By blogging on a certain website, we help to legitimize its viewpoint. We generate advertising revenue for the site through our own hits and through hits that are a result of responses to our posts from others. We contribute to any reputation the site may have for being especially renowned and important. We contribute to the personal reputation of its editors and founders and help their voice extend further and sound louder than it might if we stayed away. In exchange, we get a place to share our views and learn about others.
I've reluctantly come to the conclusion that the views being presented right now on health care at Daily Kos are, at least at this time, doing more harm than good in the fight for reform. First among my concerns is the total failure by the editors to promote any kind of national health care system, which could but does not necessarily have to be Medicare for All. Given public opinion polling showing that a majority of the public probably would favor Medicare for All given the choice, the current monotone focus on the public option is simply a red herring that does more to hurt the fight for real reform than to help it. Secondly, even this focus is not what it claims to be. As Kip Sullivan has said, it's a "bait and switch."
Hey guys -- I'm Hannah Sassaman. For the past six years I've been an organizer at the Prometheus Radio Project -- working to expand community radio station availability to every city in the country. As I transition out of Prometheus (and head over to do political communications with SEIU), I'm getting some perspective on the two major worlds I've come from -- and my vision of how totally kickass policy change can happen, now and in the future.
Those two worlds. One of those worlds is a policy world. With my single, all-weather, threadbare suit, I've walked the halls of Capitol Hill, fighting the big broadcasters as they've tried to keep community radio out of our cities. With great allies like Free Press, Future of Music, the United Church of Christ, the National Hispanic Media Coalition, and many other members of the Media and Democracy Coalition, I learned about horsetrading and bargaining and swaps. Our bill, the Local Community Radio Act, is on its way to pass this year or next -- finally expanding community radio to thousands of towns, eight years after it was crippled by big broadcasters. What an education. What a ride.
But everything I've learned in Washington has been grounded in the work of communities across the country -- youth who have decided that they want a radio station to talk about the dropout rate in their schools, or farmworkers using their radio stations to fight for rights in the tomato fields. We have been able to get legislators to buck the demands of the big broadcasters through many strategies -- but the best one has been individuals and groups taking the time to speak directly to their legislators about what they need.
Today Glenn Greenwald indirectly brought up a point I've been looking to make, as he rips on the New York Times' Michael Gordon's use of anonymous government sources (yet again):
As always, Gordon does all this by granting anonymity to Bush officials to recite these accusations even though (a) such anonymity plainly violates (in multiple ways) the NYT's own anonymity policy adopted in the wake of the Judy-Miller/Michael-Gordon debacle
My thought: At least the New York Times has a policy on anonymous sourcing. I've spent a lot more hours than I intended looking into this, and I've decided it's a decidedly rare feature of contemporary media primary reporting outlets to even have such policies (whether they obey them!)
So I went searching for the journalism related policies of as many outlets, wires, networks, magazines and so forth as I could think up. No doubt I've missed many but I think the ones I have make a few trends clear.
(Note: I am the poster formerly known as "Scientician")
The thread below is kind of long so maybe let's start another. Since I've been working on media reform issues, this kind of thing dovetails into my interests (usually I don't feel any unique insight into Primary matters to write posts on them).
Aside from legitimizing Fox News (already much discussed and I don't have anything to add), what bothers me about the Obama Fox appearance is the ritual humiliation.
Wallace taunted and cajoled Obama to come on, and he did. Right wingers love that.
Part 1 - The Case for some kind of systemic reform
(And now a real post to balance the navel gazing last one...)
Continuing this series, I'm going to cut to the chase and get started on unstacking the media.
Obviously this is a topic of huge blogospheric interest (probably not just progressive blogs either), and I won't pretend my views have any special authority, but I do want to make a couple points I feel are missing from the general discussion.
First let me make a couple general points I'm not going to try and prove extensively (this is a blog post, not a journal article):
1) It's corporate and right leaning/biased at least partly as a result
2) Even aside from the explicit right wing bias, it's generally not that good
3) Any improvement over 2004 or 2000 is incremental at best, and in some respects things are even worse
Ending Military Privatization: Obama has introduced legislation targeting military contractors. Also, in a conversation I had with Rep. Jan Schakowsky, the House leader on this issue, she praised Obama's leadership on the issue without even being asked about the Presidential campaigns. Schakowsky is from Illinois and an Obama supporter, so take that with a grain of salt, I guess. Again, I think Obama has a clear edge in this category.
The well-publicized contrast between Hillary Clinton's early backing of the Bush administration's war effort and Barack Obama's early opposition, has to a degree been replicated in the less visible network of foreign policy advisers that each candidate has cultivated -- the early war opponents by Obama, and the one-time hawks by Clinton.
