Sirotablog
David Sirota is a political journalist and nationally syndicated newspaper columnist at Creators Syndicate. David writes about political corruption, globalization and working-class economic issues often ignored by both of America's political parties.
-
January 4, 2008 8:14 PM
Olbermann Asks Precisely the Correct Question
As usual, Keith Olbermann asks exactly the right question to indict the media:
Olbermann: Again, specifically to your campaign, with all respects to my colleagues on our coverage last night, and I said this a couple of times during it, I didn't understand the conventional wisdom last night. I don't understand it now. If you finished second in Iowa with more support than the previous national front-runner who dropped from first to third, many of the pundits, many of the so-called experts, are describing you as being in trouble rather than Senator Clinton. Do you know why that is?
Edwards: I have absolutely no idea. I think they've been in love with the idea of this being just between the two of them all along, and I've been battling, sort of making my -- I'm the underdog, Keith. I have been for a long time. nobody -- everybody expected me to get wiped out in Iowa. I mean, they saw the millions of dollars that was being spent. and what matters here -- I'll go back to this -- what matters is the people of Iowa, the caucus goers, rose up and said, we're with this guy. We like what he's doing. We're in it with him, and I think the same thing's going to happen right here in New Hampshire. And people like you make a difference. it's the reality of politics that as long as my voice is being heard and I'm speaking on behalf of all of the millions of Americans who seems like they have no voice whatsoever, I've got a great chance in new Hampshire and in all the subsequent states.
-
TAKE ACTION
-
About David Sirota
David Sirota is a political journalist and nationally syndicated newspaper columnist at Creators Syndicate. He is the New York Times bestselling author of Hostile Takeover. He lives in Denver, Colorado. His daily blog can be found at CREDO Action. He contributes regularly to the Denver Post's Web site, is a senior editor at In These Times magazine and is working on his second book. He has been profiled in Newsweek and the Rocky Mountain News and is widely known for his reporting on political corruption, globalization and working-class economic issues often ignored by both of America's political parties. Sirota serves as co-chair of the Progressive States Network, a 501(c)3 organization that supports state legislators and that is a partner of CREDO.
You can subscribe to Sirota's e-mail newsletter by going to davidsirota.com and signing up in the lefthand corner. To find out more about Sirota, download his official biography or see his recent media appearances. You can e-mail him at sirota@credoaction.com.
The views expressed on this blog are his own, and do not necessarily represent the views of Working Assets (publisher of CREDO Action) or the institutions Sirota works for.
-
Recent Sirotablog entries
- Discussing McCain's Pro-Child Molestor Ad On MSNBC's New Rachel Maddow Show
- McCain Used "Lipstick On a Pig" To Describe Hillary Clinton
- Maddow at 9:45pm EST
- Editor Hysterically Cites France, Rather Than Neighboring State
- Analyzing Obama's Convention Speech
- Cuba and China Working to Drill In Gulf, Say Those Who Insisted Saddam Was About to Nuke America
- Trampling Working-Class Voters With the Professional Ideal
- Engaging In Dubious Battle
- McCain supporter blows whistle on election stealing strategies
- Vacationing In A Secure Undisclosed Location
-
More David Sirota
-
This Modern World
-
September 9, 2008 -
September 3, 2008 -
August 27, 2008 -
August 19, 2008 -
August 13, 2008
-
-
Donations Recipients
-
RSS feeds
Discussion
Edwards is getting the Perot treatment by the MSM. Did you expect anyone who becomes a threat to the oligarchic ruling class to be treated any different?
Edwards only hope now is if Hillary and Obama swift boat each other into the gutter like the way Democrats did in CA for the governorship.
I thought it was interesting how many of the commentators on MSNBC fawned over Obama, and were noticeably anti-Huckabee. Especially since I consider most of them anti-populist.
I thought that populism was on the rise, but Edwards the most obvious populist didn't win in Iowa, he lost. I think there are many factors for that, one being that the Democratic Party has really become a socially liberal pro-corporate party. Why Labor sticks with this party God only knows.
I am ready for a Populist third party, I am a lifelong Democrat that has given up on the Democratic Party.
No conspiracy necessary.
Media hypes the candidates with the biggest ad budgets. This conflict of interest is as old as politics and media.
But they shouldn't be allowed to call it "news coverage".
I watched this, and I also watched the Matthews/Olbermann coverage of the actual caucus.
