find your own highlights, but my favorite moment was when Corn decided to take on Reality thusly:

Listen, you know, Obama got a lot of grief during the campaign trail for his statement that he wanted to reach out to our enemies and have direct negotiations with heads of states from what some people consider to be thuggish, roguish regimes. And, you know, did he ever run away from that position? No, actually, he stuck by that position.

Reality responded by pointing out what Obama originally said in July 2007...:

QUESTION: [W]ould you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries? ...

OBAMA: I would. ... And I think that it is a disgrace that we have not spoken to them. We've been talking about Iraq -- one of the first things that I would do in terms of moving a diplomatic effort in the region forward is to send a signal that we need to talk to Iran and Syria because they're going to have responsibilities if Iraq collapses.

...and following that up with Obama's radical restructuring of this vow in July of 2008, in which he not only undercut what he'd said but pretended he'd never said anything different, and how could anyone think such a crazy thing:

I think that what I said in response was that I would, at my time and choosing, be willing to meet with any leader if I thought it would promote the national security interests of the United States of America.

And, Dan, that continues to be my position. That if I think that I can get a deal that is going to advance our cause, then I would consider that opportunity.

But what I also said was that there is a difference between meeting without pre-conditions and meeting without preparation.

Reality replied that no, Obama said none of that.  Actually Obama went from "I would meet with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, anywhere in the world, in the first year of my administration, without preconditions" to "I would be willing to consider meeting with any leader, at a time and place of my choosing, with sufficient preparation, if I think I can get a deal that is going to advance our cause and if it will promote the national security interests of the USA."  Reality pointed out that the word "if" introduces a condition, which is fundamentally at odds with the phrase "without precondition."  And then Reality grabbed Corn by the lapels and shouted that not only had Obama "run away" from his original position, he'd backpedaled so much that he could have won the Tour de France in reverse.

Between Scahill and Reality, David Corn had a rough day.

BONUS: Yesterday Corn lauded Obama's potential talking-to-rogues as "far more progressive than George W. Bush and even Bill Clinton" (you've got to love that "even", as though the notion of a politician being more progressive than Bill Clinton is so outré that it needs a modifier).  But when Obama actually said it back in July 2007, Corn called it a "flub" and a "mistake" that lacked "sophistication" and revealed that Obama wasn't "steeped in the nuances, language, and minefields of foreign policy."

Comments

[SteveB]

My favorite memory of Scahill was his appearance last year at Fighting Bobfest, an annual progressive gathering in Baraboo in honor of "Fighting Bob" LaFollette. The Fest is organized by Ed Garvey, a bigwig in the state Dem party, and former (losing) Dem candidate for Governor. Mostly, it's liberal Dem elected officials getting the love from their base, with one or two non-Dems added in so Garvey can claim it's a "progressive" event rather than merely a Dem gathering. Scahill, from the first second he took the podium, tore into the Dem party for their complicity in war, torture, and corporate criminality, and he didn't let up for a second. Got a surprisingly good reception from the crowd, too, showing that lots of rank-and-file Dems are truly fed up with the party's leadership.
At the time, I remember thinking two things: 1) "Ed Garvey is NEVER inviting this guy back again", and 2) "I would NEVER want to go up against this guy in a debate."

[Jonathan Versen]

I hate it when politicians' utterances aren't steeped in nuance. It really pisses me off.

[Little Brother]

I watched the "Democracy Now" segment featuring these two, and had exactly the same impression.

I've seen Scahill often on DN, and although I'm sure I've seen Corn before, I don't have a clear impression of his demeanor. I mention this because Corn was literally STUTTERING throughout the interview.

If this is a normal trait for him, I apologize for drawing attention to it. But it perfectly complemented the halting speciousness of his "half-full" spin. His tapdancing was grounded in the lame premise relied upon by everyday mundane Democratic/Obama apologists in the blogosphere, i.e. evaluating the quality of Obama's dreadful and ominious choices not so much on their own dubious merits, but comparing them to the monsters currently in power. Not much different from the exasperated, fulminating bluster of the apologist who rebuts any Democratic/Obama criticism by sneering, "Oh, so you think it would have been better if MCCAIN and PALIN were selecting the new administration!"

It's no credit to me, but since I become acquainted with the commentariat more from serendipitously reading Internet articles than seeing the individuals, I tend to mix up David Corn and David Sirota.

Sirota also would have us believe that he is no "apologist" for Obama, and is ready to hold Obama to account for wrong-headed decisions, etc. But he also unequivocally characterizes Obama as having run on a "progressive" platform, and being determined to implement progressive policies and programs. (See a recent article on Salon.com, if you can stand it.)

It amazes me when ultra-insider types like Corn and Sirota describe the New Emperor's wardrobe as tasteful progressive tweed. Maybe I need to have my eyeglasses prescription checked.

[KDelphi]

Corn has been totally amazing in his naivete..

I receive The Nation as a gift (just like this internet!!). They ripped me off for a year (no problem, really--I dont think they are good at recordkeeping), but, coming this Xmas, I'd like some suggestions for another rag. I am sick of The Nation's pro duopoly stance. Now, I'm gonna go watch that "fight"!

I'm listening now--does Corn stil write for Mother Jones??

I posted at MoJo the other day--Corn really acts like he has lost his mind. I also saw Scahill on c-span the other day with Naomi Klein--they are great!

Scahill OWNS Corn...his book is great, if you havent read it. Its in paperback now.

[KDelphi]

There is only one problem with the "hillary haters"--what the f**k did you expect?

I do not really think that Hillary is any better or worse, than any other DLC/Dem.

That is who these people elected. A very conservative Dem. What did they expect..

[KDelphi]

Sorry--I just do not see how she is any worse than Obama--they are both DLC--didnt meant to "yell" about it (lol) On some blogs, people are just saying stuff ilke "Oh no! It was all going to be great and now---she must have blackmailed him!" When wil they get it--he hired her because they are so similar!

I just got a "breaking news"--Obama has hired Larry Summers as his WH Economic Advisor.

[John Caruso]

SteveB: Scahill, from the first second he took the podium, tore into the Dem party for their complicity in war, torture, and corporate criminality, and he didn't let up for a second.

That's what I love about the guy. In his bio for his article he had this gem: "Jeremy Scahill pledges to be the same journalist under an Obama administration that he was during Bill Clinton and George Bush's presidencies."

Little Brother: ...I tend to mix up David Corn and David Sirota.

No great sin (or surprise) there. And at least you haven't embarrassed yourself publicly by confusing Naomi Klein and Naomi Wolf.

[Serafina]

Scahill is one of the journalists I admire most. Tied with Naomi Klein and Greg Palast, perhaps.

I haven't read much of David Corn but it seems to me that every single article he writes is about trying to calm down those hysterical crazy leftists before we do something crazy, like challenge a Democratic president or scrutinize the ballot-counting of a national election. I seem to remember that in 2000 he was saying the Bush administration couldn't be too bad because Lynne Cheney hinted that she wasn't entirely anti-gay and Laura Bush hinted that she wasn't entirely anti-choice.

[John Caruso]

Yep, I generally get that impression as well—he's one of the self-appointed goaltenders of the left (and in his case it seems conscious, unlike Dennis Kucinich, for whom I think it's just incidental).