of the media's alignment with the GOP, but I think both miss the boat by failing to properly explain why this is the case.

Glenn, and to some extent Joe, proposes that reporters and pundits are simply out of touch petty gossip mongers whose world is ruled by Drudge. This is true,but it is also true, and far more relevant, to point out that media folk work for giant corporations. The GOP are willing, unapologetic corporate ass kissers. Corporations NEED the GOP to come out on top. Corporations NEED the populace to be blinded to the truth of what the GOP has wrought. Corporations NEED GOP policies to continue raking in their obscene profits. Corporations will not allow their employees to accurately report what is really going on-if they did, there would not be a single GOP lawmaker in all the land.

See here:

http://www.atlargely.com/2008/04/massive-propaga.html

Please be sure to let us know where you end up working - I look forward to reading your columns in the future, where ever it is you land.

-- uncle ovipositor

Hello, when did this happen?

Whew! Thanks.

With that cleared up, may I just say? PREACH it Brother Wright! NEVER back down, never back down, never back down....

That goes for you too Glenn. We're all right here with you.

Like most of today's TV anchors, Williams is simply not smart enough to understand the issues that are associated with the power of the position he's in.

That's not a coincidence. Most TV anchors are selected for their intellectual malleability and their ability to adhere to the corporate viewpoint. Any pretense of putting journalistic responsibilities ahead of their obligations to their employer went out the window decades ago.

-- Whispers

He's a corporate lackey, albeit a very rich one. Have you ever tried to talk to a corporate lackey about any serious issue? They don't get it, it being anything not approved of by the corporate hierarchy. That's how they get where they are, by conforming themselves to the culture of Profit as God. These Generals and their corporate connections fit right in and it is beyond the understanding of the lackeys to see what could possibly be wrong with them.

Boycott the media, it's the only way to get across to them.

Nowhere to be seen today, just wondering if his post on Jeremiah Wright actually did get him suspended, or worse.

How about that dead hooker?

and fight these narratives with everything he's got.

They tried to do the same thing to Bill Clinton. Not only did he have a "rapid response" team, he personally responded very aggressively when presented with false media narratives. And he won in spite of the fact that not only was the media obsessed with him being a "draft dodger" and a possible commie symp, he had a lot of self inflicted baggage. Bill managed to do this without ever demonizing the opposition. He truly remained a gentleman thruout, even when they tried unseccessfully to impeach him.

So far I am not impressed with Obama's ability, or lack therof, to counter not only false media narratives, but the attacks coming from the Hillary camp. He does not have to descend to their level and damage his "new kind of politics" brand, but he does need to get far more aggressive than he's been up to now. If he thinks it's going to get better, perhaps he's just to naive to be president.

Here's why I think he's naive:

If he refuses to play the right wing/media smear game then why did he show fealty to the establishment by denouncing a friend and confidant who was, for the most part, correct in everything he said? That press conference amounted to a concession. The blood is in the water now. Naw, Obama knows how to play the game and is doing it as we speak. He's just another politician.

-- adnoto

Did he think the attacks re Rev. Wright would stop once he denounced his friend? If not, then why did he do it? He should have let stand his beautiful speech on race and refused to make any more concessions to the rabid media mob. Did the attacks stop? No. He really thought throwing Rev. Wright under the proverbial bus would end the matter.

Perhaps you would prefer to think of him as weak? That is the only other explanation.

Your first declaration in the quote is a repeat of what I called you on in my other reply. You don't know what Obama "really thought". He sure as hell knew and knows that it wouldn't "end the matter".

Your second declaration is yet another evidence empty remark, as it is not the "only other explanation". You simplify things with your language to a fare-thee-well. Things aren't that simple.

-- Kitt

I'm not trying to read his mind,I'm reading his actions, which is the only thing we can ever do with another human being. I have as much evidence for my assertions as you do for yours, whatever that may be. Do YOU have an explanation as to why Obama conceded to the media wolves? Or have you decreed that judging the actions of politicians, or this particular politician, to be off limits?

DonInMidwest-if you are referring to me as a troll, I've been with Glenn since his blogspot days, as "sunny". I haven't come out of any woodwork, I've been here all along.