i don't mind the critiquing of obama (or any other democrat). i mind the sidestepping of a relvant and pertinent issue. the issue has two parts: (1) republicans win by playing by different rules. (2) republicans, by any measure, in any arena, are far worse for our well-being than are democrats.

if democrats and republicans played by the same rules, i'd say hold democrats' feet to the fire, just 'cause we're better doesn't get us off the hook.

if republicans weren't so hazardous to our health, i'd say it's our lot to face uphill battles.

but when democrats finally realize that their fifteen minutes of haranguing-in-the-spotlight ('cause that is our wont) is just too expensive, and you, one of the more eloquent, pretend to be unaware of the issue described above ... i think of 2004, nader doing the there's-no-diff-between-'em schtick on air america and randi rhoade says 'ralph i love you but .... we just can't afford you.'

Greenwald says, 'The public has long been inculcated with the notion that we have a "liberal media" ...'

It's possible for the public to believe the media is liberally biased and, at the same time, that the media (e.g., military 'experts') have sold out to the right.

This is the genius of the american way of thinking. One dismisses this at one's own peril.

the establishment (the right, the media, corporate america, the DLC, take your pick) never said a poll wouldn't generate a different answer than the media when analyzing viewer demand, they just said that the final decision on what the product should be should come from the market place. they say the market place corrects itself.

so, decide that the media has obligations above and beyond owners' profit, or prove that polling is a more sound mechanism than the market place for determining what should be offered.

straddling both sides of the fence leaves you exposed.

April 2, 2008

Dear Mr. Hamilton,

I support Obama, and I want him to receive as much support, particularly from the establishment, as possible.

That said, I don't care who you endorse or support until you comment on Mukasey's revelations regarding a phone call by an Al Qaeda Terrorist in Afghanistan prior to 9/11. Nothing you do interests me, until that time.

Sincerely,

Geoff Keenan

spend an entire article delineating a mechanism by which democrats are smeared without mentioning that in this instance it is a democrat doing the smearing?

the clintons' argument is that every democratic candidate in a general election since 1968 has withered under republican attack, with the exception of carter (a shoe-in after watergate) and ... yes that's right clinton.

if clinton attacks against obama will pale in comparison to the republican attacks that are sure to follow, and if only two democrats have survived the republican attack machine in 40 years--two generations--then why is it not appropriate, prudent, dare i say thoughtful, of the clintons to test obama now, quickly, intensively ... so that we don't incur yet another bring-it-on-drowning by swift boat.

if you want to play in a man's (e.g., republicans', trajectory changing as obama would phrase it) world, then the fact that the clintons haven't openly stated the argument above shouldn't preclude your identifying it as the central consideration of the matter.

i like obama, fyi, love him...

obama rails on special interests. do you need him to more explicitly address the issue of corporate influence on media?

a substantive portion of his donations is web-based--to say he's been bought off by corporate interests, don't you need some stats?

i too wish he would attack republicans in a more overt manner but...your column appears to be a rare instance of making facts fit the theory.