I had never imagined that such a thing as Super-delegates could exist in the Democratic Party, until the media finally illuminated for the public this vile aspect of the Party structure; a component to the Democrat’s primary process that is exemplary all of the worse values and qualities that have defined the ethos possessed by the privileged factions in this country, who have endeavored – since this Nation’s inception – to monopolize its political institutions as much as possible while, nevertheless, maintaining a façade of democracy.

These anti-democratic patterns of political behavior – which spawn from ideological convictions that are so deeply entrenched that they qualify as genetic coding: the building blocks of American sociality – are embraced by a status that regards itself as uber-citizens: Those who possess self-alleged prowess and mental fitness enabling them not only to politically advocate their own interests, but to represent others in the process, despite the absence of any consent on the part of those for whom the elitist camp of surrogates will speak.

The core of elitist collaborators, who ultimately control, to a large measure, the American system of government, relish the opportunity to insert complexities into the political operations of this country. This amounts to a hierarchical inter-grouping of political decision-making bodies that distance – through the unnecessary multiplication of entities – the lowest common denominator of the American citizenry from the institutional spaces in which the final determinations, deciding the posture of American governance, are ultimately worked out.

Take for instance, the use of proportionate voting on the part of the Democratic Party. When analyzed in isolation from a detached perspective, this appears to be a relatively simple and straight forward reform that is designed to increase the influence of those who are not members of electoral majorities; providing an alternative to the more conventional American electoral practice in which the winner takes all. However, when purveyed within a scope that includes other provisions, such as the practice of valuating the votes of particular districts in some States higher than the votes cast in other districts in the same State: a device used to reward geographically defined populations that have demonstrated higher levels of electoral support for past Democratic Presidential Candidates – we are quick to fine that no concise and generally intellectually accessible description of the primary processes can possibly be constructed.

To cite another example of these excessively complicated processes, the State of Texas affords citizens the opportunity to vote twice in the Democratic Primary: once through a type of caucusing; the other instance by means of a primary ballot. I would endeavor to go on in further detail describing the primary selection practices, however, in order for me to do so, I would be pressed into conducting extensive investigations; a less than inspiring research project that would involve reading state party bylaws and state statutes as well as the National Democratic Party’s Bylaws, so that I could eventually interrelate all of the various stipulations, emanating from different bodies, when arriving at some sense of the applicable procedures that ultimately dictate how this ridiculous carnival is performed.

Because of this condition – what we can call political scholasticism – an inquiring layman, who is struggling to come to terms with the Primary selection process, will soon find himself lost in the convoluted mesh mash of procedures belonging to this social construct that is awash in a sea of obfuscation. In fact, I would venture to suggest that an accurate and precise conception of these complexities can only be rendered by the Party-hack-scholastics; some of whom were, in part, responsible for crafting this monstrosity. By extension, it surely is not spurious to suggest that there is a circuitous motivation inducing these insider-hacks into concocting what amounts to some kind of esoteric electoral alchemy: If one can monopolize the production of gold by virtue of a mastery of an arcane knowledge, then he would surely want his practices to remain opaque; or else, the precious metal could be produced by most anybody and it would fail to retain its special value.

It would be partially reassuring if the Democratic Primaries were an anomaly when understood comparatively within the full scope of institutions and practices comprising American politics and governance. Unfortunately, however, ranging back to the very inception of the United States, we can trace the same sort of Byzantine procedures, creating the same types of obscure and sometimes convoluted governing practices. To cite an obvious exemplar, consider the Electoral Delegates: super-voters entrusted with the capacity of choosing the President. Collectively, this body – which qualifies as an appendix in the sense that it is utterly extraneous to a democratic polity – counts as a democratically superfluous sub-aggregate, whose political Prerogative procedurally preempt the Popular Will of the Citizenry: The common denominator that could, otherwise, in a more authentic democratic environment, select the President independently and directly; whereby a majority or, even, a plurality of votes cast would act as the final adjudicator when selecting a candidate for the High Office.

