The Progressive becomes a cesspool and strayed so far from journalism that little surprises us these days. So imagine our surprise at being shocked that Matthew Rothschild waived through this lie by Little Timmy Shorrock in "Hawks Behind the Dove: Who Makes Obama’s Foreign Policy?" (July, 2008):
When Clinton vowed to "totally obliterate" Iran if it attacked Israel with nuclear weapons, Obama sharply criticized her comment, saying that's "not the language we need right now, and I think it's language reflective of George Bush."
That is not an error, it is a lie. To selectively quote Hillary Clinton, he had to go to the original statements by her.
Did Hillary Clinton "vow" she would "totally obliterate" Iran?
No, she did not.
2008 has certainly taught everyone just how much and how freely Panhandle Media can and will lie. Even now, they can't stop lying -- while wanting to be seen as the alternative to corporate media.
Note the title of David Morgan's "Clinton says U.S. could 'totally obliterate' Iran" (Reuters). The headline alone is your first clue that Little Timmy found a fellow liar in Matthew Rothschild. From the article:
"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran (if it attacks Israel)," Clinton said in an interview on ABC's "Good Morning America."
"In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them," she said.
"That's a terrible thing to say but those people who run Iran need to understand that because that perhaps will deter them from doing something that would be reckless, foolish and tragic," Clinton said.
She vowed that, if president, an Iranian attack on Israel would lead to the US attacking Iran. That's all she "vowed." "Totally obliterate" comes in the statement where she says "we would be able to totally obliterate them" which is why Reuters (a real news media outlet) used "could" in the headline. She did not vow to "totally obliterate" them. She said it could happen and Iran should be aware of it.
If it's still not clear to you, check out the time line. "The next ten years." Presidential terms run four years. Presidents are limited to two terms. Do the math. She did not vow, she talked of what could happen. Had she been elected in 2008 and re-elected in 2012, she'd still have left office before ten years had elapsed.
"In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them." She wasn't making a vow -- and couldn't vow for ten years. She was speaking of what the US abilities were.
Only liars resort to selectively quote in order to misconstrue meaning. Only liars would read a statement (not shocking -- the nuclear freeze movement has long warned against the 'power' of the US due to the continued possession of nuclear weapons) about ability and turn it into a vow.
Little Timmy's a liar now. Makes you question everything he's ever written. Again, it's not an error. He selectively quoted her. He found the quote, he assembled it to say what he wanted to say as opposed to what she actually said. That's lying.
The Progressive wants to play at journalism. If Matthew Rothschild's confused, the follow-up action he needs to take immediately is called a "correction." After that he either needs to not run Little Timmy's articles or else Rothschild needs to ensure they are fact checking. The world is watching, Rothschild, as you ruin the magazine.
Sunday, July 13, 2008
One year later, Barack answers the question
In July of 2007, a CNN-YouTube debate took place among Democrats hoping to secure their party's presidential nomination.
It all seems so long ago.
However, it appears the first question of the evening, from Provo, Utah's Zach Kempf, finally got an answer . . . one year later.
Zach Kempf: So my question is: We have a bunch of leaders who can't seem to do their job. And we pick people based on the issues they that they represent, but then they get in power and they don't do anything about it anyway.
You're going to spend this whole night talking about your views on issues, but the issues don't matter if when you get in power nothing's going to get done.
We have a Congress and a president with, like, a 30 percent approval rating, so clearly we don't think they're doing a good job. What's going to make you any more effectual, beyond all the platitudes and the stuff we're used to hearing? I mean, be honest with us. How are you going to be any different?
You may want to review what Kempf said one more time before moving on to Barack Obama's answer because Mr. Pretty Words dances around and you may forget what the actual question was. Okay, you're re-read it. Here's the response.
Barack Obama: Well, I think the questioner hit the nail on the head. As I travel around the country, people have an urgent desire for change in Washington. And we are not going to fix health care, we're not going to fix energy, we are not going to do anything about our education system unless we change how business is done in Washington.
Now, part of that is bringing people together, as Chris said. But part of it is also overcoming special interests and lobbyists who are writing legislation that's critical to the American people.
And one of the things I bring is a perspective as a community organizer, as a state legislator, as well as a U.S. senator, that says: Washington has to change.
Barack said, "Washington has to change." And noted he was a US Senator, and that he did this and he did that (traveling and voter registration drives really aren't resume credits). Blah-blah-blah from Mr. Pretty Words. A lot of hot air that gave a non-answer.
The CNN-YouTube debate pitched questions to certain senators. Questions did not always get responses from all candidates. That question went to Barack and Senator Chris Dodd. Dodd's response included, "Speeches are easy to make and rhetoric is easy to expose here. But I think the idea of looking back and saying, 'What have you done?' --if you want to get a good idea of where someone is going to lead or how they're going to lead, I think it's very appropriate to say, 'What have you done? Show me. Demonstrate to me the ability to get these things done that you've championed in the past'." On that, Dodd is correct. Mike Gravel, in a later question, made a comment about the first question so we'll note that as well, "Zach asked about change. You're not going to see any change when these people get elected." In what may have been a comment later in the debate on that first question, John Edwards declared, "But I -- if you listen to these questions, they all have exactly the same thing, which is how do we bring about big change? And I think that's a fundamental threshold question. And the question is: Do you believe that compromise, triangulation will bring about big change? I don't."
Dodd was correct and it turns out Gravel was correct about Barack Obama. And it turns out that the "compromise, triangulation" which John Edwards decried was actually Barack's way of doing business.
And he was correct last week when he voted against the expansion of spying on American citizens. That vote took place June 9th. Presumed Republican presidential candidate John McCain's campaign issued this statement: "A few short months ago, Barack Obama outwardly opposed terrorist surveillance legislation, saying that he would filibuster any bill that includes immunity for American telecommunications companies that had been asked by the government to participate in the program. Today, the U.S. Senate will approve legislation providing the immunity Barack Obama supposedly opposed, and despite his promise, he will not support a filibuster. What Barack Obama will do is show that he's willing to change positions, break campaign commitments and undermine his own words in his quest for higher office." The McCain campaign goes on to highlight this statement from Obama campaign spokesperson Bill Burton in October 2007, "To be clear Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies." To be clear.
Libertarian presidential nominee Bob Barr declared, "Nearly three years ago the American people became aware that the president was systematically breaking the law by spying on phone calls and emails without seeking a warrant under the Constitution or even the relaxed standards of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Instead of holding the president and his aides accountable for violating the law, Congress has ratified his conduct by approving amendments which weaken FISA’s requirements. Unfortunately, failing to uphold the law creates a golden invitation for future administrations to similarly take the law into their own hands." Barr went on to reject Barack's nonsense that the police state legislation was a "balance" by adding, "To the contrary, the bill grants the government unprecedented power to surreptitiously spy on the phone calls and emails of American citizens in our own country, so long as the government claims to believe that they are communicating with someone not in the U.S."
Cynthia McKinney's website is down and we'll assume that's due to a big spike in traffic due to excitement over her winning the Green Party nomination Saturday. The Green Party called out Barack in June on his belligerent speech regarding Iran, but they issued no press release on the FISA vote (possibly due to the fact that they were putting together this weekend's convention).
Ralph Nader's independent presidential campaign declared following Barack's new-found support for increasing the spying on American citizens (and the bill Barack voted for also included immunity for the telecommunications companies breaking the law):
What to do now?
Drop a five spot on the real deal.
Donate five dollars for Nader/Gonzalez.
Why?
Five reasons:
Telecom immunity.
Gun control.
Death penalty.
Campaign finance.
Faith-based funding.
On July 4, the New York Times documented Obama's flip flops on each of these issues and then proclaimed Obama New and Not Improved.
When we ask our friends who support Obama about his recent flip-flopping on these and other issues, they say something like this:
You have to pander to become President.
Or:
It doesn't matter where Obama stands on the issues -- it's the symbolism of change that matters.