Although this question was exactly correct, and exposed the precise corporatist, money-driven flaw in the MSM coverage, Olbermann went on with that exact slant for the rest of his show, just as he *and* Matthews had done the night before: Obama is the wunderkind, Hillary's in big trouble, and... uhhh... Edwards who??? Oh yeah, he's done for.
Neither Olbermann nor Matthews challenged *any* pundit as they drove nails in the presumed coffin of Edward's campaign.
If you listen to Kieth's Countdown, and I do frequently, while he is merciless on the criminals currently in the White House, and while he occasionally chides the Democrats for their gutlessness, Countdown is fully slanted toward corporatism and away from populism.
This has been bothering me about him for a long time. Remember, Olbermann clearly has balls. He has routinely eviscerated Bush, Cheney, Alberto, Rummy, and the rest, both in "special comments" and in just his tone as he talks about them. After the new Democratic Congress's first cave-in on Iraq war funding, Keith called for Pelosi and Reid to resign or be replaced.
If there's a pogrom on dissidents, Keith will be one of the first to "disappear".
But when it comes to a focus on destructive corporatist influence he's usually a no-show.
He's either not aware of corporatism as a "thing", or he's willfully avoiding dealing with it.
I'd like to see Sirota on populism as one of Olbermann's regular guests, much in the same way as Keith uses Jonathan Turley as a constitutional expert, or John Dean on authoritarian White House overreach.
Sirota would be a perfect fit.
Hint, hint.
I watched Charlie Rose and Nightline last evening and the Beltway media IS IN LOVE with Obama and Clinton...hardly a mention of Edwards. It is Clinton that is done, not Edwards. Her tired DLC message does not play in 2008...people want change...people want a fighter for them...neither Hillary, nor Bill, regardless of their rhetoric, have every been a fighter for middle class America.
Given the tepid response economic populism has with Democrats, even Edwards toned down variant I'm of the opinion the problem isn't Edwards. Its the party itself, the Democratic voters have moved away from economic fairness(ie; populism).
Then again its probably reflective of the Democrats controlling the most wealthiest congressional districts in the nation. These districts are the direct beneficiaries of globalization and Bush style economics.
This would explain why the liberal blogosphere, the activist class and move-on are so silent on business waging war against the working and middle-class. They don't give a shit.
It also would explain the popularity of Hillary and Obama who represent the wealthier elements of society.
Ever so barely a millionaire. Obama is the 'poorest" among the main candidates. And like Lincoln, Obama has tempered his native ideological "excesses" to traverse an election cycle.
Yeah, Olberman is fighting the good fight only in the trenches of the beltway. Lamentably, Lou Dobbs is the closest MSM outlet for kitchen-table populism.
Gotta love Edward's tactics -- deflecting the "scary" label by identifying himself and Obama as the change candidates in counterpoint to Clinton (who is still his greatest obstacle).
I guess Edwards prevailed over his campaign manager, who was reported to have stated that Obama was (paraphrasing here) beholden to corporate interests.
Cool-hand John.
...and hot-hand Obama.
The intrapopulist feud is herein suspended til DLC/HRC are fully vanquished.
It warms my heart to see Obama and Edwards tag team Hillary, it couldn't happen to a better person.
Though I expect the Clinton smear machine to go all out in return.
At least the primaries will be entertaining now.
As a consistent Obama supporter, don't truly enjoy piling on HRC. It's a grim necessity.
Hmm. I thought the tag team was Edwards weakest point in the night. It certainly worked against the - this is personal, not political - slogan. It gave me the impression he was caving in, selling out, and further highlighted the inauthenticity of his populist rhetoric. It also gave the impression that he was running more for VP and President.
I think other parts of the night he was stronger. The girl that died worked well, the mill story less so. At times it certainly felt Obama was riding his coattail, as in mentioning the banned lobbiest paid dinners. As with all things Obama it ended up being funny because those dinners were only against the law if one was sitting down.
*** I just posted this in a Huffpost thread: ***
Let me be clear about this. I am not and will not say that Obama is as "bad" as Lieberman. I don't think he is even as remotely corrupt as Lieberman.
What happened to Obama as a freshman also happened to my promising Senator from Colorado, Salazar. They came into the Senate as noobs, and they were pointed to Daddy Joe as their mentor, the guy to follow if they wanted to "really" succeed as a Democrat in the Senate.
