I like reading Greg Sargent's blog over at WaPo and most of the time I agree with his take on things. But this "professional left" flap has shown me that even he can get caught up in defending a meme rather than reporting a story. See Greg knows good and damn well who Robert Gibbs was talking about and he himself has taken shots at firebaggers before, but because he leans left and because I'm sure he knows a lot of those people or maybe just because he wants to keep the story going, he has tried valiantly to super impose the "professional left" with rank and file liberals and progressive. Keep in mind that this is despite the fact that Gibbs SPECIFICALLY made the distinction between the two in the very same article.
But today's Morning Roundup on Sargent's blog had quite the bit of irony.
He links to an article of Josh Greene's totally panning the passage of $26 billion dollars worth of aid to states that the President just signed into law. Somehow I doubt the public servants whose jobs were saved would feel like it was no big deal. Should it have been bigger? Yes. But articles like Green's are exactly why the Obama administration is frustrated with the professional left. If they don't get EVERYTHING they want then they refuse to call ANYTHING a victory.
But right under that link is one to a Paul Krugman article, and get this. Instead of using the phrase "professional left", Greg just uses left when describing Krugman's post as one examining "What exactly does the White House's urinating on the left accomplish?"
So one link shows EXACTLY why the administration is frustrated and the one right after it mischaracterizes who Gibbs was going after in the first place. Gotta love it.
Oh and I like Krugman's writing as well but its obvious that he is covering for some folks too. Instead of defending the Jane Hamshers or Ed Schultzes on the left he points to Rachel Maddow to defend. Now on Afghanistan I'm sure the administration isn't all that happy with Maddow but the truth is they have sent several Cabinet members on her show to speak about the situation there. And on most other issues she has been, up until now, pretty fair in her reporting. So I doubt that Gibbs meant to lump her in with others on the professional left. But see by bringing up Rachel, Krugman makes it about run of the mill lefties rather than the assholes who tried to kill health care reform and are now urging Democrats not to vote in the midterms.
I just hope a lot of people recognize what's really going on here. I gotta say I was proud as hell that Gibbs didn't back down yesterday. He has absolutely nothing to apologize for and what he said was 100% true. Its funny how you can't criticize the criticizers though. Nope, when you turn the tables on their sensitive asses all you hear is bitching and moaning for weeks.