Okay, so if it's the symbolism of change that matters to you, and not the substance, then please go and support Obama.
But if you actually want a candidacy that stands steadfast for shifting the power from the corporations back to the people, then please drop a five spot now on Nader/Gonzalez.
Let's return to where we started. July 2007 when Zach Kempf asked Barack (and Chris Dodd), "What's going to make you any more effectual, beyond all the platitudes and the stuff we're used to hearing? I mean, be honest with us. How are you going to be any different?" Chris Dodd cautioned that you have to look at the record. His record on the vote this month reflects he was just where he said he was last year. Dodd stuck to his word. Barack, a year later, indirectly answered that he only has "all the platitudes" and that he's one of those candidate that "we pick . . . based on the issues they that they represent, but then they get in power and they don't do anything about it anyway."
Kempf stated, "You're going to spend this whole night talking about your views on issues, but the issues don't matter if when you get in power nothing's going to get done." Whether he grasped or not, he was describing just what Barack intended to do one year later by voting for the immunization of the telecom industry from lawsuits, for the continued spying on Americans and for the expansion of that spying.
It all seems so long ago.
However, it appears the first question of the evening, from Provo, Utah's Zach Kempf, finally got an answer . . . one year later.
Zach Kempf: So my question is: We have a bunch of leaders who can't seem to do their job. And we pick people based on the issues they that they represent, but then they get in power and they don't do anything about it anyway.
You're going to spend this whole night talking about your views on issues, but the issues don't matter if when you get in power nothing's going to get done.
We have a Congress and a president with, like, a 30 percent approval rating, so clearly we don't think they're doing a good job. What's going to make you any more effectual, beyond all the platitudes and the stuff we're used to hearing? I mean, be honest with us. How are you going to be any different?
You may want to review what Kempf said one more time before moving on to Barack Obama's answer because Mr. Pretty Words dances around and you may forget what the actual question was. Okay, you're re-read it. Here's the response.
Barack Obama: Well, I think the questioner hit the nail on the head. As I travel around the country, people have an urgent desire for change in Washington. And we are not going to fix health care, we're not going to fix energy, we are not going to do anything about our education system unless we change how business is done in Washington.
Now, part of that is bringing people together, as Chris said. But part of it is also overcoming special interests and lobbyists who are writing legislation that's critical to the American people.
And one of the things I bring is a perspective as a community organizer, as a state legislator, as well as a U.S. senator, that says: Washington has to change.
Barack said, "Washington has to change." And noted he was a US Senator, and that he did this and he did that (traveling and voter registration drives really aren't resume credits). Blah-blah-blah from Mr. Pretty Words. A lot of hot air that gave a non-answer.
The CNN-YouTube debate pitched questions to certain senators. Questions did not always get responses from all candidates. That question went to Barack and Senator Chris Dodd. Dodd's response included, "Speeches are easy to make and rhetoric is easy to expose here. But I think the idea of looking back and saying, 'What have you done?' --if you want to get a good idea of where someone is going to lead or how they're going to lead, I think it's very appropriate to say, 'What have you done? Show me. Demonstrate to me the ability to get these things done that you've championed in the past'." On that, Dodd is correct. Mike Gravel, in a later question, made a comment about the first question so we'll note that as well, "Zach asked about change. You're not going to see any change when these people get elected." In what may have been a comment later in the debate on that first question, John Edwards declared, "But I -- if you listen to these questions, they all have exactly the same thing, which is how do we bring about big change? And I think that's a fundamental threshold question. And the question is: Do you believe that compromise, triangulation will bring about big change? I don't."
Dodd was correct and it turns out Gravel was correct about Barack Obama. And it turns out that the "compromise, triangulation" which John Edwards decried was actually Barack's way of doing business.
And he was correct last week when he voted against the expansion of spying on American citizens. That vote took place June 9th. Presumed Republican presidential candidate John McCain's campaign issued this statement: "A few short months ago, Barack Obama outwardly opposed terrorist surveillance legislation, saying that he would filibuster any bill that includes immunity for American telecommunications companies that had been asked by the government to participate in the program. Today, the U.S. Senate will approve legislation providing the immunity Barack Obama supposedly opposed, and despite his promise, he will not support a filibuster. What Barack Obama will do is show that he's willing to change positions, break campaign commitments and undermine his own words in his quest for higher office." The McCain campaign goes on to highlight this statement from Obama campaign spokesperson Bill Burton in October 2007, "To be clear Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies." To be clear.
Libertarian presidential nominee Bob Barr declared, "Nearly three years ago the American people became aware that the president was systematically breaking the law by spying on phone calls and emails without seeking a warrant under the Constitution or even the relaxed standards of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Instead of holding the president and his aides accountable for violating the law, Congress has ratified his conduct by approving amendments which weaken FISA’s requirements. Unfortunately, failing to uphold the law creates a golden invitation for future administrations to similarly take the law into their own hands." Barr went on to reject Barack's nonsense that the police state legislation was a "balance" by adding, "To the contrary, the bill grants the government unprecedented power to surreptitiously spy on the phone calls and emails of American citizens in our own country, so long as the government claims to believe that they are communicating with someone not in the U.S."
Cynthia McKinney's website is down and we'll assume that's due to a big spike in traffic due to excitement over her winning the Green Party nomination Saturday. The Green Party called out Barack in June on his belligerent speech regarding Iran, but they issued no press release on the FISA vote (possibly due to the fact that they were putting together this weekend's convention).
Ralph Nader's independent presidential campaign declared following Barack's new-found support for increasing the spying on American citizens (and the bill Barack voted for also included immunity for the telecommunications companies breaking the law):
What to do now?
Drop a five spot on the real deal.
Donate five dollars for Nader/Gonzalez.
Why?
Five reasons:
Telecom immunity.
Gun control.
Death penalty.
Campaign finance.
Faith-based funding.
On July 4, the New York Times documented Obama's flip flops on each of these issues and then proclaimed Obama New and Not Improved.
When we ask our friends who support Obama about his recent flip-flopping on these and other issues, they say something like this:
You have to pander to become President.
Or:
It doesn't matter where Obama stands on the issues -- it's the symbolism of change that matters.
Okay, so if it's the symbolism of change that matters to you, and not the substance, then please go and support Obama.
But if you actually want a candidacy that stands steadfast for shifting the power from the corporations back to the people, then please drop a five spot now on Nader/Gonzalez.
Let's return to where we started. July 2007 when Zach Kempf asked Barack (and Chris Dodd), "What's going to make you any more effectual, beyond all the platitudes and the stuff we're used to hearing? I mean, be honest with us. How are you going to be any different?" Chris Dodd cautioned that you have to look at the record. His record on the vote this month reflects he was just where he said he was last year. Dodd stuck to his word. Barack, a year later, indirectly answered that he only has "all the platitudes" and that he's one of those candidate that "we pick . . . based on the issues they that they represent, but then they get in power and they don't do anything about it anyway."
Kempf stated, "You're going to spend this whole night talking about your views on issues, but the issues don't matter if when you get in power nothing's going to get done." Whether he grasped or not, he was describing just what Barack intended to do one year later by voting for the immunization of the telecom industry from lawsuits, for the continued spying on Americans and for the expansion of that spying.
Are children allergic to Barack?
For this feature and future articles, we intend to go back to Barack Obama's often troubling and strange words during the primaries.
He does not make a great deal of sense very often. Take the January 31st debate where Wolf Blitzer asked him about healthcare and his response included this puzzling sentence:
We both want to emphasize prevention, because we've got to do something about ever escalating costs and we don't want children, who I meet all the time, going to emergency rooms for treatable illnesses like asthma.
Are those children going to the emergency room due to some asthmatic reaction from Barack's presence?
Who are these children that he says "I meet all the time"?
Is he like Pig Ritter, setting up clandestine meetings with underage children?
Is he meeting these children in emergency rooms?