The institution of the Electoral College, concocted by our Constitutional Founders, marks a latency in our sociopolitical history: a subtext that follows a pattern in which the uber-citizenry – those feigning the embrace of democracy while, concurrently, enacting political obstructions serving to compromise the Popular Will – has persistently committed to praxis a political philosophy that essentially boils down to a doctrinaire attachment to a Tory exceptionalness. Taking into consideration this pattern of elitist, anti-democratic conduct on the part of the privileged few in our Country’s history, one might ponder why there appears to be no resistance to this muffled, semi-tyrannical hegemony in our society.

First off, it should be mentioned that there have been popular insurrections against the American elites and the conditions they have endeavored to impose by virtue of the networked coordination of their economic and sociopolitical influences. The most salient instance of rebellion among American Plebes consisted of the formation of various Farmer Alliances and the People’s Party they would come to conjointly form.

However, despite the poignancy of the first Populist Movement during the final decades of the Nineteenth Century, this episode in American sociopolitical relations has been predictably left relatively untreated by our educational institutions. This lack of attention to an extraordinary event in American history is understandable, due to the fact that the Agrarian Revolt does not fit into the preemptive interpretive pattern organizing how we are supposed to conceptualize the course of American history. A thorough study and understanding of the People’s Party would expose contradictions to the Whiggish orthodoxy that enforces a dogmatic interpretation of American history in which democracy is in a state of perpetual improvement.

Therefore, the aforementioned question – why no rebellion to sociopolitical elitism? – is in need of reformulation: There have been a few, sparse uprisings to the old guard of American sociopolitical relations. However, why do we fail to treat these instances of American history hermeneutically? We neglect to come to an understanding of these instances according to their own terms and their own political self-understandings, along with the related complaints that they leveled against sociopolitical institutions that they regarded as oppressive; exploitative; unfair; or unfitting for a democracy to instantiate.

Rather, such incidents of insurrection find themselves excluded from the historical alacrity that is directed upon what are conventionally conceived as American sociopolitical accomplishments. In other words, historical events that are contrariwise to the established ideological order are treated as transient deviations; inconsequential digressions, diverting consciousness away from the core thesis embodied by the American Experience: An overall process that tells of advancement and ongoing maturation of American Society and of the American State, as they evolve into a more democratic condition. I would venture to assert that it is almost an Aristotelian metaphysics of political history: The American nation-state possesses an essence that is tantamount to its potentiality that it strives to actualize, which translates into a course of events where the essence of America protrudes and emerges; a process that parallels the advancement of perfecting democratic polity.

The Whiggish character of American historical orthodoxy, however, cannot be attributed with the function of the sole antecedent precipitating the compliant and obedient dispositions that have been all too pervasively exhibited by American Plebes. In order to understand the submissiveness among American Plebes, we need to direct our attention upon another factor; one whose presence is nearly ubiquitously represented by the portraits of our governing elites offered to us by mass media.  We are incited to a state of awe in relation to our institutions of political power by virtue of the fact that our media representations - due to the competition for ratings - are dramatizations of events; not objective reports of the events that have transpired that are of social significance.  From the epic framework in which corporate journalism is packaged, we are induced into believing that our politicos are heroes in the sense attribute to the term by the Ancient Greeks:  Apart from their mortality, they are godlike.  Consequently, we see the elites who govern us not only as competent, but as transcendent, as well.

This necessity is reinforced by the arcane procedures and practices that have come to litter – and, in fact, dilute – American systems of democratic participatory polity. By creating a situation whereby the elites are the limited few who actually possess an operational understanding of the processes through which political decisions are made – whether in the party primaries; or, to cite another example, the parliamentary conventions of Congress – they incite participatory reticence on the part of outsiders – who have neglected to pass through the socializing institutions through which the Power Elite transmits its esoteric knowledge and reproduces itself. Thus, we arrive in our analysis at the concept, wonkish: a self-congratulatory expression chattered in self-reference by the governing elite. This terminology’s meaning essentially boils down to the following definition: a state of public policy expertise.

