I already said my piece (see below if you'd like), but I stand by my belief that it's possible to respect and admire Somerby's mission without buying into his insistence that corporate media unilaterally and exclusively caused Gore's defeat in 2000-- and that in the present, those of us who dislike Hillary and other Democratic "stars" must perforce be idiotically enthralled by the heinously falsified and distorted perspective offered by the corporate MSM.

Reading the hostile snarls from Howlerista True Believers to Ms. Walsh's responses clarified another aspect of Somerby's stance that is troubling and unattractive: it contains, or embodies, a "dolchstoss" dynamic that is the mirror-image of the dolchstoss myth persistently evoked by reactionaries and wingnuts. That is, the Howler (or at least his zealous adherents) point an unremitting finger not only at the evildoers in the political-corporate media complex who perpetuate self-serving deceit, but past that group to those of us who were presumably too stupid or gullible to resist the MSM's spellbinding in 2000.

In its own way, this view is a fraternal twin of those reactionary "Gathering of Eagles" types who still believe that the US failed (lost) in Vietnam because a traitorous citizenry (fomented by those good-for-nothing dirty hippies) were too ignorant or complacent to see through the anti-war hype. Both the right-wing and left-wing dolchstossers offer a vision of how the right course of action (winning a war, electing the best candidate) was sabotaged by subversive groups which stabbed the nation in the back. And the common denominator, clearly reflected in the letters here, is that it's impossible to argue to a dolchstosser that the perceived backstabbing is not the whole truth they profess it to be.

Thus, over and over those of us who agree with Ms. Walsh's view that "I happen to believe Gore ran an uninspiring, overprocessed campaign for president that didn't let his personal and political assets shine through.." are taken to task and sternly asked to "prove" the "fact" that Gore's own campaigning contributed to his prolapsed "victory". I cheerfully invite these inquisitors to kiss my ass and save it for the high school debating team. I can't speak for Joan, but my own opinion and recollection of the 2000 campaign is what it is. When I tell you in good faith that without consulting the pundits and reporting infotainwhores in 2000, I too saw Gore as flat and uninspiring-- and found his choice of HoJo Lieberman and its attendant smarmy superciliousness a kiss of death-- I'm expressing a considered opinion. That's how I experienced it, God damn it!

And this is where, as much as I respect him, I part company with Somerby and his devotees. Because, in accordance with the paranoid dictates of the "dolchstoss" interpretation, Somerby et al would howl, "No, he didn't run a bad campaign! He didn't, he didn't, he didn't! And if you don't completely agree with this simple "fact", and renounce your own experience, you're either perverse or hoodwinked! In short, you must accept my analysis instead of your lyin' eyes, or "prove" to me "factually" that you're right and I'm wrong! (In this regard, it's worth noting that the process wonks and strategy-focused Democrats who remain so enraged at Nader and defensive about Gore's 2000 campaign live in a world in which "facts" and "proof" mean statistical analysis and demographics [polls]. Worthy stuff, but not the whole truth by any means. Unfortunately, inside-politics mavens have a hard time accepting that most voters aren't going to study up and slog through such data, or be politically active. Thus, we offer "weak" anecdotal rebuttals because we're living anecdotal lives.)

Finally, I must tweak poor Anonymom, who wrote, "And thanks to that internet that Gore invented I'm able to read newspapers from all over the world and get a much clearer perpective on things globally." She'd better hope The Howler doesn't read that comment! Because, even though she's trying to put in a good word for him, he will come down on her like a ton of bricks for repeating that inane "Gore invented the Internet" canard, even though she was "only joking". "Even 'Anonymom' can't stop herself from spreading this mantra!" he'd howl...

Depressing, indeed.

I'm too lazy to Google for specifics, but this revoltin' development is in line with the brief removal of the word "vagina" from the marquee of a theater featuring "The Vagina Monologues", and the cancellation of “My Name is Rachel Corrie” in NYC because of complaints from Zionists.

I'm sure it's unpleasant to be subjected to criticism, even excoriation, and arm-twisting. But, as you note, if one steps up to the plate, one has to learn to deal with the high inside pitches. And it's the right thing to do, in and of itself. Bigoted bullies and demagogues have had their way in this benighted Amerikan century, and the pendulum will never reverse if-- yes, cutting and running-- is the typical response. Haven't we learned anything from the Dixie Chicks?

Perhaps we could persuade-- oh, say, Jimmy Breslin-- to step forth and wipe that blowhard troll Donahue off the face of the earth.

Glenn, don't you ever sleep?

Perhaps the public would be better equipped to understand what's really going on if there was a story about "The Boy Who DIDN'T Cry Wolf".

Then again, the lesson of "The Emperor's New Clothes" has had a negligible prophylactic effect-- why, just the other day "Dean" Broder was commenting on the striking effect of the ermine lapel trim showcasing the imperial bosom.