Now I know why Amy Goodman is

[whometense]

a regular guest on Hardball.

Matthews can say he has both sides represented, and they can both sit there and bash democrats together. Isn't that cozy?

You should have seen the wry smile Frank Gaffney had on his face when the segment ended with Amy Goodman screaming over Matthews about how Kerry was "just like the republicans." :mad: He was the reasonable one.

[fedupinBushcountry]

1. One reason

why I quit listening to Democracy Now. I thought they were on our side, but the more I listened the more I realized, they were not. They don't like Dems or Repubs. Its all trying to sell their agenda whoever they are.

[globalvillage]

3. Hell, I couldn't tell which side she was on.

Her own, I guess.

[sandnsea]

2. Then bring on Bob Schrum for real balance

I was just complaining about the exact same thing.

[whometense]

5. Yep.

That was a pathetic display.

I was just reading a great comment by blm on the Thread-That-Must -Not-Be-Named. It was about the media's role in setting up and knocking down democratic candidates in 2003 an 2004. What Matthews show displays - for the zillionth time - is that the agenda of people like him has not changed one iota.

I was watching the Situation Room a little earlier, and they did a spectacularly asinine segment on whether or not Oprah endorsed Hillary for president, and what if Oprah endorsed Hillary for president, and what if Condi ran against Hillary, who would men vote for? It was sick making - but exactly what we ought to have learned to expect. Blitzer and Matthews are not our friends, and they never will be our friends. It only seems that way sometimes. We need to look at them as the enemy and treat everything they say with appropriate skepticism, if not outright cynicism.

[ginnyinWI]

8. and so much of the time it is a big waste.

Tweety is not that much different than Oprah really--it's all about ratings. Ted Koppel was interviewed by Charlie Rose, and he was saying that one of the reasons for quitting Nightline is that it always has to be about ratings and making money.


By the way whome, Happy Anniversary! :)

[whometense]

10. Thank you!

Hard for me to believe it's been so long.

[sandnsea]

14. Oh yeah

Happy Anniversary!!

[whometense]

16. Thanks :-)

[FreedomAngel82]

17. With Matthews

in 2004 he went to Boehmian Grove, so make that what you will.

[whometense]

18. Just more evidence

of what I was saying, eh?

[jillan]

4. She is way way out of the mainstream.

One thing I do like about her show is that she brings news that you don't see on msm. I watched her daily last year. The last time I saw her show she had on some young kid that was in the military, assigned to the prison camps. He was telling heartbreaking stories about what was going on in there. And how at first he would humiliate the prisoners, and after awhile, he couldn't take it anymore. He tried to get the military to do something about the inhumane conditions, but all of his requests were ignored. (I wish I remembered his name:() But for shows like that, I am thankful.

[whometense]

6. I wouldn't argue that her show is

without value. I think she covers a lot of stories that are worthy. I just don't think she should be appearing on the talking head media whore shows to argue the "democratic" point of view, as she clearly does not consider herself a democrat. (She refers to democrats as "them".) Frankly, I think it borders on unethical for someone of such high standards.

[jillan]

7. I wonder what her political affiliation is? Libertarian?

Wonder who she voted for in the last election.
Certainly not bushit. Wonder if she went for Kerry, Nader?
I got the feeling that before the election she was for Kerry.
Maybe she is one of those people that can't move on because
"the election was stolen and Kerry conceded - oh my"?

[whometense]

9. Don't know much about her.

Her bio is here: http://www.democracynow.org/staff.shtml

Sounds like she's pretty fringe. Maybe she's too pure to vote. :sarcasm:

[jillan]

11. haha - I don't know much about her either

Other than I turn her show on when nothing else is on, and I need my news-fix. And I know that she always wears black. lol.

[emulatorloo]

12. certainly has the poor and earnest graduate student fashion look down

(and i have been a poor and earnest grad student, so I know)

[sandnsea]

15. Liberal elite

Leftist. You know the type.

[ProSense]

13. Amy Goodman belongs to a group

trying to become a force in the media. They have their own agenda. I don't expect any from any of these people.

http://www.iwtnews.com/people

[TayTay]

19. Yup. That's true.

She serves her own purposes. But I like some of her shows, though it is grossly unfair to have her on Hardball as the Democratic response as she is not a Democrat. She is third party, pure liberal. (Goo-gooey.) But she is atleast doing some journalism on her show and a lot of her concerns parrallel mine, if her choice of candidates does not.

