(np) big O, say it isn't so...

[kelber at mindspring.com]

I'm solidly in with Joseph and Ian on this one. Obama will win easily.  The Republican primaries are a side-show that have clogged news coverage at the expense of real stories.  

During the Dubya years, progressives fell into a noxious us-vs-them mentality. Believe me, I fell prey to it too.  Us: smart, hip, anti-war, anti-racist, anti-corporate-profiteering, pro-choice, etc.  Them: war mongering, rich, corporate, Christian-right, and totally uncool.   Instead of political analyses, all we had to do was compare Dubya to a chimp to score PC points.  What was the natural antidote (and antithesis) to the smirking, Republican idiot?  A quasi-hip Democrat, a black man who could inspire black people and soothe white liberal guilt, who could stand up in public and diss Bush just the way we did - how totally cool and PC.

But here's where the us-vs-them mentality trips us up.  Because Obama straddles both camps. Which leg you're focussing on dictates how you feel about Obama.  I see the banker-friendly, insurance-industry-loving, war-mongering leg.  Obviously, Henry sees the other leg.  Obama's a shoo-in for a second term, given the love-fest with his corporate backers.  My greatest worry is that, just as only Nixon could go to China, only Obama can bomb Iran while keeping progressives quiet.  Oh for a wild, unrestrained progressive president - like Nixon!

Laura


-----Original Message-----
>From: David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com>
>Sent: Mar 27, 2012 11:45 AM
>To: Henry M <scuffling at gmail.com>
>Cc: Pynchon Liste <pynchon-l at waste.org>
>Subject: Re: (np) big O, say it isn't so...
>
>I'm with you, Henry.  It was this same kind of political purity
>narcissism that led Ralph Nader to hand over the presidency to W. in
>2000, thus subjecting the world to all of the Bush/Cheney horrors we
>still are reeling from.
>
>David Morris
>
>On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 10:30 AM, Henry M <scuffling at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I'm a practical man.  What do you propose as a political strategy in 2012 that won't marginalize the majority of people, including women, non-Christians, and alien residents?  Do you really believe that the duoploy is a monopoly?  If not, then are you willing to put the USA, and as a consequence the rest of the world, through the hell of a conservative misanthropoly just to not be wrong in supporting a far from ideal Democratic
>> party?
>>
>> The truth is less important than actual effects in people's lives.
>> Suggesting otherwise is about as eltitist as you can get, no matter which
>> side of political spectrum one says it from.
>>
>>
>> AsB4,
>> ٩(●̮̮̃•̃)۶
>> Henry Mu
>> http://astore.amazon.com/tdcoccamsaxe-20
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> But can you really expect to be seen as an independent "objective"
>>> evaluator of the quality of journalism , when you attack certain news
>>> organizations, not on the basis of evidence or  reasoned generalizations but
>>> by name calling  and acting as though journalists and social critics are
>>> supposed to independently bring political change. The core of everything
>>> political you write, as far as I can see,  is not a set of political or
>>> social goals and values but an extreme defensiveness of Obama that
>>> undermines your attempt to assume the role of moderate objectiveness.
>>>
>>> Also I can recall at least one example of news later established as
>>> factual which was reported by NPR moths after DN. That was the story of Dick
>>> Cheney's "Office of Special Plans".  I don't have time to wrack my memory or
>>> do research, but one can also look at the NYT Judy Miller propaganda as
>>> something challenged and investigated by DN and others but not brought into
>>> serious examination until the damage was done. Now  as regards objectivity,
>>> you can note that I have not supported Obama since his election. I voted for
>>> him with modest but genuine hope, but am clearly on the record in my
>>> sometimes extreme criticism and mockery. But my displeasure with Obama is
>>> based on the exact same political, moral and  ecological objections I had to
>>> Bush and the Republicans.
>>>
>>> I understand the fears concerning the likes of Gingrich Santorum and
>>> Romney, but to me they are far outweighed by the threat of a continued
>>> duopoly controlled by corporate killers. The lesser of evils approach is
>>> pure self-deception, a band aid on a bomb victim.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mar 26, 2012, at 10:17 AM, Henry M wrote:
>>>
>>> > Beg to differ.  Between NPR, NYT, MSNBC, and other centrist
>>> > heavyweights, most of those stories were covered at the same time, or
>>> > immediately following, the boutique outlets.  I know, because I'd read of
>>> > something in friends message that was from a source that I wouldn't do even
>>> > a good a job fact-checking and double-checking their reporters' pieces as
>>> > the mainstream press, and I'd find the same news, often with deeper, less
>>> > partisan background, in the mainstream press.
>>> >
>>> > The mainstream press is castigated by the left AND the right.  That
>>> > doesn't sound very censored to me.
>>> >
>>> > AsB4,
>>> > ٩(●̮̮̃•̃)۶
>>> > Henry Mu
>>> > http://astore.amazon.com/tdcoccamsaxe-20
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 9:53 AM, Michael Bailey
>>> > <michael.lee.bailey at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > > The mainstream American press isn't exactly uncritical of Obama and
>>> > > the
>>> > > wars.  What is the current explanation (that does not hammer Occam's
>>> > > Razor
>>> > > into paranoid oblivion) for why they don't have this story?
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > these guys are really cool:
>>> > http://www.projectcensored.org/
>>> >
>>> > they put out a book every year full of stories overlooked by the media
>>> > -- really juicy stuff, well-documented, good reportage...
>>> >
>>> > as to why, well, c'mon Henry --
>>> > I'd be the last to hate on the mainstream press, I love my papers
>>> >
>>> > but a) they can't cover everything
>>> > b) they can't alienate their advertisers
>>> > c) their ownership tends to be conservative and hooked in to a certain
>>> > worldview which informs their editorial policy
>>> > d) malefactors increasingly have legal departments, and courts judge
>>> > in their favor all too often
>>> >
>>> > (http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/11-the-media-can-legally-lie/)
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > they didn't cover the 2000 election theft, Greg Palast had to go to
>>> > England to report the systematic fraud in fake "felons", which would
>>> > have been plenty to save the day
>>> >
>>> > they banded up against Mark Webb to gainsay his CIA-cocaine connection
>>> > story which CIA FOIA gleanings tend to bear out
>>> >
>>> > they lined up behind Bush's Iraq lies
>>> >
>>> > and so forth
>>> >
>>>
>>