Since they were noobs, they did as they were told, not knowing how far down the corporate rabbit hole Daddy Joe really lived. So which freshmen supported Sell Out Joe over Democrat Lamont in '06? You guessed it.
I don't think ill of Salazar or Obama, I just think they were too new and gullible to realize that Joe and the DLC *are* the problem.
Barack is *still* new, yet I believe basically a good guy at heart, and he is capable of giving transcendent speeches. And I mean truly profound, inspirational speeches worthy of historical note.
But he's still following the Rahm Emmanuel/DLC/Liebermann schtick, and at this point, that is simply unacceptable in a Presidential candidate. His campaign is awash in cash from the very corporate interests he claims to oppose, just like Clinton's is. That's the Lieberman routine right there.
Edwards did pretty much the same thing when *he* was a noob, but apparently he's learned his lesson. Not only is he taking no cash from the corporate lobbyists, Edwards has OPENLY DECLARED WAR ON THEM.
His positions are so strong, he has left himself with no wiggle room, no opt out excuses for after his election. Edwards has painted himself into a corner.
A populist, anti-corruption, Corporate Dragon-Slayer is *exactly* who we need as our next President.
Obama will still be able to deliver great speeches when Edwards passes the torch to him in '16.
Interesting informative post by 3rd option. Hope he's right about Obama being a good guy, because hearing his speech on c-span last night I was very impressed he could get the nod. It's absurd however to have to throw the dice to find out what his real agenda is. I did blanch inwardly when he said troops out in 16 months after he's in. That is a year and 16 months from now. That must be the Lieberman effect. Of course, if he wished to get Lieberman to switch from McCain to him he needed to say he wanted American troops in Iraq as security guards for Israel for 16 years.
Someone once defined diplomacy as the ability to tell an opponent to go to hell in such a manner that the opponent really wants to go there.
Announcing a frontal assault on corporations months before one actually has, if even then, the power to do so; is no automatic formula for success.
BTW, unfairly or otherwise, IA has marginalized Edwards to the foreboding "second tier" of Dem candidates. At this point, not one state is a foreseeable win.
Edwards does have an uphill battle.
$200,000,000 of uphill.
But...
In politics, you don't know what is going to happen tomorrow.
What anti-Obama aces does Hillary have up her sleeve? If anyone questioned Hillary's absolutely undeniable determination to win this, wait to see what happens if Obama nails her in NH like he did in Iowa. Hillary's drones are already leaking video of Obama to the press. She's going to go after him just like Rove would.
What if she finds something catastrophic to his campaign? Where do all those Obama voters go to? Richardson? Nope... Edwards.
If they've got something nuclear on Obama, I'll bet the real debate in Hillary's camp is not when to use it, but whether to use it at all. If she knocks out Obama, most of his voters go Edwards, and now it's 60+ to her 30, and she's done. She needed Edwards to pile onto Obama, and he did the smart thing and, without asking Barack or his people, basically teamed up with Barack vs. Hillary. "We are for change, she is the status quo."
That leaves Hillary alone to take down Obama.
How much ground can she afford to lose before she completely goes ballistic on him? When she finally does, she's going to suddenly look like the real Hillary. If she nukes Obama, she risks taking herself down as well.
All Edwards needs to do right now is keep the focus on Hillary, stick to his "Me and Barack are on the same team, but he's the philosopher and I'm the actual fighter" message, and see how far down they can drive her.
She will not quit. She will risk destroying the entire party before she would ever bow out gracefully. She will not be denied.
Back her into a corner and watch those fangs come out.
Just a little blast from the past here folks. One of the best things my mom ever did was take me to see this guy....
You want Democrat....Here's what it looks like, pal.
Edwards also has to deal with a media blackout. Listening to the talking heads you'd think that only Obama and Hillary are in the race.
The only time I've seen it like this was when Perot was denied the right to buy air time in his efforts to raise public awareness about NAFTA.
That said it will be very interesting to see what the Clinton smear machine will do. The Clintons will not go quietly into the night without a serious fight, cause both are very, very ambitious people who love power more than anything.
everyone please see my important response to JumperPin's talk on Affirmative Action in the recent posts about Iowa (recent thought, stat of the day)
Yeah, good stuff. The media wants Hillary SO badly. Whether Edwards is real or not, they hate what he symbollically represents. The media types are centrist dems who like social issues and Hillary; they have nothing in common with populist liberals.