The professionalization – (a concept that is most always predicated with the notion of expertise) – of politics resembles the historically recent trends in the rest of our society. Especially in the decades following the Information Revolution – which happened to transpire in a time span that overlapped with a movement in the American Academe toward the hyper-specialization of its professionalized disciplinarity – American governance has evolved into a condition that is sometimes referred to as technocracy. This political state can be characterized as one were the ability to formulate and administer public policy has become the province of technocrats in society; a form of plutocracy in which the common masses of citizenry no longer possess the knowledge and ability to fully participate in their political and governmental affairs. The task of governance has become highly compartmentalized, technical, and esoteric; whereas, seemingly, the only members of society who possess the necessary skills to govern are those trained in the specialized knowledge pursuits that are related to public policy concerns.

The propagation of this class of public-policy-technocrats – which includes the politicians who are trained in the lawmaking rituals from which earmarks and other benefits are procured for constituencies – is justified by the following chimera: In order to administer government, one must possess the technocratic specializations associated with being a Wonk; or else, he would buckle under the enormity of the intellectual, technical challenges he would face, and he will be rendered impotent, incapable of effecting the desired outcomes from participation in the processes of polity and public administration.

To quickly dispel such an polemic that insists upon the necessity of a technocracy in our society, we can refer to recent history: The FBI, following the 9/11 Tragedy and the scrutiny it incited – which was directed upon the agencies of the Federal Government that were previously thought to be protecting us from such calamities – it was found that the FBI possessed an antiquated information technology infrastructure; a partial explanation of the nearly unbelievable inability for the FBI “to Connect the dots.” In short, the FBI’s organization of information had yet to embrace mechanisms and processes associated with the informational economy and its digitalization of documents, that can, subsequently, be manipulated through computational machineries in order to find and establish relational values between and among the various types of information, which, subsequently, can be used in order to adduce inferences regarding additional parameters. Although this seems nearly inconceivable, the FBI’s manipulation of information was actualized, for the most part, in the deployment of pre-digital technologies, involving FBI employees sorting various document types, whose embodiment took the form of ink on paper, into filing cabinets.

It should be mentioned, there was some sort of computerization extant within the FBI. However, the dumb terminals provided to agents where practically left in their state of dumbness, because one could not use them to retrieve – through some effective search engine algorithm – materials relevant to the subject, or topic, that was being addressed by an FBI agent. As a result, the nodes belonging to the FBI’s informational networking – a system, which had, in some extensively qualified capacity, crossed the digital divide; or, at least, had attempted to accomplish as much – was never endowed with the intelligence – or smartness – that is associated with terminals that constitute the nodes belonging to an advanced informational network. It is only through the role assumed by a machine, acquiring a position within many linkages through which information is transferred in and throughout a network, that it becomes a useful tool for an agent looking to increase or intensify his knowledge and understanding of a topic by relating relevant information types to other information types.

As one can anticipate, the FBI, following the revelations related to the antiquated condition of its information management, set out to create an information architecture that was in line with contemporary technologies and procedures. However, the problem with the subsequent efforts made by the FBI, when working to modernize itself, can be characterized through the following: It was the FBI that was left in charge of the project. Consequently, after spending millions upon millions and expending valuable time and man-hours when attempting to install an information management system, the FBI finally had to report to Congress that the entire project had failed; could not be salvaged; and, therefore, had to be scrapped entirely.