It's all so confusing and so beside the point of the question he was asked.
He does not make a great deal of sense very often. Take the January 31st debate where Wolf Blitzer asked him about healthcare and his response included this puzzling sentence:
We both want to emphasize prevention, because we've got to do something about ever escalating costs and we don't want children, who I meet all the time, going to emergency rooms for treatable illnesses like asthma.
Are those children going to the emergency room due to some asthmatic reaction from Barack's presence?
Who are these children that he says "I meet all the time"?
Is he like Pig Ritter, setting up clandestine meetings with underage children?
Is he meeting these children in emergency rooms?
It's all so confusing and so beside the point of the question he was asked.
Who's driving in the Indycar Race!!!!
Some of our readers will be supporting John McCain (assuming he is the GOP nominee) in November. In another feature we're working on, Ava and C.I. reminded us of that and that we needed to include a statement from the McCain campaign. While getting that statement, Dallas found a press release he thought was interesting. We do as well.
"Mrs. Cindy McCain Participates in the Nashville Firestone 200 Indycar Race"
ARLINGTON, VA -- U.S. Senator John McCain's presidential campaign today announced that Mrs. Cindy McCain will ride in a pace car in the Firestone 200 Indycar Race on Saturday, July 12th in Lebanon, Tennessee.
Saturday, July 12, 2008
LEBANON, TN
WHO: Mrs. Cindy McCain
WHAT: Firestone 200 Indycar Race
*Please Note For information on obtaining press credentials for this event, please contact Sean Dozier at 615-547-7210 or sdozier@dovermotorsports.com.
WHEN: Saturday, July 12, 2008 at 4:30 p.m. CT
WHERE: Nashville Superspeedway
4847-F McCrary Rd
Lebanon, TN 37090
That event took place Saturday. If the John McCain campaign offers anything more on it during the week, we will highlight it next Sunday.
McCain supporters among our readers are people who are very angry about the way Hillary Clinton was attacked during the Democratic primaries, who are very upset that she appears to have lost the nomination despite getting more votes, and who are more comfortable with John McCain than Barack Obama.
We have noted one reader who wrote in concerned about whether he was still welcome here if he's supporting McCain? Others have since written in on the same topic. If you plan to vote for John McCain in November and you are comfortable with that vote, then that is the right vote for you. Your vote is your vote, no one owns it. Though no one participating in the writing of this edition plans to vote for McCain, you are welcome here and we will not do a turnaround on this issue (as some have worried) when the election draws near.
This press release was noted for two reasons. 1) The action is unusual. 2) Elaine and C.I. know and like Cindy McCain. We'll offer this free advice to the McCain campaign, Cindy McCain is more effective than you realize and needs to be utilized more. The Indycar Race was a good way of demonstrating that.
"Mrs. Cindy McCain Participates in the Nashville Firestone 200 Indycar Race"
ARLINGTON, VA -- U.S. Senator John McCain's presidential campaign today announced that Mrs. Cindy McCain will ride in a pace car in the Firestone 200 Indycar Race on Saturday, July 12th in Lebanon, Tennessee.
Saturday, July 12, 2008
LEBANON, TN
WHO: Mrs. Cindy McCain
WHAT: Firestone 200 Indycar Race
*Please Note For information on obtaining press credentials for this event, please contact Sean Dozier at 615-547-7210 or sdozier@dovermotorsports.com.
WHEN: Saturday, July 12, 2008 at 4:30 p.m. CT
WHERE: Nashville Superspeedway
4847-F McCrary Rd
Lebanon, TN 37090
That event took place Saturday. If the John McCain campaign offers anything more on it during the week, we will highlight it next Sunday.
McCain supporters among our readers are people who are very angry about the way Hillary Clinton was attacked during the Democratic primaries, who are very upset that she appears to have lost the nomination despite getting more votes, and who are more comfortable with John McCain than Barack Obama.
We have noted one reader who wrote in concerned about whether he was still welcome here if he's supporting McCain? Others have since written in on the same topic. If you plan to vote for John McCain in November and you are comfortable with that vote, then that is the right vote for you. Your vote is your vote, no one owns it. Though no one participating in the writing of this edition plans to vote for McCain, you are welcome here and we will not do a turnaround on this issue (as some have worried) when the election draws near.
This press release was noted for two reasons. 1) The action is unusual. 2) Elaine and C.I. know and like Cindy McCain. We'll offer this free advice to the McCain campaign, Cindy McCain is more effective than you realize and needs to be utilized more. The Indycar Race was a good way of demonstrating that.
Highlights
This piece is written by Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude, Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix, Kat of Kat's Korner, Betty of Thomas Friedman is a Great Man, Mike of Mikey Likes It!, Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz, Ruth of Ruth's Report, Marcia of SICKOFITRADLZ and Wally of The Daily Jot. Unless otherwise noted, we picked all highlights.
"I Hate The War" -- The most requested highlight by people who e-mailed this site. Ty says Amanda noted she loved it but reminds, "You were going to talk about Yes! magazine." That was the plan Thursday evening, it changed when the a story broke.
"Facts do matter, war resistance should grasp that" -- They really do matter and C.I. asked that we note Bob Rae's "Why U.S. war resisters deserve refuge in Canada" (Toronto Star) which demonstrates that you can make the argument (and make it much more strongly) when you know the facts.
"Gumbo in the Kitchen" and "Sour grapes make for a lousy bottle of whine" -- Trina and Elaine take on the media portrayal of Debbie Downer.
"The intervention" -- Panhandle Media's resistance to Ralph Nader is so strong, they stage an intervention on Nader Road Tripper Betinna.
"Why Nader?" -- Ruth offers one important reason why.
"More lies from The Progressive and the Falluja slaughter" -- The lies just never end in Panhandle Media. Remember, they only play at journalism. Mike explains it.
"Sexism and silence" -- A warning to those being silent, if we can ever get it together enough where an edition goes smoothly, Ava and C.I. plan to break away and let the rest of us handle features while they do a major piece on just this topic. Such a piece would name names and would be pointed and on the money. Considering all the e-mails from 'victims' complaining about the Ava and C.I. 'treatment' they have received, that's your heads up, your warning.
"Barack's big dreams and ego" & "THIS JUST IN! BARACK WANTS STARDOM!" -- Keenan e-mailed to ask if Third was covering this topic (Barack's daughters on Access Hollywood)? No. And no one did except for Cedric and Wally. We're not interested in two young children and will let them have their privacy. Cedric and Wally found a way to approach it that really didn't involve the children so they covered it. (Others can cover it if they want, we're just not interested in writing about the children.)
"Iraq snapshot," "your frankenstein monster has escaped," "Barack, Hillary, Ralph, Glen Ford,"
"Hillary and Barbara stand up, Barack crawls," "Ralph Nader, Jesse Jackson, Barack, Hillary,"
"Who stood up? The woman they attacked.," "He tore apart the Democratic Party, now its families," "Jesse Jackson Jnr. has a new Daddy" and "THIS JUST IN! GUESS WHO GOT A NEW DADDY!" -- Community coverage of Barack's cave on spying.
"Barack's girlfriends rush to defend him" -- Ruth can always make you laugh.
"Robin Long, AP journalist held, White House" -- Marcia covering a wide range of topics.
"Baker and Christopher plot; Joshua Key" -- Mike covered the Baker and Christopher nonsense. He says that'll give him three highlights and we say, who cares.
"Barack whines again" & "THIS JUST IN! WHINE, WHINE, WHINE!" -- Wally and Cedric's joint-post on the Christ-child, it's always something with him.
"nicholas fonseca flaunts his ignorance" -- Rebecca takes on an Entertainment Weekly 'critic.'
"Third, Ralph Nader, Mama Mia" -- Marcia explains how sometimes people talk so much to themselves, they can't converse with others.
"The 'movement'" -- Elaine addressing that so-called 'movement.'
