View Story | 238 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
The corporate media establishment has a vested interest in protecting anti-worker, pro-corporate policies like NAFTA, and anti-worker, pro-corporate politicians like Hillary Clinton. The zeal with which they have attacked Obama in the past week reveals to me that he scares the hell out of the corporate gatekeepers who have assigned themselves as the arbiters of our discourse. Unfortunately for them, Obama's got a posse, and we are ready to crash their gates. Get this news out there to friends, families, other blogs, local papers, any groups you might be involved in. I am putting links up on my Facebook and Myspace pages, and e-mailing my friends and family. The people powered movement is going to take this country back unless we let the establishment media and the right wing silence our voices.
My job is not to represent Washington to you, but to represent you to Washington. -Barack Obama
by WahooMatt on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:49:53 AM PDT
[ Parent ]
and Buchanan trashing Obama's speech over and over and over again on Morning Joe. And every time someone dares to praise it, the trashing begins again only louder.
Barack Obama -- The President we were promised as kids!
by Jimdotz on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:58:39 AM PDT
These hypocrites are more upset and outraged over this than they have been by any instance of ACTUAL white racism against blacks. Its a disgusting double standard. A black man gets mad at the white establishment, and he is a maniac who cannot be forgiven and anyone associated with him is evil. A white justice systems railroads black kids in Jena (for example) and its just law and order, nothing racist about it. These guys need to be called out for what they really are, bigots who distrust and resent and black people who have the courage to speak up about white racism.
by WahooMatt on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:02:58 AM PDT
this morning! I told my husband that Joe and Tucker were having a "Who is the Biggest Ass?" contest.
I think Joe won.
Fired up in Tampa Bay!
by Nonie3234 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:10:00 AM PDT
I just want to whack-a-mole him and that freaking Tucker.
It is horrifying that we have to fight our own government to save the environment. Ansel Adams -6.5 -6.75
by Statusquomustgo on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:28:30 AM PDT
It's Joe's show after all. Just the polite thing to do.
by Nonie3234 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:34:34 AM PDT
by Statusquomustgo on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:32:14 AM PDT
get him off the TV. Isn't there some wingnut welfare job he could take?
"Bipartisan usually means that a larger-than-usual deception is being carried out." George Carlin, R.I.P.
by whitewidow on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:44:40 AM PDT
It sucks worse than before.
by Jimdotz on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:52:07 AM PDT
by Statusquomustgo on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:26:17 AM PDT
He's now like that friend that starts coming over to hang out because their girlfriend dumped them and then you can't get rid of him and he stays so late that it starts causing friction in your relationship and you wonder if he's deliberately sabotaging you so your lady will break up with you and you'll have more time to hang out with him. Or is it just me?
by Joe Willy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:25:57 PM PDT
by Statusquomustgo on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:26:37 AM PDT
HE WON'T SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!!
I've sworn off any show with him on it. He is such a dick. Not only is his I'm better than the rest of you attitude getting to be annoying, he won't ever let anyone else on the show complete a thought without telling us how they're wrong for disagreeing with him.
Since [2000] it's been a book you read in reverse So you understand less as the pages turn - The Shins
by kissfan on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:40:24 AM PDT
intern. You know, the one that died in his office just as he was RESIGNING, getting a divorce, etc!
http://archive.democrats.com/...
http://www.americanpolitics.com/...
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com...
http://www.counterpunch.org/...
DailyKos=Crack for liberals
Drink shade grown coffee!
by mad ramblings of a sane woman on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:55:16 AM PDT
by Nonie3234 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:11:48 AM PDT
the dead woman associated with Gary Condit. Both happened at about the same time.
If you're a democrat, your business is all over the cable news. If you're a republican, they give you your own cable news show to pump up the scandals of others.
"The meek shall inherit nothing" - F. Zappa
by cometman on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:22:21 AM PDT
Chandra Levy wasn't found in Condit's office either.