Despite their follies, they persist in their arrogance, and continue to adopt a paternalistic posture in their relationship to the common citizenry. The present Administration –impervious to any scrutiny or oversight – continues to treat us like fools, constantly informing us of the attacks upon the domestic United States that it has thwarted; all the while refusing to disclose any convincing evidence to justify such fear mongering. Making it all the more ironic, the Bush Administration has failed to competently perform is duty to protect the American Public, not once, but on three occasions: the 9/11 Tragedy; the hyper-actively and impetuously devised invasion of Iraq; and the national shame and humiliation that was Hurricane Katrina. Nevertheless, despite their ostensible incompetency, these instances of failure are simply submitted through the ordinary propaganda assembly lines – where they are reassembled, packaged up, and refurnished – only to be publicized within the same garbled mess as all of the rest of the fear mongering and baiting with which we are unceasingly bombarded.

This audacity on the part of those who claim to know better than others know for themselves is justified by what amounts to a plutocratic apologia: The popular will of the unrefined and vulgar American people constitutes a threat to the vested interests of those who are endowed with the prudence and sound judgment necessary to advance not only their own interests, but, additionally, the long term interests of the nation as a whole.

This is the type of thinking that spawns absurdities such as “Trickle-down economics:” a theory of convenience, which Naomi Klein has revealed in some of her weblog writings to be a device deployed to obfuscate unbridled greed on the part of corporatists and, more generally, the ownership class in society; economic elitists who were in need of an intellectual diversion so that the swelling of class antagonisms, fomenting among those suffering under supply-side tax reforms, could be assuaged.

Although it might seem unfair to lump together, under the rubric of uber-citizens, elitist factions such as the Clintonian Political Machinery with the neoconservatives who currently control the Executive Branch of Government, we need to remember that the differences between neocons and neoliberals are all too scarce. There remains a thematic congruency between the two uber-factions; a convergence comparable to the opposing sides of a coin: The antithetical representations – where one side is emblazon with the head; the other side, the tale – that, despite their surface distinctions, continue to be of the same ilk; formed within the same mold; and made out of the same alloy.

In fact, both the Clintonian Third-way neoliberals – who feign empathy with the plight of American labor suffering from free-trade – and the neoconservatives – who do not even bother to express acknowledgement of such hardships – share in the same condescending rhetoric that is used to dismiss voices, emanating from the masses, that raise objection to American trade policies. The elitist corps have fashioned a rhetoric with pejoratives, such as neo-populism, that they use when disdainfully depicting the sociopolitical interpretations and reactions to socioeconomic conditions produced by the populace; which stand in contradiction to the uber-citizenry’s self-allegedly detached and rationally disposed estimates of current affairs and their overall significance within larger historical chains of events; narratives that are structured according to the Whiggish premise that American social conditions are always advancing toward a better state.

So, the final consideration that I shall make in this unwieldy chain of criticisms upon the conditions under which we, as Americans, suffer, can be put simply as follows: For how long are we to entertain this carnivalesque side-show hyper-real-democracy before we impose a realist aesthetic upon this charade and expose this chicanery for what it is?

Tags: clintons, corporations, corporatism, economics, government, neo conservatism, neoconservatism, politics, power, Russell Coles Blog, self governance
Categories: Commentary, Economics, government, Russell Cole's Blog, self-governance, Power, Politics, Corporations, neoconservatism
No Comments »

An Article by:

By Steve Hammons

As Barack Obama continues to move ahead in the Democratic presidential primaries, we note that ethnic background and gender still seem to be playing important and interesting roles.

The many domestic and foreign affairs issues we face, such as the candidates’ positions on the invasion and occupation of Iraq, are also key parts of the debates and campaigns.

According to recent surveys and demographic studies, Hillary Clinton’s support, in part, comes from white women and older Democrats.

Reasons for this seem obvious.

Some white women see one of their own and feel that giving her support is appropriate. They identify with her. This seems like a natural response.

Older Democrats may feel comfortable with “another Clinton” and, should we say it? – they might feel more comfortable voting for an all-white candidate. This may be a factor for some Democrats with lower educational levels, which is also a group supporting Clinton to some degree.

Obama gets support from younger voters and increasingly from men. Since Obama is a relatively young father of two young kids, these voters might naturally identify with him. His youthful manner might also be attractive.

