What Alex Cockburn says about Clinton & Dean

[Abe Linkman]

http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn11142003.html

[Instant Karma]

1. This only serves to prove that leftist writers such as Cockburn aid

the GOP more than they aid the left. Yes, many of Clinton's policies didn't work but the writer also fails to acknowledge that much of this policy was with a Republican house. The writer also fails to acknowledge that Clinton DID at least attempt to lessen the severity of the distribution of wealth by making sure business paid their fair share and could not set up shells offshore while accepting government contracts.

Curiously missing from his assessment is what the current ratio is of the CEO to the worker and what it will become under four more years of Bush.

In the end of Cockburn's life I wonder if he will admit he was a stealth shill for the right. Between his assination of Al Gore's character in the last race and now Dean, as well as nearly every other Dem candidate, one should be able to see right through him.

[Aidoneus]

3. even two posts in, this better proves

the shortsighted and limited outlook of Dem loyalists, who agree with Bush that "those not with us must be against us".

[Instant Karma]

9. I take issue with that comment

I know of nothing more short sighted than to produce an article that is HALF SIGHTED, creates the appearance that Clinton single handedly concentrated wealth (note the author conveniently dismisses the fact that Clinton at least ATTEMPTED to enfore the Sherman anti-trust act via the Microsoft case which would have had FAR reaching ramifications had it not been derailed under Bush) and doesn't take into account other trade policies that were favorable to American workers such as the showdown with Japan over auto imports.
Cockburn has a habit of being as full of propaganda as the far right. He certainly is far from truthful and FAR from investigative in his writings. The reader has to take far too much for granted as being accurate when reading him.
He is no more an aid to the left than Hitchens. He simply hums a tune the left enjoys regardless of the degree to which it fractures any possibility of unity.

[RichM]

5. If Cockburn was a stealth shill for the right, what was Clinton?

Clinton handed the whole country over to the right wing without a fight. Gore was an incredibly lousy wooden timid candidate in 2000, and Dean is an incredibly lousy candidate right now, as is nearly every other Democratic candidate.

Are we just supposed to avert our eyes from all that? Aren't you just attacking the messenger? The problem is that the Democrats stink, not that someone notices that they stink.

[Instant Karma]

10. I would respond but your post has nothing objective to grasp on to.

Did Clinton hand the country over to the right when his judicial appointments were held in limbo? Did he hand the country to the right when he vetoed the PSLRA? Am I supposed to take your subjective interpretations and treat them as gospel when there is so much that argues against them?

[chaumont58]

2. Cockburn has hated Clinton from the get-go

In '92, Cockburn was tougher on Clinton than any right wing journalist. He and drunk Hitchens are birds of a feather.

[ikojo]

4. Don't you think Cockburn and other lefty types

have reason to dislike Clinton? I worked hard on Clinton's 1992 campaign. After 12 years of Reagan/Reagan/Bush I was all gungho . I saw a new age of compassionate politics ahead. Boy was I in for a let down!
I was quickly let down when following his inauguration (which I listened to on NPR) he was faced with criticism about lifting the ban on gays in the military. Instead of standing up to the bullies that is the right-wing, he capitulated and gave the US don't ask, don't tell. This policy was supposed to keep gays and lesbians from being discharged but records show that MORE people were discharged during the Clinton years.
Clinton's willingness to ditch nominees at the first sign of right-wing manufactured scandal also showed me that he would not stand by friends in tough times. When he fired Jocelyn Elders for daring to metion the word masturbation, that told me volumes about him.
I voted for Clinton in 1996 but could not bring myself to work on his campaign. I felt too betrayed following Welfare Reform and how hard Clinton worked to get NAFTA through Congress.
So, if a lefty journalist is tough on Clinton it is only because he deserved it. Clinton started as a moderate and moved the Dem party further to the right.

[sendero]

6. I totally agree...

.... that Clinton was *not* a 'liberal' and that he went the wrong direction many times. But what irks the crap out of me is this, jerks like Cockburn do not compare Clinton/Dean/Whoever to Bush/Reagan/Whoever but instead to some fictional ideal who we will never see in the white house in our lifetimes. News flash, Clinton/Dean are not perfect. Who would have thunk it?

*That* is intellectual dishonesty and of no practical value.

[ikojo]

8. When Dems campaign as "populists" but

govern from the center right, I say they have the criticism coming to them. All critics such as Cockburn and others are doing is holding them up to what they said they were.

Clinton claimed to put working people first, yet, during his two administrations the gap between rich and poor in the US increased greatly. The minimum wage was increased only once during his two administrations, even though the Dems controlled all three branches of the government at one time.

As voters we have the responsibility to hold elected officials to their campaign rhetoric. I think people were so tired of fighting during the 12 years of Reagan and Bush that Clinton was pretty much given a pass as far as real criticism was concerned, at least from the left. At the beginning many organizations felt they had a place at the table (never mind that they were not being served anything) and they grew complacent.

[Instant Karma]

12. On welfare reform although I did not like his finished product,

he did advocate for cleanup legislation which became impossible once we lost congress. While I do have issues with the sloppiness with which NAFTA was passed ala William Greider's excellent article detailing this, and with the concentration of the media power, Clinton was not the SOLE blame for the Dem move to the right.

One cannot forget Sam Nunn's maneuvering as regards gays in the military. He was getting undermined by members of his own party, said members coming from states such as Georgia where the right has made inroads with their campaign to dietize the political process.

[mot78]

7. Can we stop using Counter Punch as a source?

they're a tin foil hat rag that aids the Repugs.:tinfoilhat:

[Octafish]

13. "Tin foil hat rag."

You think Selection 2000 was not a conspiracy?

How about Smirk and Sneer's ENRON Energy Policy?

9-11 ring any bells?

Bin Laden and Bushes in bed from waaaay back. On 9-11 itself, members of each clan were meeting with the Carlyle Group.

WMDs in Iraq as the basis of an illegal invasion doesn't sound fishy to you?

These have all been covered in Counter Punch, way ahead of the mainstream press.

Where've you been?

[Terwilliger]

14. Remember, Octa...

Counterpunch is a mag that consistently criticizes Democrats...they're not eligible to be treated as an objective news source :eyes:

[WillyBrandt]

11. Cockburn views the Dems as an enemy party

And he's nuts to boot. Why does he get quoted so much?

[Terwilliger]

15. so much?

:shrug:

So much where? In fact, every time there is a thread about what Counterpunch or its editors say, there are sub-posts that lambaste them as Bush shills. Glad the right doesn't like balance either, huh?