« Portrait of things to come | Main | Everyday heroes »

Wednesday, July 21, 2010

Comments

Oi! Cockburn's alright, leave him out of the liberal commentator kidney-punching. Counterpunch is always my next stop after you guys. Internecine squabbling never got no one nowhere no how.

"Thank you, liberals, for making my week so entertaining."

John,

You should listen to liberal talk radio (Green 960AM, here in San Francisco) if you want non-stop laughter. I have listened to all of the hosts of the station's weekday line-up; with the exception of one, Mike Malloy, they are all Democratic Party/Obama ass-lickers--and that includes the oh-so-smart Thom Hartman.

NotErrolFlynn: I wasn't lumping Cockburn in with liberal commentators, I was pointing out how misguided it is for MacArthur to describe Cockburn's stance on global warming as either "reasoned" or "respectable" when it's actually closer to the level (and style) of Rush Limbaugh or Michael Savage.

redcatbicyliste: You must have a stronger constitution than me--I've happened by that station a few times but couldn't stomach it for more than a few minutes. As for Hartmann, I stopped paying attention to him after I caught him lying about Ralph Nader in 2004.

Alexander Cockburn is off his freakin' rocker. Not only is he clueless on climate change, the dude still hangs onto the idea that Obama has some of that Saviour quality, and is noble, and pure, and all the rest -- but sometimes done in by excessive sweethearted goodness and naivete. It's like Karo Syrup.

Patrick Cockburn, on the other hand, is on top of things and writing with conviction.

Al, though... he's just a weak provocateur these days. Reminds me of Andrew Sullivan.

...the dude still hangs onto the idea that Obama has some of that Saviour quality, and is noble, and pure, and all the rest...

I don't know where you're getting that, since it's the opposite of everything I've seen Alexander Cockburn write about Obama--he's had his number from the start. It's just global warming where he's chosen to do the Hitchens routine, for whatever reason (and the sad part is that given the character of Cockburn's writing on climate change, that's more of an insult to Hitchens than it is to him).

CF, I believe you have Al Cockburn confused with someone else - he's been dead-on about Obama and the Democrats since Day 1.

You guys are insane. Just the friday before last, Alexander Cockburn posted an essay at Counterpunch where he said, essentially, that Obama is noble, pure, wise and good -- and merely has been too optimistic.

Really, the hero-worship among "progressives" is pathetic.

You two included there.

Well, for what it's worth, Counterpunch did publish this way back when:

http://www.counterpunch.org/halle02042008.html

and you can be damn sure that Commondreams, the Nation, etc. wouldn't have.

On the other hand, it wouldn't touch this:

http://www.feralscholar.org/blog/index.php/2008/08/04/letter-from-obama/

or this

http://asitoughttobe.wordpress.com/2010/03/04/politics/

or this

http://www.johnhalle.com/political.writing/obamania.html

And Counterpunch also provided a forum for the cheerleading of David Michael Green, Norman Solomon, Saul Landau etc.

So, whatever Cockburn's personal view of Obama, Counterpunch was better than most, though not great.

Oxtrot: Just the friday before last, Alexander Cockburn posted an essay at Counterpunch where he said, essentially, that Obama is noble, pure, wise and good -- and merely has been too optimistic.

The essay Cockburn published just the Friday before last says not one word about Obama being noble, pure, wise, good, nor merely too optimistic (in fact it barely even mentions him). You probably meant Cockburn's most recent essay, which still says nothing about Obama's nobility, purity, wisdom, or whatever else you're imagining.

John Halle: "Wouldn't touch" or just "didn't publish"? In my experience they just ignore submissions most of the time. Personally I'm not a huge fan of CP because they do publish a lot of dross (some of which you mention), but there's still enough worthwhile stuff for me to make it a daily visit.

Of course, one never knows whether rejections are based on content or style. For Commondreams and the Nation you can be pretty sure it was the former. As you'll remember there was pretty much unanimous and mindless pom-pom waving going on over there.

For Counterpunch it was probably a combination of the two. Cockburn is an old CPer and I suspect that his occasional willingness to do business with Dem apologists has this as its basis.


Hahaha! "brain-punching asininity", "Morford's personal relationship with his god", both examples of "reasoned skepticism"...Hi-larious!

John:

...I've happened by that station a few times but couldn't stomach it for more than a few minutes...

Didn't shed any tears when our local version of "Air America" went under, for much the same reason. I could never decide who I wanted to slap harder: Franken or Rhodes.

The comments to this entry are closed.