Men probably identify with him not just because he is a male, but because he is a male who appears to be admirable and a “regular guy.”

INVASION, OCCUPATION OF IRAQ

Some of the main differences between Obama and Clinton, of course, are their positions and actions regarding the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Many Americans now believe that intelligence information was inaccurate about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. There is significant evidence that indicates this was intentional on the part of some people within the Bush administration and those connected to it.

Many people believe that the Bush administration was willing to send our troops to Iraq, to die and be terribly injured, for access oil, to assist other governments in the Middle East and to “finish the job” that former president George H.W. Bush wisely did not undertake – invading and taking over Iraq.

Some researchers say there were those in and associated with the Bush administration who wanted to pour monies of the U.S. Treasury into war profiteering and those who wanted to establish permanent U.S. bases in Iraq to influence and police the Middle East region for decades to come.

It has been said that there were Bush administration people and others who wanted to show they were “macho” – the “chicken hawks” – even though few of them had ever served in combat environments themselves. Many even avoided military service in Korea and Vietnam.

Other aspects of the invasion and occupation seemed to indicate the huge egos and incompetence of those associated with the Bush administration.

The deceptive and dishonorable nature of some of these players also seems evident to many people.

We have spent hundreds of billions of dollars on the invasion and occupation of Iraq. This has been, in large part, borrowed money. There are many hidden costs as well.

The Bush administration’s Iraq fiasco has nearly broken our Army, Army Reserve, National Guard and has broken the bodies, minds and spirits of many good American soldiers, Marines and their families.

According to some research, hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians, including children, have been killed as a result of the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Many more have been terribly injured.

Though she may not have intended all of these results, this is what Hillary Clinton supported when she voted to authorize military action by the Bush administration against Iraq.

This is what Barack Obama opposed.

STIRRING THE MELTING POT

Obama’s support includes African-Americans. This is not surprising since his father was from Kenya, Africa.

Obama’s father and mother were divorced when he was two years old.

After the divorce, his father went on to get a Ph.D. from Harvard in economics and then returned to Kenya to pursue a career there.

Obama spend formative childhood and teen years in Hawaii, and was raised by his mother and her parents, Stanley and Madelyn Dunham, who were originally from Wichita, Kansas.

Obama has noted that his grandfather, Stanley Dunham, joined the Army in WWII after Pearl Harbor and served under Gen. George Patton in Europe. Obama’s grandmother, Madelyn, worked on a bomber assembly line during the war.

This reminds us that it can be fairly and accurately said that Obama is a mixed-ethnicity American. He straddles a sometimes wide divide of Americans from different ethnic backgrounds.

But, he is not the only one. Nowadays, after many generations of mixing the different ethnic groups of people in the U.S., there are millions of mixed-ethnicity Americans.

If your family has some Scottish, Cherokee and Swedish, you have a mixed-ethnicity. Are you part African, part English with maybe some Dutch in the family tree? Same thing. Was great-grandma half-Mexican and grampa Joe part-Navajo? Join the club.

Obama is in good company here.

Along these lines, Hispanics seem to be a swing vote of sorts in the Democratic primaries. Many Mexican-Americans and African-Americans sometimes compete for the same turf, whether it is access to decent blue-collar jobs or other resources. This can create friction.

It should, though, create teamwork. The “divide and conquer” strategy seems to be in play at times when wedges are driven between the Hispanic and African-American communities. They should be working together to obtain better jobs, educational opportunities, housing and health care.

Many Native American Indians have very substandard resources and opportunities too.

And, we might want to remember that the majority of poor and underprivileged Americans, adults and children, are white.

An interesting development in the ongoing discussions about Mexican-Americans and Mexican immigration is that two states with two of the largest populations of Native American Indians, Oklahoma and Arizona, have recently passed some of the toughest anti-immigrant laws in the country.