"Third, Nader, Kerry" -- Mike breaks down last week's edition and addresses other issues including John Kerry.
"Hirschorn, Nader and more" -- Kat with tales from the road.
"I Hate The War" -- The most requested highlight by people who e-mailed this site. Ty says Amanda noted she loved it but reminds, "You were going to talk about Yes! magazine." That was the plan Thursday evening, it changed when the a story broke.
"Facts do matter, war resistance should grasp that" -- They really do matter and C.I. asked that we note Bob Rae's "Why U.S. war resisters deserve refuge in Canada" (Toronto Star) which demonstrates that you can make the argument (and make it much more strongly) when you know the facts.
"Gumbo in the Kitchen" and "Sour grapes make for a lousy bottle of whine" -- Trina and Elaine take on the media portrayal of Debbie Downer.
"The intervention" -- Panhandle Media's resistance to Ralph Nader is so strong, they stage an intervention on Nader Road Tripper Betinna.
"Why Nader?" -- Ruth offers one important reason why.
"More lies from The Progressive and the Falluja slaughter" -- The lies just never end in Panhandle Media. Remember, they only play at journalism. Mike explains it.
"Sexism and silence" -- A warning to those being silent, if we can ever get it together enough where an edition goes smoothly, Ava and C.I. plan to break away and let the rest of us handle features while they do a major piece on just this topic. Such a piece would name names and would be pointed and on the money. Considering all the e-mails from 'victims' complaining about the Ava and C.I. 'treatment' they have received, that's your heads up, your warning.
"Barack's big dreams and ego" & "THIS JUST IN! BARACK WANTS STARDOM!" -- Keenan e-mailed to ask if Third was covering this topic (Barack's daughters on Access Hollywood)? No. And no one did except for Cedric and Wally. We're not interested in two young children and will let them have their privacy. Cedric and Wally found a way to approach it that really didn't involve the children so they covered it. (Others can cover it if they want, we're just not interested in writing about the children.)
"Iraq snapshot," "your frankenstein monster has escaped," "Barack, Hillary, Ralph, Glen Ford,"
"Hillary and Barbara stand up, Barack crawls," "Ralph Nader, Jesse Jackson, Barack, Hillary,"
"Who stood up? The woman they attacked.," "He tore apart the Democratic Party, now its families," "Jesse Jackson Jnr. has a new Daddy" and "THIS JUST IN! GUESS WHO GOT A NEW DADDY!" -- Community coverage of Barack's cave on spying.
"Barack's girlfriends rush to defend him" -- Ruth can always make you laugh.
"Robin Long, AP journalist held, White House" -- Marcia covering a wide range of topics.
"Baker and Christopher plot; Joshua Key" -- Mike covered the Baker and Christopher nonsense. He says that'll give him three highlights and we say, who cares.
"Barack whines again" & "THIS JUST IN! WHINE, WHINE, WHINE!" -- Wally and Cedric's joint-post on the Christ-child, it's always something with him.
"nicholas fonseca flaunts his ignorance" -- Rebecca takes on an Entertainment Weekly 'critic.'
"Third, Ralph Nader, Mama Mia" -- Marcia explains how sometimes people talk so much to themselves, they can't converse with others.
"The 'movement'" -- Elaine addressing that so-called 'movement.'
"Third, Nader, Kerry" -- Mike breaks down last week's edition and addresses other issues including John Kerry.
"Hirschorn, Nader and more" -- Kat with tales from the road.
Sunday, July 06, 2008
Truest statement of the week
How about you focus on patrolling your own 'movement' in Canada because, from the United States, you're not doing a great deal that qualifies as 'helping'.
-- C.I., "ABC's in the tank with the Pentagon! (Or so a crackpot e-mails)"
-- C.I., "ABC's in the tank with the Pentagon! (Or so a crackpot e-mails)"
A note to our readers
Hey --
The long edition. The one we almost didn't do. If you're not a regular reader, this is our second "F.U." edition and it's not aimed at regular readers.
Let me (Jim) note who helped:
The Third Estate Sunday Review's Jim, Dona, Jess, and Ava,
Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude,
Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man,
C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review,
Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills),
Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix,
Mike of Mikey Likes It!,
Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz,
Ruth of Ruth's Report,
Wally of The Daily Jot,
and Marcia SICKOFITRDLZ.
Along with Dallas! We thank everyone. I'm going to talk about the edition as I go through. There was a note I almost posted Sunday morning. I'm glad I did not. Dona stopped me asking, "Have you looked at Ava and C.I.?"
What did she mean? Ava, C.I. and I stayed up all night Saturday working on the edition. Of course I'd looked at them. Then I looked over. They were tired. The note was saying (and I may publish it and comment on it next week) basically, "Hang in there! Ava and C.I. are working on their TV piece. We're getting input from everyone on what we've written and it needs to be typed. Two hours tops, the whole edition will be up." Didn't happen.
And Dona rightly stopped me from posting that. Ironically, the edition came to a halt when one of us fell asleep. Not Ava. Not C.I. Me. I was typing up one of the 'letters' and fell asleep. When everyone noticed, it was decided to come back this evening.
Truest statement of the week -- we weren't going to have one. Ava, C.I. and I had decided that. When we invited everyone back in, Mike, Wally, Cedric and Betty agreed with Rebecca and said that's insane and that it had to be C.I. (over C.I.'s objections but the towel was tossed in in order to get "the damn edition done").
Editorial: The real change choice -- The bulk of the drafts were written Saturday night, Sunday morning by Ava, C.I. and I. I'll go into that throughout the note. We'd called off the edition and sent everyone on to a fun Saturday. In the form we wrote, it was a feature article. When we brought everyone in late Sunday morning, it was said this was the editorial. So some things were stripped out and some things added. Things dropped will be picked up in future coverage.
TV: Nonreality programming -- Ava and C.I. wrote this. When I fell asleep they were almost done with this. When I fell asleep, they decided that the edition was over and they'd finish when we all woke up. Normally, I read their piece outloud. I still haven't read it. I'm sure it's wonderful. I did hear them composing some lines as they pitched jokes at one another and they had me laughing then. Mike will do a breakdown and, I'm sure, capture this perfectly at his site.
Judge Robert Barnes rules in Joshua Key's appeal -- This is where we had the slowdown in the evening Sunday. Dona argued, "We're not doing our edition, going on to sleep or fun and letting C.I. stay up forever doing 'And the war drags on . . .'." We all agreed with that. How long would it take? C.I. said it shouldn't take long. Joshua Key needed to be noted and McClatchy would be noted because they would be covering Iraq. Add in Pru and that was that. Didn't work out that way. We'd heard about Joshua Key all weekend and knew the end result of the finding. C.I. was just going to note the coverage. Then C.I. started reading the coverage. That's not what the decision said in many cases. C.I. bummed a cigarette from Dona (noting that with C.I.'s permission -- the only cigarette C.I.'s had in 2008 for those freaking out -- relax), pulled the hair up on top of the head and read over the entire decision of Judge Robert Barnes while making notes. C.I. then wrote the entry. We'd heard the comments throughout while C.I. was reading over it. When we saw the write-up, Jess said, "Could we post it here?" There was no time to write another article. Jess wasn't asking C.I. to give it up (and do another entry for TCI), he was asking if we could also post it here. C.I. wants it noted that, "I focused on what interested me. It is not all good for Key but that's for those who oppose war resisters to argue. I don't make that case and I'm not going to."
The missing editorial -- This goes with truest and with a number of things. It's why we didn't want to do an edition. A 'helper' in Canada decided to attack C.I. in an e-mail. And invented things that were not said. We're really not in the mood for it. And we will be less likely to hold our tongue about the 'movement' in Canada as a result. Except for Elaine, everyone was. Until now. A 'movement' that can't even get it right that deserters were welcomed in Canada during Vietnam isn't much of a movement. C.I.'s "ABC's in the tank with the Pentagon! (Or so a crackpot e-mails)" on Friday morning (a public reply to the 'helper') outlines that perfectly.