[beachmom]

20. I watched her for a while, thinking I was getting "alternative" news

But then I saw her on C-SPAN, and speak bitterly about *, and then Kerry, like they were the same "Establishment", which is just utter bulls***. I also found in the archives a show she had on about Skull and Bones in January 2004. Luckily, deep within the interview, the S & B "expert" did say that Kerry seemed to only use it for personal friendships, not for his career or business, like * did repeatedly. But when we talk about the Lefty Freepers, half their playbook comes from Democracy Now! The last time I taped her show, she interviewed Hugo Chavez 2 days in a row. Now regardless of what you think of him, that amounts to propaganda to only give his side of the story for 2 days in a row. And she seems to be in love with Fidel Castro. This is just way too far left for me. It must be exhausting for her being outraged by everything in the world. You know when the Right talks about the "Blame America First" crowd. Well, that's unfair against most elected Democratic officials, but Amy Goodman, on the other hand, ALWAYS blames America first, and as a liberal, over time this pisses me off. I want the truth, not reverse propaganda.

And I can't believe you guys are telling me that she's on Hardball -- why would she sell out to the corporate media like that? She is a VERY BAD spokesperson for either the Democratic party or liberalism. Sorry to be so strong in my opinion, but if you could have seen her bitterness, talking about Kerry, you would understand mine.

[ProSense]

21. You're so right!

I mean, the world is full of people with a range of opinions. It's fine to want the world your way, but it's more realistic try to make as much your way as possible. Which sometimes (not always) means compromise. For some of these people with extreme views, if you are not 100 percent in support of their position, you are a no good rat like the rest of them. Instead of building consensus, they prefer to tear down any existing foundation because they don't like where some of the bricks came from. In other words, all elected officials should share their approach to the issues or be deemed worthless.

No matter how many elections come and go to bring 535 people together as in the Congress, I guarantee that it will always look very similar to what it looks like today, with the majority shifting slightly to the left or right. As the 2004 election proved, the only way subvert this is through deception and dirty tricks.

[paulk]

22. you said it

I was fairly ambivalent about Amy Goodman until a year or so ago when the local public access station broadcast a video of a talk she had given up in Boulder - it was the unvarnished Amy in front of the home team - the Boulder trust fund whiny crybaby blame America first liberal elite crowd - several of whom I recognized and had come to know and loathe during my tenure in that city. She spent most of her time trashing Clinton and Democrats in general and, as you say, being outraged about anything and everything. I've had a hard time taking her seriously since then.

I used to wonder if the Amy Goodmans of the world are worth supporting, because they do, as tayTay notes upthread, occasionally cover things I'm interested in and even do some worthwhile reporting now and then. I still don't know. I think their world view is, in the long run, just as distorted as any right wingers -

One thing I do know is that Amy Goodman is not a representive for mainstream liberalism - and Hardball should not be presenting her as such.

[TayTay]

23. Amy Goodman is a 'purist liberal'

She has done a lot of good. But she has, in a way, seen too much. (So has Greg Palast and so have a few other good investigative reporters.) They want the bad things that heppen all across the world to end NOW (or yesterday, if possible.) She has talked to the family of people murdered for money or for political reasons. She has seen the effects of corruption up close and has interviewed the victims and so forth. I don't doubt that part at all.

She wants change now. What she doesn't seem to understand (not fundamentally, soul-deep understand) is that change can't come simply because the morally good people have found out that bad things happen in the world. Change never happens that way. Changing the way things are run is a gradual process because human nature demands that it be a gradual process.

I am loathe to criticize her. I haven't held the family members of people who were murdered by harsh regimes in Africa. I haven't talked to relatives of people who were kicked off their lands with the illegal cooperation of ruthless governments. I haven't seen the starving and the hurt who inhabit so much of the world. I applaud her for trying to stop this. (Heck, we all want to stop this.) I get annoyed at her because her tactics seem to push away the very people who want to help her in her causes. I wish she was a better 'politician,' in the best sense of the word. I wish she knew how to do more than scream and point and say, do something or you are as bad as they are. Cuz it's not helping and it's not true.