Global Warming and Energy Policy: Pretty much everything I have seen praises both Obama and Clinton's plans, so this appears to be a draw.
Restoring civil liberties and constitutional checks and balances. This is the one area where I see an edge for Clinton. There are indications, including a Wesley Clark interview for Open Left, that Clinton would continue the investigations into Bush administration wrongdoing. I seriously doubt we will see anything from Obama on this front, giving at least his desire for unity, post-partisanship and leaving the past behind. Obama also wasn't very good on Habeas Corpus, to say the least. Pretty clear edge to Clinton in this area.
So, that makes four clear advantages to Obama, one to Clinton, and two areas that are about even. Overall, that is a very strong advantage for Obama. While I have issues with Obama's rhetoric and health care proposals, on balance this list outweighs those negatives. Further, that Obama opposed the war from the beginning, while Clinton has not only refused to admit a mistake and her advisers boast of her hawkishness, matters quite a bit, too. Also, I admit that I simply have a cultural preference for Obama, probably because I fall into the most of the demographic groups where he performs well. So, if at any point this becomes a two person campaign, I will support Obama over Clinton.
Right now, I still prefer John Edwards, and I have explained why on several occasions (see here, here and here for starters). However, if he finishes third in Nevada, I will probably begin rethinking my preferences.
Barack Obama is simultaneously the best and worst Democratic candidate for new progressive media and new progressive institutions. Where his campaign is good, it is very good in this area, especially around media policy and earning support from users of new media. However, where his campaign is bad in this area, it is very bad, including in engaging direct attacks against multiple progressive and new media figures. I discuss this schism, and the conundrum it presents for progressives, in the extended entry.
Here is a thought experiment that has been running through my head for the past three days, and which effectively serves as my final decision making process on which candidate to support in the Democratic primaries: which candidate is best at ending the causes of the war? In this context, "war" is flexibly defined as not only the war in Iraq, but also the "war on terror," the war on American democracy, etc. As I see it, there are seven main issue areas at stake:
Media Reform: An improved, open, non-corporate consolidated media that no longer has a vested interest in military contracts, internal and world conflict, or in holding back open, citizen produced media is key. Matt says that Obama is very good on this front, with Edwards close behind.
Sustainable Energy Development: Achieving sustainable energy independence and reducing the negative effects of global warming is another key to preventing wars that are, at least in part, apart increasing the American sphere of influence on foreign oil. As far as I can tell, many energy experts in the blogosphere, including A Siegel and Dave Roberts, think that the three top Democrats all have pretty good energy plans.
Ending Military Privatization: The privatization of the military continues unabated, and at its current levels it threatens not only to break the military, but to make it much easier for future Presidents to engage in wars like Iraq. Rep. Jan Schakowsky has a bill to end military privatization, but this isn't something that I have seen many, or really any, presidential candidates discuss. Please, enlighten me in the comments if I am wrong.
No residual forces: This is one I have harped on for a long time. As long as we have residual forces in Iraq, we can't end the war in Iraq. No residual forces means no troops, no bases, and no equipment. Obviously, I think Richardson is the best among all Dems on this front, but among the top three I think Edwards is better than Obama and Clinton.
Election reform: Stolen elections, especially the 2000 election, obviously played a major role in starting both the war in Iraq and the war on terror. Maintaining election integrity and preventing future meltdowns are thus key to ending the causes of war. I don't know which candidate is best on this front, but I've heard some good things from Obama.
Think Tank and Advisor Reform: Clearing out the community of professional foreign policy advisors that have led to things like pre-emptive war, the Iraq war, and the war on terror is also key. I think the candidates have all rejected neo-conservatism and pre-emptive war as a philosophy, but the differences between Clinton and Obama's advisors should be noticed. Also, Edwards has rejected the war on terror frame while Obama rejected the war from the start on the grounds that pre-emtpive war was a bad idea. Not sure who has the edge here.
Constitutional Restoration: Ending executive over-reach and restoring checks and balances are also key. This touches on a wide range of civil liberties issues, as well as investigations of Bush administration wrongdoing and laying making sure an executive as powerful as bush never happens again. Dodd has led the fight on several civil liberties issues, Clinton has promised to continue investigating Bush and to set aside the executive powers created under the Bush administration. Kucinich has called for impeachment. Overall, again I'm not sure who is best.
The more I think about it, I come to the conclusion that the candidate who is best on this set of issues will almost certainly get my vote. Collectively, they not only end the Iraq war, but are the issues most closely connected to preventing such a disaster from ever happening again. I'm going to keep investigating how the candidates matchup in each of these areas, and probably come to a conclusion in about two weeks or so. Your help is greatly appreciated.