Letters to An Old Sell Out: Iraq -- Tom Hayden. He wrote Cedric. We should probably mention that. He wrote Cedric to whine. (Link to Cedric and Wally's reply in this and the other 'letters.') Like the 'helper' in Canada, Tom-Tom can't read. Cedric had not written about Hayden at his site. (Nor had Wally. They do joint-posts.) They'd searched for weeks trying to find out what he was writing about (he did not include the date or title of the post that upset him). They brought C.I. into it Wednesday. C.I. asked, "What's the date of his e-mail?" "Oh, then he's complaining about Linda's comments about him being a sexist pig. It's a Slate article I linked to in the snapshot and quoted from. You ran it in the joint-post the day before he e-mailed." Since it clearly identifies the author, that it's from Slate and that it's a quote, Tom-Tom might try going to a remedial reading course. He might meet Canadian 'helper' there and form a friendship. July 4th Barack didn't say anything he hadn't already been saying. But it became an issue and suddenly Tom-Tom took to blog to play like he'd always been right about Barack. He cited a 2007 piece he wrote and ignored what he wrote in 2008. He complained that the MSM and Hillary's campaign hadn't called out Barack for the Samantha Power BBC interview. That would be the one he never wrote about (until July 4th) that took place back in March. That would be the one we wrote an editorial in March calling out Panhandle Media for not publicizing. MSM and the Hillary campaign responded to that interview. It was the losers like Tom-Tom that didn't cover it. But then it would have hurt the Christ-child and truth took a backseat so that they could . . . hop into the backseat with Barack. Hot and heavy make out session passed off as 'analysis' is all they offered.
Letters to An Old Sell Out: About Latin America -- If there was any reason left to listen to Tom Hayden today it was his recent work on Latin America. On Iraq, he's become nothing but a justifier for the Democratic Party (as most book reviews of his Iraq book noted). Barack was never the candidate for Latin America. Tom-Tom got honest on July 4th (a little honest) about Barack and Iraq, he's still lying about Barack and Latin America.
Letters to An Old Sell Out: Where's the honesty? -- The two letters above originated with Ava, C.I. and myself. When we brought everyone in, Elaine said, "Well let's raise the issue of 1969." So we do. Isn't it time Tom-Tom got honest about his speech inciting violence in Chicago in 1969? We think it is and we think people should know about it when Tom-Tom's blathering on about the 'movement' behind Barack. From start to finish, this was a piece everyone worked on.
Stop the racism -- This is why Ava, C.I. and I stayed up. What happened was Maria asked if we would do a roundtable. It was already Sunday night. We never do roundtables for El Espirito (Maria, Miguel and Francisco's newsletter). Not because we don't like their newletter (we do, we all do, Isaiah does comics for it, Rebecca does a column, Ava and C.I. do two TV pieces on Spanish language TV programming). We don't do a roundtable for them because we're working on the latest edition while they're assembling the newsletter. But the community wanted to know more about the e-mail that came in to C.I. Friday and though everyone had written about it at their sites, Maria wanted to have everyone together for the roundtable. We were already toying with not doing an edition. We agreed to the roundtable (which went quickly, just under two hours). Then we decided, "Screw it. We're not busting our asses this weekend." So everyone was told, "Go have fun, go to sleep, whatever. We're taking the weekend off." I don't know what people did elsewhere. Kat saw it as a chance to go out and quickly organized a night's event. She took Jess, Wally, Mike, Elaine and Dona along. Ava and C.I. were of the opinion that they'd get some sleep and I wanted to get the pictures from France (Dona and I were in France and that's why we didn't participate last edition) in order. I'd picked up the pictures Saturday afternoon and not even had time to look at them. Ava and C.I. opened a bottle of wine and moved to a sofa. I took the pictures in there and bored them (I'm saying that) with them. As we were looking, C.I. noted that at some point "I'm going to have to get online." Why? Asian-Americans in the community were angry and offended by the stunt Amy Goodman pulled. C.I. called it the day it aired. But it needed to be addressed further because so many Asian-Americans were angry and to not write something on it would be, in effect, pulling a Goodman. Ava, C.I. and I talked about that and then I said, "Let's write it together. Let's do it and we'll post it at Third. It'll be the only thing we post there. But it is important." So C.I. gathered up the e-mails on it and we started writing it. A little after three in the morning, we heard everyone come in. A few came in to say goodnight and asked what we were doing. We explained it was just one article and to go on to sleep. At six, Mike woke up and came downstairs. He was surprised to find us still working. We'd done two of the letters and Ava and C.I. said they could do a TV commentary. We'd also worked out the editorial that became the missing editorial. Mike picked up all the pages (written in longhand) that we'd produced and whistled. He said, "I think we need an edition." Before anyone could stop him, he was upstairs waking everyone and telling them we were doing an edition. Ava and C.I. wrote the TV commentary and it is exclusively their own. This piece is by Ava, C.I. and myself. C.I. says Betty added something, so add Betty too. Everything else went through further drafts with others adding things. And that's how we ended up with an edition.
Highlights -- Mike, Wally, Betty, Cedric, Kat, Ruth, Marcia, Rebecca and Elaine wrote this and selected the highlights except where noted otherwise.
And that's it. Ty rejoins us next edition. He's on vacation and (we hope) having a great time!
-- Jim, Dona, Jess, Ava and C.I.
The long edition. The one we almost didn't do. If you're not a regular reader, this is our second "F.U." edition and it's not aimed at regular readers.
Let me (Jim) note who helped:
The Third Estate Sunday Review's Jim, Dona, Jess, and Ava,
Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude,
Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man,
C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review,
Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills),
Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix,
Mike of Mikey Likes It!,
Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz,
Ruth of Ruth's Report,
Wally of The Daily Jot,
and Marcia SICKOFITRDLZ.
Along with Dallas! We thank everyone. I'm going to talk about the edition as I go through. There was a note I almost posted Sunday morning. I'm glad I did not. Dona stopped me asking, "Have you looked at Ava and C.I.?"
What did she mean? Ava, C.I. and I stayed up all night Saturday working on the edition. Of course I'd looked at them. Then I looked over. They were tired. The note was saying (and I may publish it and comment on it next week) basically, "Hang in there! Ava and C.I. are working on their TV piece. We're getting input from everyone on what we've written and it needs to be typed. Two hours tops, the whole edition will be up." Didn't happen.
And Dona rightly stopped me from posting that. Ironically, the edition came to a halt when one of us fell asleep. Not Ava. Not C.I. Me. I was typing up one of the 'letters' and fell asleep. When everyone noticed, it was decided to come back this evening.
Truest statement of the week -- we weren't going to have one. Ava, C.I. and I had decided that. When we invited everyone back in, Mike, Wally, Cedric and Betty agreed with Rebecca and said that's insane and that it had to be C.I. (over C.I.'s objections but the towel was tossed in in order to get "the damn edition done").
Editorial: The real change choice -- The bulk of the drafts were written Saturday night, Sunday morning by Ava, C.I. and I. I'll go into that throughout the note. We'd called off the edition and sent everyone on to a fun Saturday. In the form we wrote, it was a feature article. When we brought everyone in late Sunday morning, it was said this was the editorial. So some things were stripped out and some things added. Things dropped will be picked up in future coverage.
TV: Nonreality programming -- Ava and C.I. wrote this. When I fell asleep they were almost done with this. When I fell asleep, they decided that the edition was over and they'd finish when we all woke up. Normally, I read their piece outloud. I still haven't read it. I'm sure it's wonderful. I did hear them composing some lines as they pitched jokes at one another and they had me laughing then. Mike will do a breakdown and, I'm sure, capture this perfectly at his site.