by mad ramblings of a sane woman on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:46:37 AM PDT
We could ask John Dean about it if he ever posted here again - this is what he said about it in 1976:
...We were way ahead of the FBI and the Justice Department, and just as importantly, we had prevented their probes from uncovering any of the "other matters" on the fringes of Watergate. We were even further ahead of the press. The elementary fact that the break-in had been financed with campaign funds did not hit the newspapers until August, and by that time we were prepared with the explanation of "diverted" funds. Hunt and Liddy were not placed at the scene of the break-in until late August, by which time we were prepared to make the claim that they were the ones who had diverted campaign funds to illegitimate uses. Many reporters seemed privately skeptical of this implausible story, and the White House press corps roasted Ziegler with hostile questions each day. I was amazed at how small a part of the hostility that Ziegler absorbed made it into print; the press seemed reluctant to take on the power of a President. The papers had carved up Senator George McGovern, the Democratic nominee, because his running mate had undergone psychiatric treatment. The Democratic campaign had fallen into disarray. I was sitting in an Administration in which a dozen high offficials were guilty of criminal violations that I knew of, and I watched the President's lead in the polls climb steadily: roughly twenty points ahead in August and still rising.
...We were way ahead of the FBI and the Justice Department, and just as importantly, we had prevented their probes from uncovering any of the "other matters" on the fringes of Watergate. We were even further ahead of the press.
The elementary fact that the break-in had been financed with campaign funds did not hit the newspapers until August, and by that time we were prepared with the explanation of "diverted" funds. Hunt and Liddy were not placed at the scene of the break-in until late August, by which time we were prepared to make the claim that they were the ones who had diverted campaign funds to illegitimate uses. Many reporters seemed privately skeptical of this implausible story, and the White House press corps roasted Ziegler with hostile questions each day. I was amazed at how small a part of the hostility that Ziegler absorbed made it into print; the press seemed reluctant to take on the power of a President. The papers had carved up Senator George McGovern, the Democratic nominee, because his running mate had undergone psychiatric treatment. The Democratic campaign had fallen into disarray. I was sitting in an Administration in which a dozen high offficials were guilty of criminal violations that I knew of, and I watched the President's lead in the polls climb steadily: roughly twenty points ahead in August and still rising.
(Emphasis mine.) Woodward & Bernstein noted the phenom of the press treating Rs with kid gloves and roasting Dems in All The President's Men, too.
"Don't be a janitor on the Death Star!" - Grey Lady Bast (change @ for AT to email)
by bellatrys on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:53:35 PM PDT
Much as I hate Pat Buchanan, he's not attacking Obama because he's afraid that Obama will depart from "free"-trade orthodoxy.
Pat Buchanan has always been anti-NAFTA.
And Obama really won't depart from free-trade orthodoxy.
This nicely summarizes what's wrong with American political life today. (Source)
by GreenSooner on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:59:52 AM PDT
least, I can pretty much guarantee that.
by Timothy J on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:28:03 AM PDT
Can't find the article now to link, but a pastor called Obama's speech a Rorschach inkblot test, where how you react to the speech shows what's in your heart.
So when Buchanan, Hannity, etc., are saying the speech was dishonest, inflammatory, and weak ...
by entropiccanuck on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:42:53 AM PDT
is Tucker still on MSNBC? I thought with him having had his show canceled he would be on less. It seems he is on more now!
by DaveP on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:59:19 PM PDT
Finally some one sees the game.
by mtbrain1 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:05:08 AM PDT
So, when can we have one in this country?
My dogs think we're all totally nuts, but how do I explain Daylight Savings Time to them?
by Shiborg on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:11:53 AM PDT
When people rely on major for-profit entertainment companies for news. They don't sell truth, they sell commercials, and anything that gets in the way of selling commercials to the highest bidder is bad for business.
by WahooMatt on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:15:53 AM PDT
(Yes, BILL CLINTON) as president was to sign the Telecommunications Act of 1996. That may have been the beginning of the end of our democracy as we know it.
by Shiborg on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:29:31 AM PDT
Regulations must be put in place again. There is No Way under our present "system" that it would be possible to get "fair and balanced" reporting of the "news". Network and cable news is, with very few exceptions, nothing but info-tainment with emphasis on the 'tainment. Commercials are taking up more and more air time and what passes for "content" in programming is getting less air time. Personally.....I am damned tired of being "pitched to" all the time.
Yes it will be hard to get a lid on this Pandora's Box of deregulation, but we just gotta reverse this process somehow. Does Everything in this country have to be Profit-Driven?? Everything??
So important that we get Dems elected in November from the top down to the coattails......we cannot let McBush anywhere NEAR the White House....
"What, Me Worry?"...King George Walker Alfred Eusless Newman Bush
by RantNRaven on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:56:17 AM PDT
But now that we have the mortgage crisis, I have to go with Bill Clinton's repeal of the Glass Steagall act which allowed these banks to construct all these shady deals.
