Greenwald Seems Weird About Tanden, Right?

Unless you are super on-line, I think maybe the average person is almost aware of Greenwald because of Ed Snowden, about whom my opinions have been registered. I don't even know who knows who Neera Tanden is in the not-very-online world.

But because I do a little politics blogging now and again, I want to take a look at what he's saying, because WTF?

The President of the largest Dem Party think tank continues the personal & sustained attack on the party's front-runner with critiques that could cripple him against Trump.

Not sure if she's motivated by pro-Trump sentiments, pro-Putin ones, are (sic) both, but it's highly disturbing:

Says the Greenwald tweet (capped because it might go away). The Tanden Tweet he quote-Tweets is this:

Just FYI: Other Dem candidates who are his age have released their medical records going back decades. What’s the problem with Sanders doing the same? I don’t understand the mystery here. https://t.co/V5GxWqGcSY

— Neera Tanden (@neeratanden) February 9, 2020

Trump's campaign has access to the same shit Neera Tanden does, because they are called newspapers. They will bring up the same issues she does because: political campaign. Because certain underlying facts exist, they will get brought up in the general campaign. Ignoring them now would be, therefore, lacking in even the least bit of foresight.

She's not pro-Trump, she's against the Democratic party throwing in 100% with a candidate she has reservations about. The Trump Campaign in 2016 pretended Hillary Clinton was dying because she fainted when she had a touch of pneumonia.  (She got better!) Does anyone seriously think Sanders is not going to get attacked for being older than Trump and having had a serious cardiac incident (even though we still don't know a whole hell of a lot about Trump's little excursion to Walter Reed).

Just because something shouldn't be fair game, doesn't mean it won't be treated as such.




But then this just goes on:

in what I can only describe as smearing her as being subject to Kompromat because she said something that every reasonable person could understand--she doesn't think the Russians are A-ok because they did fuck with her and the DNC and Podesta, etc., and also, derp, any idiot would know that if Democrats understand the weakness of a candidate on their side, the Republicans can figure it out, also, too.

Now, maybe he's just archly trying to lampoon the very real and documented involvement of Russian digital influence campaigns during 2016 and the obsession that Maddow-watching lefties (like maybe me!) have for attributing Clinton's general election loss to that. The value of that involvement could be overstated, and any campaign in future will have to have a counter strategy for that kind of fuckery on deck.

But I can't attribute positive goals to Greenwald because he never drops his rhetorical gloves. He's troll all the way.

I usually Tweet links to my posts because as a low-audience blogger, um, yeah. I need eyeballs for validation that I even exist. But whoa! Maybe I won't right here. But this is a great time to stop and consider what voices allegedly of the left are not making sense who support a candidate (whom I like well-enough) who is likeable despite what Hillary Clinton very meanly said, but has become a magnet for almost absurdly transparently conscienceless bad faith interlocutors. Who almost seem to be trying to alienate people from that campaign by being too about it.

I am just saying. And also, without reservation (raises hand with all solemnity) "I hearby support the candidate who we chose in the Democratic primary to whoop the snot out of Donald J. Trump, because obviously."  But why does someone have to be such a collection of utter b-words about it?