Judge Robert Barnes rules in Joshua Key's appeal -- This is where we had the slowdown in the evening Sunday. Dona argued, "We're not doing our edition, going on to sleep or fun and letting C.I. stay up forever doing 'And the war drags on . . .'." We all agreed with that. How long would it take? C.I. said it shouldn't take long. Joshua Key needed to be noted and McClatchy would be noted because they would be covering Iraq. Add in Pru and that was that. Didn't work out that way. We'd heard about Joshua Key all weekend and knew the end result of the finding. C.I. was just going to note the coverage. Then C.I. started reading the coverage. That's not what the decision said in many cases. C.I. bummed a cigarette from Dona (noting that with C.I.'s permission -- the only cigarette C.I.'s had in 2008 for those freaking out -- relax), pulled the hair up on top of the head and read over the entire decision of Judge Robert Barnes while making notes. C.I. then wrote the entry. We'd heard the comments throughout while C.I. was reading over it. When we saw the write-up, Jess said, "Could we post it here?" There was no time to write another article. Jess wasn't asking C.I. to give it up (and do another entry for TCI), he was asking if we could also post it here. C.I. wants it noted that, "I focused on what interested me. It is not all good for Key but that's for those who oppose war resisters to argue. I don't make that case and I'm not going to."
The missing editorial -- This goes with truest and with a number of things. It's why we didn't want to do an edition. A 'helper' in Canada decided to attack C.I. in an e-mail. And invented things that were not said. We're really not in the mood for it. And we will be less likely to hold our tongue about the 'movement' in Canada as a result. Except for Elaine, everyone was. Until now. A 'movement' that can't even get it right that deserters were welcomed in Canada during Vietnam isn't much of a movement. C.I.'s "ABC's in the tank with the Pentagon! (Or so a crackpot e-mails)" on Friday morning (a public reply to the 'helper') outlines that perfectly.
Letters to An Old Sell Out: Iraq -- Tom Hayden. He wrote Cedric. We should probably mention that. He wrote Cedric to whine. (Link to Cedric and Wally's reply in this and the other 'letters.') Like the 'helper' in Canada, Tom-Tom can't read. Cedric had not written about Hayden at his site. (Nor had Wally. They do joint-posts.) They'd searched for weeks trying to find out what he was writing about (he did not include the date or title of the post that upset him). They brought C.I. into it Wednesday. C.I. asked, "What's the date of his e-mail?" "Oh, then he's complaining about Linda's comments about him being a sexist pig. It's a Slate article I linked to in the snapshot and quoted from. You ran it in the joint-post the day before he e-mailed." Since it clearly identifies the author, that it's from Slate and that it's a quote, Tom-Tom might try going to a remedial reading course. He might meet Canadian 'helper' there and form a friendship. July 4th Barack didn't say anything he hadn't already been saying. But it became an issue and suddenly Tom-Tom took to blog to play like he'd always been right about Barack. He cited a 2007 piece he wrote and ignored what he wrote in 2008. He complained that the MSM and Hillary's campaign hadn't called out Barack for the Samantha Power BBC interview. That would be the one he never wrote about (until July 4th) that took place back in March. That would be the one we wrote an editorial in March calling out Panhandle Media for not publicizing. MSM and the Hillary campaign responded to that interview. It was the losers like Tom-Tom that didn't cover it. But then it would have hurt the Christ-child and truth took a backseat so that they could . . . hop into the backseat with Barack. Hot and heavy make out session passed off as 'analysis' is all they offered.
Letters to An Old Sell Out: About Latin America -- If there was any reason left to listen to Tom Hayden today it was his recent work on Latin America. On Iraq, he's become nothing but a justifier for the Democratic Party (as most book reviews of his Iraq book noted). Barack was never the candidate for Latin America. Tom-Tom got honest on July 4th (a little honest) about Barack and Iraq, he's still lying about Barack and Latin America.
Letters to An Old Sell Out: Where's the honesty? -- The two letters above originated with Ava, C.I. and myself. When we brought everyone in, Elaine said, "Well let's raise the issue of 1969." So we do. Isn't it time Tom-Tom got honest about his speech inciting violence in Chicago in 1969? We think it is and we think people should know about it when Tom-Tom's blathering on about the 'movement' behind Barack. From start to finish, this was a piece everyone worked on.
Stop the racism -- This is why Ava, C.I. and I stayed up. What happened was Maria asked if we would do a roundtable. It was already Sunday night. We never do roundtables for El Espirito (Maria, Miguel and Francisco's newsletter). Not because we don't like their newletter (we do, we all do, Isaiah does comics for it, Rebecca does a column, Ava and C.I. do two TV pieces on Spanish language TV programming). We don't do a roundtable for them because we're working on the latest edition while they're assembling the newsletter. But the community wanted to know more about the e-mail that came in to C.I. Friday and though everyone had written about it at their sites, Maria wanted to have everyone together for the roundtable. We were already toying with not doing an edition. We agreed to the roundtable (which went quickly, just under two hours). Then we decided, "Screw it. We're not busting our asses this weekend." So everyone was told, "Go have fun, go to sleep, whatever. We're taking the weekend off." I don't know what people did elsewhere. Kat saw it as a chance to go out and quickly organized a night's event. She took Jess, Wally, Mike, Elaine and Dona along. Ava and C.I. were of the opinion that they'd get some sleep and I wanted to get the pictures from France (Dona and I were in France and that's why we didn't participate last edition) in order. I'd picked up the pictures Saturday afternoon and not even had time to look at them. Ava and C.I. opened a bottle of wine and moved to a sofa. I took the pictures in there and bored them (I'm saying that) with them. As we were looking, C.I. noted that at some point "I'm going to have to get online." Why? Asian-Americans in the community were angry and offended by the stunt Amy Goodman pulled. C.I. called it the day it aired. But it needed to be addressed further because so many Asian-Americans were angry and to not write something on it would be, in effect, pulling a Goodman. Ava, C.I. and I talked about that and then I said, "Let's write it together. Let's do it and we'll post it at Third. It'll be the only thing we post there. But it is important." So C.I. gathered up the e-mails on it and we started writing it. A little after three in the morning, we heard everyone come in. A few came in to say goodnight and asked what we were doing. We explained it was just one article and to go on to sleep. At six, Mike woke up and came downstairs. He was surprised to find us still working. We'd done two of the letters and Ava and C.I. said they could do a TV commentary. We'd also worked out the editorial that became the missing editorial. Mike picked up all the pages (written in longhand) that we'd produced and whistled. He said, "I think we need an edition." Before anyone could stop him, he was upstairs waking everyone and telling them we were doing an edition. Ava and C.I. wrote the TV commentary and it is exclusively their own. This piece is by Ava, C.I. and myself. C.I. says Betty added something, so add Betty too. Everything else went through further drafts with others adding things. And that's how we ended up with an edition.
Highlights -- Mike, Wally, Betty, Cedric, Kat, Ruth, Marcia, Rebecca and Elaine wrote this and selected the highlights except where noted otherwise.
And that's it. Ty rejoins us next edition. He's on vacation and (we hope) having a great time!
-- Jim, Dona, Jess, Ava and C.I.
Editorial: The real change choice
After 9-11, it's now become quite clear that whatever emphasis there was on the al Qaeda apparatus, there was a superior emphasis on removing Saddam Hussein from Iraq. What's interesting about this is the following. It illustrated -- in ways perhaps never before illustrated in our country -- the fragility of our democratic institutiatons. Here is a nation run by a tottering dictator presiding over a diplated army, with troops not willing to fight for him, surrounded by hostile Kurds to the north, hostile Shiites to the south, surrounded by three very powerful countries compared to his military ability: Iran, Turkey and Israel. And had he directed one aggressive threat toward any of them, they would have obliterated his regime. And yet Iraq under Hussein was viewed as a threat to the United States? But what was most troubling was the lack of any deliberative process by the US Congress which was stampeded into this situation, lack of any deliberative or investigative process by the mass media which clicked their heels and loved the graphics that they were given, and without a deliberative attentiveness to the perceived concerns of the American people. Before the invasion of Iraq, we tried to have Bush meet with one or more distinct groups in our country who had knowledge and were concerned about the invasion of Iraq. Thirteen of these groups, with very little press attention, wrote open letters to President Bush in February and early March, asking for a meeting. They included letters signed by the National Council of Churches, former military officers, former intelligence officials, student groups, women's peace advocates, a business group, labor group. I don't know of any other impending hostility that had such an ecumentical coming-together, expressing doubt and opposition to the pending move. None of these letters were answered by the White House. There were no meetings. President Bush, being the messianic militarist that we've come to know so well, was not interested in meeting with anyone who was critical of his proposed Iraq policies. That was a severe scar on our democratic fabric.