Isn’t it interesting that many Hispanic, Mexican and other immigrants from south of Mexico are of part-Native American Indians and part Spanish ancestry. They have darker skin, like Indians of North America. They have straight black hair and some of the facial characteristics of North American Indians.

And at the same time, Oklahoma and Arizona passed some of the most stringent laws against these immigrants. This just seems like an interesting dynamic.

After all, let’s not forget, amid all the talk about securing our borders and saving the English language from destruction, it is probably safe to say that some people just don´t like others who have different color skin, who look different, speak in a different way and have different cultural and social characteristics.

The ethnic factors in play seem to need a fresh perspective from many of us.

Whether the ongoing presidential race is focusing on the invasion and occupation of Iraq, the multi- and mixed-ethnicity of Americans or the other issues of the day, it might be helpful to look carefully and objectively at all the elements involved.

Americans do face dangers from enemies, foreign and domestic. Our democracy, our freedoms, our Constitution and our peace and prosperity are at risk.

As we select our next president and other federal, state and local government officials, our wisdom and intelligence, or lack thereof, can have very serious consequences, as we have seen in recent years.

Tags: clintons, empire, Global, governing, government, imperialism, politics, Steve Hammons
Categories: Commentary, Global, Politics, Imperialism, Steve Hammons, clintons
No Comments »

An Article by:

Russell Cole

David Shuster was recently placed on indefinite suspension by MSNBC, following remarks that were made by Shuster during an episode of Countdown, where he was substituting as the host for Kieth Olbermann. When discussing Chelsey Clinton’s participation in her mom’s campaign for the Democratic Primary, Shuster questioned whether Chelsy was being “Pimped out in some weird sort of way,” by her parents. The remark made by Shuster was in reference to the use of Chelsey by the Clinton Campaign as an agent who was charged with the task of campaign calling celebrities, on occasions, and, sometimes, to contact members belonging to the extra-democratic council of elders; otherwise referred to as Super-delegates.

I had actually watched the show in question, and – although I had, in fact, observed the statements made by Shuster – the incident failed to registered as anything apart from the ordinary and unremarkable. However, apparently, Shuster’s remarks incited furry on the part of the Clintons and the Clintonian Political Machine. Hillary Clinton refused to participate in a debate that is to be hosted by NBC if Shuster is ever to return to his employment at MSNBC. Accordingly, the executives at NBC capitulated and placed Shuster on indefinite suspension.

The problems exemplified by this course of events that involved Shuster; his employer, MSNBC; and the Clintonian Political Machine are more than apparent. Corporate journalism has capitulated to the pressures placed upon it by an agent that would, otherwise, constitute an object of its journalistic coverage, in order for the journalism syndicate not to lose access to its subject, who, also, sometimes, serves as a source. For a journalism syndicate to obey the commands placed upon it by those who are powerful in society tarnishes any claim by the journalism organization to be providing unfettered and unbiased reports of those who have acquired positions of significance whereby their actions can have an impact upon many others.

For this reason alone, MSNBC should rehire Shuster. In fact, it was later revealed that Chelsey was assigned to a Super-delegate – where she met with him in person during the course of a private breakfast – who happened to be close in age to the former First Daughter. However, rather than addressing the Clintonian use of Chelsey in this instance, and the implications it can have, lending itself for the comparison - not in all respects, but, at least, to some - with other more unsavory forms of exploitation, it is more important to point out that Shuster should be returned to his position because he is simply one of the best in the profession.

Of all of the relentless and self-assured chatter emanating from the Washington Press Core, David Shuster has provided an unique and refreshing voice, offering empirically based descriptions and evidentially supported adduction that contribute to a stream of informative journalism that certainly marks a high peak in the profession, protruding from a backdrop of low valleys that represent the utterly unprofessional and informatively valueless work generated by his counterparts. For the majority of instances, Schuster appears to actually conduct investigatory research; thus, adding to the empirically derived body of knowledge pertaining to American political affairs while failing to merely reiterate and help propagate the popular narration of events constructed by the group-think of Washington press correspondents.