Actually the MSM, who are generally anti-populist, have fallen in love with Obama. They are trying to destroy Hillary right before your eyes, and marginalize Edwards.
2008 is going downhill fast for populists.
You know Gibson, i was thinking about that. I think they might indeed want Obama. You see, even though hillary triangulated all this time, she is still a traditional democrat with a decent amount of traditional Democratic values. She IS DLC, but you know what you are getting: a centrist with some basic loyalties to the dems like the social security issue. With Obama, he might be more liberal, but he is wildly unpredictable. The media might think that they can use him to accomplish even MORE than the set amount that they can do with Hillary. Maybe they think that they can use Obama's ethnicity + his "vision" of the future to promote globalization even MORE than they can with Hillary. Obama has more rightwing potential than Hillary, who has already worn her rightwing self out. The media may see that the only direction for her to go is left in order to satisfy the base. You see: Hillary is like a veteran quarterback that you can sign to a short term deal and know what you will get. But with Obama - he is like a fist round draft pick that could go boom or bust in terms of how the rightwing elite can use him.
Frankly, I don't have a clue why we talk about the dems so much. We should form a LEFTWING populist 3rd party. Around the world, former socialists, leftists, and labour types have formed "far-right" nationalist parties that have adopted the leftwing platforms of the Old Left. Now, I do not like the direction these parties are going in (obsession with race, irrational Islamophobia). But I like their strategy. We need to follow that strategy and form a leftwing 3rd party. We should AVOID RACIAL AND SOCIAL ISSUES. The core of our platform should be universal healthcare, progressive taxation, public services. I am beginning to think that protectionism is not that important. If we have a minimum wage and high progressive taxation to redistribute the gains from trade, it could actually work out nice. I mean, do people really don't give a hoot whether they work in the service sector or manufacturing? As long as we are paid well, who cares? And it is not like we can do anything about the cheap asian goods - we may as well take advantage of it!!! now there is a leftist platform - free trade, but redistribution of wealth and worker protection. If the elite don't want protectionism, I say let us take advantage of their global economy!!!!
I am beginning to think that protectionism is not that important. If we have a minimum wage and high progressive taxation to redistribute the gains from trade, it could actually work out nice. I mean, do people really don't give a hoot whether they work in the service sector or manufacturing? As long as we are paid well, who cares? And it is not like we can do anything about the cheap asian goods - we may as well take advantage of it!!! now there is a leftist platform - free trade, but redistribution of wealth and worker protection. If the elite don't want protectionism, I say let us take advantage of their global economy!!!!
"Frankly, I don't have a clue why we talk about the dems so much. We should form a LEFTWING populist 3rd party. Around the world, former socialists, leftists, and labour types have formed "far-right" nationalist parties that have adopted the leftwing platforms of the Old Left. Now, I do not like the direction these parties are going in (obsession with race, irrational Islamophobia). But I like their strategy. We need to follow that strategy and form a leftwing 3rd party." - below_mason_dixon
Damn right. Sadly, the media, pols, and special interest groups do everything to keep 3rd party candidacies from going anywhere other than into nowhere status. Ever notice how Independent candidates, rich or poor, are finding it harder to run for president? Worse, despite the fact that both parties are FUCKING America to death, Independent candidates, save the fake "libertarians" whose only job is to kiss Wall Street's ASS, are choked by both the media and even issue-oriented interest groups. For example, I'd sure as hell love to see either Sierra Club or the NRA for once endorse an Independent for any elected office if they really cared about the issues they claim to be fighting for anyway.
"I am beginning to think that protectionism is not that important." - below_mason_dixon
Oh protectionism is important alright. It's just that the WRONG folks are getting our share of protectionism, mainly the corporate elites and the Christian fundie and social conservative interests, all the while the rest of us voters are being SHOT at with a RIGGED "economy" faster than Hitler could kill Jews ! The corporate elite ironically rail against protectionism even when they themselves are enjoying all the spoonfeeding protectionism the government is giving them. Ralph Nader is correct to point out how the government goes out on a limb to give the corporate elites unlimited welfare checks all the while SHOOTING the rest of us which would make Osama bin Laden gloat with glee ! We voters need to STOP IGNORING 3rd parties who are more progressive and liberal because they are what most of the American people are looking for which even most media-driven polls cannot ignore these days.
Join the Discussion