That's indpendent presidential candidate Ralph Nader speaking about the Iraq War in May of 2004. Last week, Barack Obama shocked some who suddenly discovered he wasn't as "anti-war" as the hype pretended. Chief among the pretenders is Tom Hayden (who endorsed Barack in January). With Barack declaring that he would "refine" his 'plan' on Iraq based on his upcoming visit, Hayden showed up July 4th online to scold the Mainstream Media for failing to report on Samantha Power's remarks to the BBC. Yeah, we reported on them in real time and called on others to do the same. But, thing is, the MSM wasn't the problem. It was people like Hayden. (See this week's "Letters to An Old Sell Out: Iraq" especially.) Hayden not only falsely accuses of the MSM of his own crimes, he also falsely accuses the Hillary Clinton campaign of ignoring Power's remarks.
While there are many to criticize, the MSM and the Clinton campaign can't be accused. People like Hayden, The Nation, The Progressive, Amy Goodman, John Nichols, Betsy Reed, Katrina vanden Heuvel, Ari Berman and all the usual rejects of Panhandle Media are the ones who failed. They refused to cover it. Even after the interview aired, they were more concerned with 'covering' poor Samantha Power. In terms of resigning from the Barack campaign, in terms of calling Hillary a "monster." They went to that well over and over. They never felt the need to know the facts (especially Davey D who lamented her 'passing' on air in a piece so factually-challenged that he repeatedly called her "Samantha Powers" -- and no one at KPFA bothered to correct him or interject: "What about what she said about Iraq?").
They started out lying for their candidate-of-choice (and started that in 2006, remember Professor Patti Williams lying on KPFA that Barack voted against the resolution and having her meltdown when a caller pointed out that Barack wasn't in the US Senate in 2002). They lied and then they lied some more. And they obscured and left out details that would have told the truth about the non-anti-war Barack. All of them. They attacked Hillary with lies as well. Hayden's July 4th column notes that Barack's never been that anti-war but, back in January, when Bill Clinton made the same point, Tom-Tom blasted him and called it 'lies.'
Who are the liars?
You need to ask yourself that.
You need to ask yourself why outlets you go to for information did not just FAIL YOU, they also tried to CONTROL you. It isn't their damn business who you vote for. That's not their job. Though they gladly enlisted with the Barack campaign, they are supposed to be 'independent' and you didn't see a damn bit of independence.
You saw lies and more lies. (And continue as CounterSpin's laughable interview two Fridays ago that was nothing but lies justifying Barack breaking his pledge to use public financing.)
And you saw attacks.
The attacks on Hillary were non-stop. She's suspended her campaign.
Yes, she got more votes. Yes, she won the states that matter. But Panhandle Media was on Barack's side from 2006. Bob Somerby still can't grasp (or say so if he does grasp) that Panhandle Media steered this election. Not The New York Times, not the gas bag cable shows. Big Media latches on to what's bubbling and they latched on the narratives that came to shape in 2006, took hold in 2007 and were still being promoted in 2008 by alleged 'independent' media.
But with Hillary out (maybe she'll get back in), you should be asking some serious questions and chief among them is about Ralph Nader.
Why all the attacks on Ralph?
Hillary had to be distorted and lied about to make her come off as hugely different on Iraq than Barack. Ralph has to be attacked because he is hugely different than Barack on Iraq.
Ralph Nader was opposed to the illegal war before it started. He was publicly opposed. He never waivered. In May of 2004, he's calling it out. Two months later, Barack's telling The New York Times he's not sure how he would have voted if he'd been in the US Senate in 2002. Barack refuses to call the illegal war "illegal" and refuses to call it out. In 2004, you saw the Democratic presidential candidate argue for a 'smarter' Iraq War. That's really all Barack's offering.
Ralph has to be hated and demonized by allegedly 'independent' media because he's a real threat to Mr. Precious, you know, the Christ-child.
Can't continue to claim Barack walks on water and also cover the candidate who actually was and is against the illegal war, the one who would end the illegal war -- no hestiatiions, no hedges -- if he were elected president.
So they ingore Ralph and they attack him. Allegedly 'independent' media does not exist to promote a single candidate. They do not exist to tell you how to vote. They are supposed to inform you. Somehow they've decided that they can skip that and you won't notice.
Last Sunday, Nader was among the guests on ABC's This Week. We noted it in "Ralph Nader, Defending Article II" and Ava and C.I. by themselves noted it in "Ralph Nader on today's This Week (ABC) ." Nader's campaign made the broadcast network and where was Panhandle Media? Ignoring it still.
$2000 was the amount Ralph Nader raised prior to the apperance (Saturday in Connecticut) as
AP reported. Now $2000 from non-lobbyists isn't a big deal. It used to be. But when they have the Big Money Machine that is Barack, Panhandle Media is no longer interested in fair and free elections or in campaign finances. They're only interested in gushing about all the Big Money Barack's raised (while pretending it's from small donors). That is an amazing amoung for a candiadte shut out by All Things Media -- Big and Small.
Ralph's running mate is Matt Gonzalez. The Nader-Gonzalez ticket continued to raise money throughout the week. Team Nader noted Monday saw $12,761.69 donated to the Nader-Gonzalez campaign. July 3rd, the campaign announced: "By the way, in case you didn't notice, on Saturday, we launched our campaign to raise $40,000 in ten days - by July 6.
You did it in six days." They exceeded their own expectations and, once upon a time, Panhandle Media would have treated that like the news it was. Ralph Nader is running for president and he has to fight a Big Media blackout, a Democratic Party that proved in 2004 it would not play fair and ballot access (see: Democratic Party will not play fair). This is the grassroots campaign but Panhandle Media doesn't want to tell you about that.
You did it in six days." They exceeded their own expectations and, once upon a time, Panhandle Media would have treated that like the news it was. Ralph Nader is running for president and he has to fight a Big Media blackout, a Democratic Party that proved in 2004 it would not play fair and ballot access (see: Democratic Party will not play fair). This is the grassroots campaign but Panhandle Media doesn't want to tell you about that.
Last week, Nader-Gonzalez turned in enough signatures (more than enough) that should mean they're on the ballot in Nevada. Slow and steady, the campaign continues to make inroads. Last week, AP reported that the campaign had already picked up 5% of Hillary Clinton supporters. CNN reported last week that the Nader campaign was polling 6% among voters. That's amazing. They're doing that with no help from the alleged "independent" media. (No, Amy Goodman, having Ralph on the show and forcing him to defend running as opposed to exploring his campaign is not 'support.' It's offensive. We doubt if Barack or John McCain sat down with you for an interview, you'd repeatedly ask them to justify their decision to run for public office.)
throughout. He has not waffled like Saint Barack. Yesterday he spoke at the University of Hawaii-Manou. Craig Gima (Honolulu Star-Bulletin) reports:
In a news conference before the speech, Nader said Hawaii voters are being marginalized by the major candidates.
"When political candidates do not campaign in a state, voter turnout suffers," Nader said, adding that he has campaigned in all 50 states in the last two elections.
Nader said he supports the Akaka Bill and native Hawaiian rights, and said Hawaii should be a model for the rest of the country in renewable energy.
