Other than the lying media, how did you like the country?

Dear Democrats,

I'm sorry you chose temporarily favorable media over honest media.

Now, the Obama honeymoon in the MSM could last a while. Maybe he'll thrill the Village with one rivalgasm after another, and everything will be just fine.

Or maybe not.

You had the chance to take the high road, but you decided that this was the kind of media you liked:



You cooed endlessly about St. Maddow. I happened upon this clip the other day, yet another example of flipping the bird at the facts and constructing a legend in their place:




Sarah Palin may not have deserved our votes (she didn't come close to earning mine), but truthy journalists like Maddow thought she didn't deserve honest reportage, either.

Though I'm not a praying man, I appreciate that Palin framed our nation's military decisions as needing to measure up to a standard of goodness, as opposed to being the de facto embodiment of God's will:


Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God. That’s what we have to make sure that we’re praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan.

Not much different from the quote attributed to Lincoln: "Sir, my concern is not whether God is on our side; my greatest concern is to be on God's side...."

But because Maddow doesn't like Palin, and because she's the Greatest Progressive Journalist Evah, she (like many in the leftysphere) can twist that quote to say that Palin insists that God hearts the Iraq War.

Some of the commentators, including Maddow, properly criticize Palin for, in the same speech, implying that the Heavenly Father wants a certain pipeline built:


I think God's will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get the gas line built, so pray for that.

But that line wasn't as much of a grabber as the Iraq statement she didn't make, so her Iraq statement was remade. Quoth Maddow:


A task that is from God. God's plan for Iraq, wow!

Unless msnbc is now in the business of scratching its collective head at all references to a fictitious deity, there's no "wow" about it. Palin asks us to hope and pray that what we're doing is on the side of the angels. But if you take out the words that indicate she's talking about striving and soul-searching that what we do is just, you can make a "wow" out of it. And it's just Sarah Palin, so who cares whether we're just telling the truth.

Just like it was just philandering good ole boy Bill Clinton and just stiff, boring Al Gore who didn't get honest media. Meet the new, lying, personality-preference-weighted media, same as the old.

Perhaps the worst legacy of the Clinton years is that the permanent changes we needed simply did not happen:

1. We elected a smart, charismatic guy with a lesser-evil agenda, but we did not succeed (or invest much in) repudiating the Reagan Revolution, and the language of greed-is-good jingoistic authoritarianism

2. We did not effectively expose the debasement of the modern media, and thus most Americans still believe what they hear from the talking heads

That, and a nation driven to the brink by kind of presidency that toxic frames and lying media unsurprisingly beget, that is what Barack Obama is inheriting.

I guess we'll just have to hope he remains likable enough that he won't end up under the wheels of that media and that those frames he felt it was gauche to stomp out when he had the chance won't keep him from, y'know, saving the country and the world.

Maybe there will be a plan, and it will be God's plan. You never know.

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

That more than anything

Is why I supported Clinton. What more than anything could signal that the media is worthless, than electing the candidate they tried so hard to destroy.

Other progressive weren't in line with that goal, so instead we aided and abetted a toxic media, because now it was "our" media.

He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave.
- Sir William Drummond

Did not expose the debasement?

Heck, "we" enthusiastically joined it!

And how a progressive movement can be built on the basis of lying media is yet another question that's never asked.

"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi

Progressive vs Liberal

Maybe this is what "progressive" is, Lambert. Winning and branding important, integrity and issues be damned. If Kos, Huffington, and Aravosis are progressive, I want none of it.

Only tyrants rig elections.

Exactly

n/t

He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave.
- Sir William Drummond

Apparently the Obama brand and their own are all that matter

Certainly, little was expended on building the Democratic Party's brand (viz. Obama supporters who voted for Norm Coleman and Anglachel's posts about Obama literature that was uncontaminated by references to the Donkeys).

always--"appalled" by Blago, just "disappointed" in auto failure

it's only the things that affect Obama's personal branding and myths--and how stuff appears or can be spun to seem like something real and good -- that they really care about -- like with Wright and oh so very many others.

So what are we then?

Where do we go? What do we do?
As of today, I'm putting my effort into helping The New Agenda.
They've only been around 4 months but are getting attention.
They have an agenda that strikes a nerve with me. Yes, they need
to refine their message and deal with some objections that will arise
but they could grown into something real.
It's a small group so far but the interesting thing is that it is attracting
folks from the left and the right.

