Lenin’s Tomb
http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?
art...articleid=11023
This guy is going down in a plane 'accident'.
Olbermann's rant is interesting, exactly because he is "within the mainstream of permitted thought". It signifies that the demand for a quick withdrawal from Iraq cannot continue to be left out of the 08 election discussion. That's why Edwards is still a contender, despite the media hype around Clinton and Obama: he clearly is the most anti-war candidate.
Edwards' withdrawal plan looks completely fake, though. A few marine guards for the embassy sounds harmless, until you realize it's an embassy the size of Vatican city. And what can be meant with "if American civilians are providing humanitarian relief to the Iraqi people, we’re going to protect them", if not continuing support for mercenaries and death squads?
Actually, Olbermann is well outside the "mainstream" if you define that, as you should, as the "main stream" of American punditry (not of the thoughts of "real people"). Believe me, there is essentially no one saying the things he's saying on the airwaves on a regular basis.
As far as Clinton and Obama, the interesting thing is that both waited until the bill had already passed (that is, until enough Senators had voted "yes" to ensure its passage) before voting no. Not that there was much doubt that it was going to pass, but on the off chance that it was going to be close, it's quite possible that one or both was prepared to vote "yes" if necessary. This is standard operating procedure in the U.S. Congress. Vote for your constituents when it doesn't matter, vote for the ruling class interests when it does.
Olbermann is great as far as mainstream US media goes. I was wondering when someone on the far left would pick up on him...
To the extent that Olbermann is putting out the message that the war is bipartisan, he is expressing an opinion that is pretty far beyond what is tolerated in the MSM.
The interesting thing is, he's still on the air, and this is after Bill O'Reilly wanted him fired, and some people at MSNBC were disenchanted with him.
One gets the impression that he has some pretty powerful patrons who don't support the neoconservative perspective in Iraq, powerful enough to keep him on the air behind the scenes.
Unlike Phil Donahue.
olberman started out as a sports commentator,....and a pretty amusing one, actually. He got too *weird* though and was given this gig at MSNBC.....where he has gradually honed this shtick as *left leaning liberal*.......and he is, indeed, mainstream....as one can tell. BUT, fuck, its still pretty amazing to listen to. Corporate media rarely sounds like this.
Though I do find Olbermann, and especially his Special Comments, to be quite gratifying, what I find quite irritating is the fact that he has had almost no antiwar voices on his program. I have written to this quasi liberal numerous times, begging and imploring him to have on his program such people as Amy Goodman or Howard Zinn or Kevin Zeese or Ralph Nader or Dennis Kucinich or Anthony Arnove [who wrote Iraq-The Logic of Withdrawal] of Norman Solomon [who wrote the incisive War Made Easy-How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death] or Michael Parenti [who wrote SuperPatriotism] or Assistant Professor and ex Marine and Vietnam veteran Kenneth J. Campbell, who authored A Tale of Two Quagmires-Iraq, Vietnam, and the Hard Lessons of War or David Cortwright, author of the classic Soldiers in Revolt-GI Resistance During the Vietnam War or Chalmers Johnson the writer of Blowback, The Sorrows of Empire, and Nemesis or members of the IVAW [Iraq Veterans Against the War]. Instead Olbermann sees fit to invite the hawkish Paul Rieckhoff on his program, who, even though he criticizes Bush's handling of the war, is still adamantly against the idea of immediate withdrawal. Despite my entreaties, Olbermann has not revealed why he is so fearful of putting a genuine antiwar person on his program.
Ok, but one or two of you are missing the point -- this guy (mainstream or not) is clearly a lightning rod for growing discontent in the US that the 'voice of the people', the fetish that all US politicians at least give lip service to, is not being heard.
Sure, this has yet to translate itself into effective opposition to the two-party oligarchy, but the 'anything but Bush' mantra is looking more threadbare by the week.
this guy (mainstream or not) is clearly a lightning rod for growing discontent in the US that the 'voice of the people', the fetish that all US politicians at least give lip service to, is not being heard.