"This is the only place in the world where every form of renewable energy occurs," he said.
Nader also said that if elected he would push for universal health care, an increase in the minimum wage to $10 an hour and the repeal of what he called the anti-union Taft-Hartley Act.
In a news conference before the speech, Nader said Hawaii voters are being marginalized by the major candidates.
"When political candidates do not campaign in a state, voter turnout suffers," Nader said, adding that he has campaigned in all 50 states in the last two elections.
Nader said he supports the Akaka Bill and native Hawaiian rights, and said Hawaii should be a model for the rest of the country in renewable energy.
"This is the only place in the world where every form of renewable energy occurs," he said.
Nader also said that if elected he would push for universal health care, an increase in the minimum wage to $10 an hour and the repeal of what he called the anti-union Taft-Hartley Act.
Thursday, Nader did something historic. He campaigned in Hawaii. Not since 1960 has a general election presidential candidate made Hawaii a campaign stop. He's taking it to the people and doing so with no help from Panhandle Media.
You need to be asking why that is?
Does Panhandle Media believe in either democracy or journalism? If so, why the blackout on Ralph? Why the smary remarks?
In 2000, Nader ran for president. Ralph did not cost Al Gore the election. In a democracy, anyone who wants to can run and no candidate covered by big media the way Gore was can be said to have lost votes. He had more than enough coverage to shore up votes. And, thing is, votes don't belong to anyone but the voter. The voter decides who speaks for him or her and awards the vote accordingly.
Ralph Nader is at 6% and needs to get 10% to be included in the presidential debates. That is do-able. With or without Panhandle Media, that is do-able.
No one participating in this voted for Nader in 2000 (Jess would have if he'd been old enough to vote in 2000 and did vote Nader in 2004). So we're looking at 2000 from the outside and what we see, pay attention Panhandle Media, is that Ralph got some attention from independent media (2004 would see the undemocratic "Ralph Don't Run" and hit jobs like the piece Ruth Conniff wrote for The Progressive). Our point?
If Panhandle Media could stop the lies about his campaign and the silences on it, Nader could get that support he had in 2000 as well as a hell of a lot more. He is picking up non-voters, he is picking up young voters, he is picking up Hillary supporters. He is expanding his base. What he is not getting is help with pulling in his 2000 base. All his big supporters in Panhandle Media are silent or dismissive. And they shape opinion.
Any person deciding to run has that right in a democracy and is valid to pursue it. But the 2008 landscape is different than the 2000 one. Many states will likely see a ballot that includes the following presidential choices: Bob Barr, Cynthia McKinney, John McCain, Ralph Nader and Barack Obama. That's a five-way race. We're not supporting the McKinney campaign due to it's announcing they are running for 5% of the vote (which isn't the same thing as running for the presidency); however, we do not underestimate Cynthia's ability (or the Green Party's ability -- she's the likely nominee for the Green Party) to reach or come close to that goal. Barr will get votes. Nationally, it's not a three-way race in 2008, the way it was in 2000. Nader, Barr, McKinney, any independent or third-party candidate has the better chance of winning the presidency in 2008 than was possible in 2000.
As Barack's caved on illegal spying on Americans, on public financing, on the illegal war . . . go down the list. Some are saying, "We'll hold his feet to the fire!" Yeah, Laura Flanders and Tom Hayden were saying that in February. They never did though. An online crowd wants to put donations to Barack into a fund (hopefully not interest bearing because that would bring up FEC problems) and only award it to Barack when he finds his 'spine.' (He hasn't lost his spine. The Barack you're seeing is the real Barack.)
What is that? The equivalent of withholding sex in marriage? You're already tied to him, bound to him, what does it really matter if you set the money aside when he knows you're going to give it to him?
The game being played is "You have no where else to go." In 2008, voters have many places to go. It's about choices.
"I think the two parties are hurting our country," Nader rightly declared of the Democratic and Republican Parties, "and they need more competition. As we see on our website VoteNader.org, you will see the issues we have on the table are majoritarian issues: single-payer health care, do something about the wasteful military budget, labor law reform, consumer protection . . . living wage, etc. . . . The problem is, George, there's too much political bigotry against small parties and candidates. You see it in these huge ballot access laws which we're trying to overcome now with our roadtrippers, very, very costly. We're excluded from the debates. Why do we ration debates? We ought to have staggered debates. You've got Wimbledon, the sixtieth seed gets a chance, you've got the NCAA, the sixtieth team gets a chance. You have a huge roll of wealth on it. We're appealing to the people in this country. . . . We're appealing to the people in this country who want more choices on the ballot and Nader-Gonzalez provides those choices."
A woman whose husband/lover beats her can try 'reasoning' all she wants, it's not going to stop the abuse. She has to leave. He may or may not change then (for those who dream of holding Barack's feet to the fire -- as opposed to the tongue bath they currently give his feet) but he's never changing while you try to reason with him.
What Barack's done in the last three weeks is abusive to Democratic Party members (if not the 'leaders' of the party) and the only way to send a message is to cut off the attention. Panhandle Media, if for no other reason, should have immediately started covering Ralph's campaign. Send the message that the fan club postings passed off as 'journalism' are gone and Barack might have to work for votes. This is the man who complained of being tired and bothered during the primary season. Now he doesn't even have the nomination and he's stabbing the base in the back. So, if for no other reason, Panhandle Media should be all over the Nader campaign right now, offering interviews with Nader and Gonzalez to their audences, probling what a Nader presidency could mean.
But guess what, Nader is a cnadidate for president and as alleged "independent" media, it is your job to cover him.
If you care about the illegal war, Barack should have destroyed your support already. Unless "care about the illegal war" translates to you as "want to prolong the illegal war."
Nader's a real candidate. Start treating him as such. If Panhandle Media would, Nader would already be at 8% just from 2000 supporters returning. The lectures and lies (and the lectures were nothing but lies) ran off a lot of his support. The 6% he is at currently is amazing. This combines 2000 supporters who refuse to be bullied with lies and it combines a new energy and drive that is going into the 2008 campaign.
See the picture?
TCI community members LOVE that picture. There's a reason for that. Ralph's a person. He reads, he enjoys sports, he breathes on the same earth the rest of us do (and is very concerned about that earth). If the 2000 election had a "Nader problem," it was in the refusal of Panhandle Media to drop the template, to expand who Nader was. They love to cast themselves and others as "outsiders." And it speaks effectively to their own tiny base. Too good to mix it up with the average Joes and Joannes! That's not who Nader is and the excitement in 2000 came when people heard him speak for themselves -- not filtered through the Panhandle Media template -- and realizied he was a living, breathing human being -- with a very funny sense of humor -- who was not visiting from a Mount or a cloud.
Ralph Nader is a historic figure, no question. He is also a person. And his 2000 campaign stops introduced the person to the people. Panhandle Media? No, didn't really help with that.
Ralph Nader in 2008 is the grassroots campaign. He is the candidate who needs media attention and support. No one claiming to be an 'independent' journalist can ignore the campaign. Nor can they 'cover' it with snarky insults. Any voters who supported Nader in the past should be climbing on board because 2008 is his best chance. Any who want to see an end to the illegal war should be supporting him, McKinney or Barr because they are the only candidates for peace.
The 'movement' behind Barack was always Panhandle Media and now they're finally starting to tell a little bit of the truth about Barack. They're finally bruised and battered enough that they can question. But none of them is ready to leave yet. What is the breaking point?
Is there one?
Ralph Nader's running for president and his issues are the ones the left is supposed to support. There is no excuse for any outlet to ignore his candidacy. Especially not The Nation with their plethora of blogs on the 2008 campaign and the non-stop electoral campaign 'coverage' they have offered since 2006. (Before the November 2006 mid-terms began, they had already filed their first 2008 presidential election story.)
The way it looks to us is that some people want change but Panhandle Media wants more of the same but wants permission to call that "change."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