Pretty sure Hillary Clinton didn't complain about the repeal herself at the time, although now that she's campaigning, she'll tell us that she's always been secretly opposed to that too.
by cometman on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:25:50 AM PDT
After years of defending the Clinton administration from the evil forces of Mordor, now we can finally come out and criticize the things he did & the policies he supported that really piss us off. Hillary has done us a huge favor in that respect.
by Shiborg on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:30:56 AM PDT
that Clinton had a hand in than a man lying about a blowjob. If you think about that uproar too long you'll understand why we are a neutered nation.
If we want peace, why do we give weapons and call it "aid"?
by gdwtch52 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:48:45 AM PDT
I've been criticizing the Clintons for years. And I never voted for Bill. The first time in 1992 I didn't trust him. I didn't like his Sister Souljah comments and he seemed like a bit of a shyster to me who didn't really have the interests of the average citizen at heart. After passing NAFTA and seeing his 'triangulation' politics of kissing up to the corporations, I realized my suspicions were well grounded and didn't vote him in 1996 either.
by cometman on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:03:39 AM PDT
For all that Clinton did (and I do think he did much good as well as bad), he was better than the alternative, IMHO.
by Shiborg on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:30:58 AM PDT
I generally vote for the democratic candidate in every other race, but when it comes to the presidency, it takes a lot to get my vote, because the president can do a lot more damage all by themselves than the average Congressperson can. And once someone has a history of supporting legislation that is not in the best interest of myself or my fellow citizens, they don't get my vote. I voted for Kerry in 2004 and that was the first time in 5 opportunities that I voted for a Democrat or a Republican for president.
by cometman on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:19:26 PM PDT
"Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one."
-4.50, -4.92; Obama '08
by RSA TX on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:07:09 AM PDT
the internet we have today. Without it, I fear, the takeover would be now complete.
You don't negotiate with fascists, you defeat them in the name of democracy. --Ambr. Joe Wilson
by FightTheFuture on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:33:57 AM PDT
We must man the barricade of net neutrality for all we're worth, because if that goes, the downward slide begins.
by Shiborg on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:03:24 PM PDT
you think Obama scares corporate power.
Good diary, Sirota.
by david mizner on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:26:29 AM PDT
but understandably so.
Obama's actions have been somewhat pro-corporate. Part of his get along go along personality, I suspect. Obama seems to be trying to accommodate everyone and all interests to some degree. He will find that at some point he will have to take a hard stand and cast his lot. Of course, given all the ridiculous manufactured irrelevant distractions that the COM (Corporate Owned Media) flings at him that will still be some time off, unless things really go south really fast.
Regardless, that is the beauty and promise of Obama, that he has not really cast his lot, not like Hillary, a DLC Democrat on their Leadership Council (for fuck's sake!). He is still finding his way and he seems to lean more liberally. Still, it's too early to say for sure.
So, when the time comes for Obama to take a stand against these economic royalist that FDR warned us all about 70+ years ago, and Lincoln, and so many others, there is a good chance he can be pushed into taking a hard liberal and progressive stand against them. I do not see this at all with Hillary, who is much more a caretaker for the status quo of a broken system than any real agent of change.
So, to this, I think out of the two potential Democratic Candidates, and either likely to beat crazy McBush McCain, "corporate power" would prefer Obama the least.
by FightTheFuture on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:46:10 AM PDT
You are deluded if you think Corporate power brokers are not afraid of a candidate who gets hundreds of thousands of individual donors for a message of ending corruption and brining change. Obama is a candidate who highlights the fact that we are being screwed over by corporations and lobbyists, not other races or nationalities. They would not be lining up their attack dogs against him if they weren't scared.
by WahooMatt on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:39:05 PM PDT
boatloads of money from Wall Street and he's dispatched Daschle to set up a base of support for him on K-Street.
That's both cause and result of his generally corporate-friendly policies, including his support for "free" trade.
Goo-Goo Ethics bills don't faze corporate power in the least.
In just two weeks in February Obama raised more than 2.5 millionfrom law firms are registered federal lobbyists.
I voted for Obama but we shouldn't pretend he's the anti-corporate crusader this country needs.
by david mizner on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:49:11 PM PDT
that his winning with a million young voters dying for massive change doesn't scare the hell out them. The status quo pays their mortgage(s). When you HAVE power, nothing is more frightening then CHANGE.
by Joe Willy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:31:29 PM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 238 comments