[paulk]

27. it's the moral ivory tower ...

that rubs me the wrong way.

The thing is - I have seen many of the same sort of horrors she has. People who've had their lives destroyed by the Maoists in Nepal. The kid in Dhurbar Square, Kathmandu who's parents and most of his siblings had died in the Union Carbide chemical leak in Bhopal, India. The children working in rug factories or some other menial job because it at least put a roof over their heads and food in their stomachs. The men and women begging in the streets of Siam Reap, Cambodia who had lost arms or legs to land mines. The grinding poverty and hopelessness that you encounter on a daily basis in places like Nepal, Thailand, or Indonesia.

I've seen all this stuff - and more - and it has affected me deeply. And what I get from Amy Goodman, et al, is this idea that if my reaction isn't exactly the same as her's, then I'm somehow morally deficient. And I really resent that. She represents, to me, a particularly western sort of moralizing that... needs someone to blame. I've chosen a different path.

You're right - her tactics drive people away. And it's too bad, because these stories do need to be told.

[WildEyedLiberal]

28. You're right

Now I haven't seen any of the horrors of the Third World, or even any horrors here in America. I've grown up and live in a sleepy rural town in the middle of cornfields in central Illinois, and am completing my degree at a slightly larger sleepy town, also amidst cornfields. One day, however, I'd like to join the Peace Corps. I think I NEED to see how the other half - or more realistically, the other 99% lives.

But I agree 100% with your assessment of people like Goodman. Their reaction to injustice and poverty is out of proportion anger and blame. I say out of proportion because not only do they blame those who are directly responsible for such suffering, they blame those who are sympathetic to the pain and self-righteously accuse them of not doing enough to stop it. In Goodman's world, every liberal would go on a hunger strike to support the victims of famine in Africa, and every liberal Senator would filibuster every bill up for debate in Congress until the Republicans finally see the error of their ways and agree to stop exploiting the poor and oppressed of the world. And that simply has never happened in world history and never will.

People like Bono are far more effective activists for change, because he knows how to court EVERYBODY and pass no blame or judgment. His message is simply - "You can't ignore this any longer, and it's our practical and moral imperative to stop the suffering." Doing thus, he has persuaded everyone from Bush to Jesse Helms to Rick Santorum to John Kerry to Pope JP II to support his DATA initiative. THAT is effective activism.

[ProSense]

24. Something just dawned on me.

The RW took over the Republican Party and gained enormous strength, albeit through deception and lies. What I find interesting is that it appears they decided that instead of trying to tear down the Republican Party and build a new party, which would have been recognized immediately as fringe, they worked the system to their advantage.

As the left claims altruism, progressives seem bent on another route---tear down the system and build a new one and truth will win out in the end. I believe truth does win out eventually, but not all truths wins out at the same time. If truth wins out today, does that mean another candidate will never again come along and use bribery as a way to try to win the day? And possibly succeed?

So the problem with the extreme progressive view is that it assumes that all people will come around at the same time and that all the flaws in character and judgment (bribery, corruption, etc.) will cease to be a factor?

I wish the left would come together and work within a system to defeat right wing ideology and bring more people around to liberal ideals.

Every time progressives challenge the left instead of fighting the right, the right wins. Screams for more political parties always seem to come from the left. The right is content to work within the Republican Party. So we'll have four or five parties---blocks of voters---vying for one spot, they'll have one. If I believed that the equation would also splinter the Republican Party, I'd have no problem with more parties, but that doesn't seem to be how it would work out.

What do you think?

[WildEyedLiberal]

25. EXCELLENT post.

You have deftly illustrated the flaw in every form of utopic philosophy, from Marxism to present day leftism. Such utopic thinking presumes that there will be a day in the future in which truth will conquer all, leading to an ideal, perfectly egalitarian society. Such a fundamental shift in the animal nature of humanity is, as far as I can see, impossible - you can NEVER weed out greed, corruption, and evil from the fabric of the human race. Far leftism - most of the time - may have its heart in the right place, but needs to understand that compromise and pragmatism are essential in any endeavor to change society.

[ProSense]

26. Thanks.

Your eloquent statement captures exactly what I was trying to say.