"If we have to have a dictator, who better than Obama"
- progressive blog commentator

Liberal, dammit

I used to say that there is nothing "liberal" about some of the issues I cared about (ending poverty, women's rights, civil rights, environmental protection, etc.). I thought that was straight up common decency and common sense. Apparently, if the current power brokers are "centrist", I really am a liberal. And if caring 30,000 children dying every day of malnutrition or lack of simple remedies like mosquito nets means you're a bleeding heart, than screw it, I'm a bleeding heart liberal. But I don't want to be associated at all with Bowers, Stoller, Kos, Huffington, Aravosis, Maddow, etc. They are part of the cancer destroying the system.

Only tyrants rig elections.

How do they not realize this?

And how a progressive movement can be built on the basis of lying media is yet another question that's never asked.

They're inviting the fox into the henhouse! I fear they honestly believe that somehow the media is on "their" side so all those anti-democratic tactics of smear and mass disinformation (for corporate profit) will somehow be a positive. Power corrupts, idiots! Power. Corrupts.

The media played them for absolute fools! All the media had to do was throw the red meat of misogyny and CDS and the supposed guard dog against the media was neutralized, at best, and acting on behalf of it, at worst.

Clusterfuck all around.

Stoller and, especially, Bowers have

Been writing some really good stuff of late. IMHO, OpenLeft, along with Glenn, is doing the best work on the A-list these days.

Where were they earlier

Doing amazing feats of diving action and waxing poetically about shopping at Whole Foods and drinking PBR? I'm glad they are doing it now, but as far as I'm concerned, they still have some atonement.

Also, it seems to me there is an anti-Village Village that makes money of criticizing the man. Yes, that's important, but when you help install "the man" I get skeptical of your true anti-Village cred.

Only tyrants rig elections.

they, and Sirota and a few others,

were there, and did not play the "evil Clintons/holy Obama" game, or pretend Obama was a liberal -- i'd say they really tried to keep the focus on policy and on what the goals actually are, as opposed to so many of the others.

They were far more realistic and focused than Greenwald and TPM and tons of others, i'd say. It's all relative, of course, and they too are not at all even now being as objectively critical or assessing as they should be.

Stoller for one wrote one of the absolutely best posts of this whole cycle in my view in January -- i have it permanently bookmarked --

Reality-Based Candidate Evaluations --

... Let's do a thought experiment. Let's say I were to put a generic candidate forward, and ask whether Democrats should choose him or her as our nominee. This person rejected the Iraq war at the time of the war authorization vote and has a very liberal voting record as a Senator, though, like much of the caucus, has done little of substance to lead us out of the war. He has a good if unremarkable career as a Senator, and is loved by Democrats all over the country for inspiring rhetoric.

Since declaring for President, this person has called Social Security a 'crisis', attacked trial lawyers, associated unapologetically with vicious homophobes, portrayed Gore and Kerry as excessively polarizing losers, boasted as his central achievement an irrelevant ethics bill, ran against the DC establishment while taking huge amounts of cash from DC, undermined Ned Lamont in 2006, criticized NAFTA while voting for a NAFTA-style trade agreement, compiled opposition research on the most effective liberal pundit in the country, refused to promise that American troops would be out of Iraq by 2013, and endorsed the central plank of the Bush-Cheney foreign policy doctrine, the war on terror.

How would you react? You could concoct a 'theory of change' and argue that all of this is just deceptive, and the candidate is worth supporting anyway. You could make arguments that this person can change the electoral map, with no evidence, and support him for that reason. Or you could decide that this person means what he says and is running a campaign promising the country premised on conservative ideas such as the war on terror, maintaining an American presence in Iraq, and 'fixing' Social Security. ...

We like to think we live in the reality-based community. And if you know all of these things, and you still support Obama, you have to concede that you are supporting a conservative candidate for President. And that's fine. But just go into this with clear eyes.

...

what does this refer to?

"compiled opposition research on the most effective liberal pundit in the country"

"If we have to have a dictator, who better than Obama"
- progressive blog commentator

Krugman --

Without the progressive skin color

he is the conservative.

Vastleft here: link deleted. Let's not, please.

"If we have to have a dictator, who better than Obama"
- progressive blog commentator