The value of Shuster’s work should not be understated, considering the alternative options one has when searching for credible sources of cable journalism. Simply from observing the cable news analyses provided upon the Primaries, it is evident that the punditry is merely engaged in speculative indulgences; always insisting upon explaining processes – such as the deliberations of African American women, who, according to the quasi-journalistic expository prose, must make the difficult chose between two competing social identities – a black man and a white women; both with whom an African American women can identify. Are these conclusions offered by the chattering heads supported by research in political psychology or sociology? Sadly, and fairly amazingly, they are not.

With absolutely no support for their conclusions other than their own intuitions and looking-glass-selves, they, nevertheless, articulate their narratives as if such explanations should be considered more credible than an description that I, myself, could provide, taking into consideration that I have no resources or even contacts. Since these accounts proffered to us by the corporate press exist in some state of Limbo between reality and fiction, it is difficult to know what exactly to make out the quasi-journalism manufactured by the chattering class occupying the chairs in cable news. At best, I would describe it as a theoretically vacant and methodologically nonexistent form of armchair political-sociology.

As Jon Stewart has pointed out, the steady stream of empirically unestablished expositions distributed through the cable news medium can be tellingly referred to as newsac. Like musac, it provides an unobtrusive background to spaces that might be otherwise uncomfortable if left in silence. The pacifying character of newsac, however, only persists for as long as one neglects to make it the object of his or her attention, because, as soon as it is scrutinized, its blandish and hollow composition comes to the fore, and, subsequently, incites a vexing realization that what one is hearing qualifies as a commodity that is significantly less than news.

Nothing was more troubling than listening to the chattering heads describe how they were misled by their polling in the days leading up to New Hampshire. These people know nothing about the inferential statistics that go into extrapolating the frequencies of attitudes belonging to an entire population about whom such attributes are inferred. The majority of the buffoons we watch on cable news do not even understand the significance of the margin of error in statistical sampling, let alone the actual operations comprising the methodology of sampling. Therefore, to listen to them joke about the precariousness of their forecasting – a disposition of reticence garnered by their debacle in New Hampshire – smacks of incredulity, because, quite simply, they had nothing to do with the polling; and, their forecasting, rather, reflected merely reading the polls and making predictions based upon the level of support achieved by the various candidates. Therefore, they are giving themselves too much credit. Their contribution to this false prediction is better compared to a high school student who uses the Wikipedia as her or her sole reference when writing a report; never considering that the renderings contained in the Wikipedia might be derived from processes that are not entirely reliable.

Shuster’s work in journalism, however, is markedly different from the preponderance of chatter heard through media transmitting cable news. When covering the Libby Trial for Hardball, Shuster reported voluminous facts belonging to the reality of the unfolding drama. In fact, Shuster’s coverage of the spectacle achieved a degree of precision that was not even remotely attained by his journalistic peers. If one wanted to understand the actualities of the case – and assuming that cable news was one’s only recourse – he or she had no where else to turn other than Shuster. Popularized myths – such as the assertion that Plaine was never undercover – often made by conservative politicos and, then, distributed by journalists who were all too willing to package such manipulative attempts at public relations as actual news was routinely dispelled by Shuster, who, as a contrarian, would point to factual information: statements made by the judge and the prosecutor that indicated that Plaine was in an undercover capacity; telling utterances contradicting the claims dissembled by Administration apologists.

Quite simply, for those of us desperate for legitimate reporting, Shuster’s loss is a devastating blow. Furthermore, when journalism becomes subservient to the agencies of power it should be examining critically, there is certainly something amiss that is in need of correction.

For shame MSNBC. I would iterate the same to the Clintons; however, it has long been apparent that they have no shame.

Russell Cole

Tags: cable news, clintons, david shuster, hillary clinton, journalism, msnbc
Categories: Commentary, journalism, cable news, clintons
No Comments »