Yes, that's true, and my suspicion is that he himself felt compelled to be this savage toward the Democrats simply on account of the rhetoric he has unleashed against the Bush administration - though a soft Clintonite liberal, he has made a bit of a rod for his own back by cultivating an audience of antiwar liberals and leftists. He'd have lost the aura of probity that he assiduously produces and tends if he hadn't attacked the opportunistic Dems.
Right, but it shows how pissed off even 'liberals' are getting with the democrats.
though a soft Clintonite liberal
On what do you base this statement? I'm not disputing it nor supporting it, just asking.
As far as having antiwar voices, I generally agree with Erroll above. It should be noted, however, that unlike some shows, he does very few "guest interviews"; the vast majority of his guests are "regulars" - an assortment of reporters, law professors, and others.
Erroll is quite right about Paul Rieckhoff. Strictly a "Bush is fighting the war wrong and not giving the troops what they need" kind of guy, definitely not even remotely an antiwar voice.
Talos, re your "That's why Edwards is still a contender, despite the media hype around Clinton and Obama: he clearly is the most anti-war candidate."
Edwards may be the most anti-war *plausible* Dem contender, but the most anti-war in substance and volume is Mike Gravel. The NY Times said of his performance in the first Dem presidential debate:
"... if Mr. Gravel, 77, did not steal the show, he certainly stole some of the limited sound-bite pie.
"¶He proposed not just that the United States leave Iraq, but also that Congress enact a law that would make it a felony to stay there.
"¶He said that some of his fellow Democratic candidates 'frighten me' and that Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. had 'a certain arrogance.'
"¶He declared, at one point, that the United States had 'no important enemies' and turned the questions back to the moderator, Brian Williams of NBC. 'Who are we afraid of?' he asked. 'Who are you afraid of, Brian?'
"¶He said Osama bin Laden was so happy that the United States invaded Iraq 'he must have been rolling in his blankets.'"
That same NY Times article summed up Gravel as "comic relief." The fact that the NYT assuredly speaks for most Americans in expressing this POV is why living in this armed-and-dangerous loony bin, the US, is no laughing matter.
Yeah. It's notable, I think, that none of the big liberal blogs supported the Dems on this one. There is almost always someone who's sufficiently partisan to back any decision; I have yet to find that person in this case. The blogs are by no means an unfiltered expression of the liberal activist "base", but they do speak for it better than the politicians or punditocracy.
Yes, "plausible" candidate is what I'm referring to, and I'm not suggesting that Edwards' position is particularly radical, just that its certainly more anti-war than the two other "plausible" candidates. Thus, a good part of those who are vehemently anti-war apparently choose hum as the plausibly antiwar candidate by default.
To be fair to Olbermann he has come out with some pretty spot on attacks in recent months. Particularly his attack on Bush on the anniversary of September 11th.
Chiming in on KO...
I wouldn't say that Olbermann is any more a "soft Clinton liberal" than he is a journalist who has the freedom to express his personal horror at both the ruling Bush administration and the cravenness of the Democrats for aiding and abetting it in its war crimes. Lots of people across the political spectrum -- including some even on the Far Right -- share his views about the corruption of the war and its outcome.
As to why he is able to speak so freely without the usual censure or censor from much of the Right-wing noise machine: well, he has the full backing of MSNBC head honcho Dan Abrams (who also owns and operates Court-TV), and he tends to counterbalance the other more conventional right-wing voices at that channel (Tucker Carlson, Joe Scarborough, Chris Matthews from the DLC center-right).
It also helps that his show (Countdown) is as much a mocking of the events of the day as it is an update...and that he does, unlike the more right-wing outlets like FOX News, explicitly state his opinions as opinions through his "Special Comments" segments) and not merely talking points of the various parties.
In any way, though I'd say that he's not going anywhere that Amy Goodman or Noam Chomsky or any decent more radical Left commentator has already gone, for a "mainstream" commentator, he has certainly goes pretty far. For that, he does legitimize progressive beliefs that much more...and for that alone, he's worth his salary.
Anthony
Re the Obama/Clinton votes, I read somewhere (wish I remembered where) that they both waited until it was clear the bill would pass before they voted. Can anyone confirm or deny that based on watching?
And does it sound plausible? Oh, yeah.
3 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
