If you have "no place to go," come here!

U.K.'s New Statesman: America is experiencing McCarthyism-like derangement

BoGardiner's picture

Andrew Stephen, U.S. Editor of the U.K.'s venerable left-wing magazine, New Statesman, wrote today:

"Hating Hillary"

History, I suspect, will look back on the past six months as an example of America going through one of its collectively deranged episodes - rather like Prohibition from 1920-33, or McCarthyism some 30 years later. This time it is gloating, unshackled sexism of the ugliest kind. It has been shamelessly peddled by the US media, which - sooner rather than later, I fear - will have to account for their sins. The chief victim has been Senator Hillary Clinton, but the ramifications could be hugely harmful for America and the world.

...Hillary Clinton (along with her husband) is being universally depicted as a loathsome racist and negative campaigner, not so much because of anything she has said or done, but because the overwhelmingly pro-Obama media - consciously or unconsciously - are following the agenda of Senator Barack Obama and his chief strategist, David Axelrod, to tear to pieces the first serious female US presidential candidate in history.

...Obama and Axelrod have achieved their objectives: to belittle Hillary Clinton and to manoeuvre the ever-pliant media into depicting every political criticism she makes against Obama as racist in intent.

...the punditocracy may have landed the Democrats with perhaps the least qualified presidential nominee ever...

No votes yet


dotcommodity's picture
Submitted by dotcommodity on

That's one very old rag.

I only ever saw it in the late 60's in New Zealand - at a college boyfriend's very progressive parents' house... I think they were they the ones that went naked in the house...?anyway - a very lefty, earnest, British, 40's, kind of paper.

Those Commie pinkos nailed our predicament all right. Stupid kiddies! Stupid pundits!

FrenchDoc's picture
Submitted by FrenchDoc on

when you have to go to the foreign press to get to the truth... so much for free press (actually, it may be free - kinda, if one forgets corporate influence and pressure from the Bush administration and Republicans - but it's integrity and critical analysis that's out the window).

Submitted by lambert on

Couldn't trust anything in the U.S. press, so we had to go abroad. Sure thought those days were behind us! Not.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

FrenchDoc's picture
Submitted by FrenchDoc on

That's the example that immediately comes to mind.

I think we should pounce and ramp up the shaming of cable news in every way we can.

Pat J's picture
Submitted by Pat J on

I will never vote for this man. Too shameful. He and his supporters have tarnished the image of a couple who have made civil rights the hallmark of their combined years of service. For anyone to think otherwise is to display the ignorance that accompanies their adherence to an unqualified candidate with few core principles.

orionATL's picture
Submitted by orionATL on

from "the new statesman", without comment:

[ the punditocracy may have landed the Democrats with perhaps the least qualified presidential nominee ever…]

cal1942's picture
Submitted by cal1942 on

This article was a good solid encapsulation of this whole sordid primary campaign.

As we've seen too often in the past the view from overseas is clear and honest.

The Village people have struck again. Is anyone really surprised?

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

But this is ultimately the Democratic Party's fault. Party leaders will decide this thing and that they are apparently so weak and pathetic as to AGAIN be rolled by the media - and in a democratic year - is why I am quickly getting to the point of being through with them. As I've said, it's not that they've chosen him, it's that they've simply let the media choose him. I don't think there's been any thinking beyond an SD here or there siding with one candidate over the other for what's best for that SD. No real thought about who would be the stronger candidate or better president. I think I could get on board the Obama train if I thought there was anyone driving it beyond David Axelrod. If I thought party leaders had actually sat down and made an informed choice. But I see absolutely no evidence of that going on. Instead, it's like watching Rove roll the Dems all over again.

FrenchDoc's picture
Submitted by FrenchDoc on

of the Obama Bandwagon. I'm sure it has a lot of appeal to a lot of Dem leaders (if you can call them that... wait you can't).

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

But I have just about lost all confidence in the Democratic party and not just over the primary (as I've now said a gazillion times tonight). Apparently Bowers is now conceding that Obama might not be able to win in November without Clinton on the ticket. So, Obama should make her VP so he can win.

Now, if only someone could explain the reasoning behind why the SDs should give the nomination to Obama if he's the weaker GE candidate. Personally, I'm not sold on the idea that a stronger VP candidate can carry a nominee across the finish line. But let's say that Hillary and Bill can drag the Unity Pony across the line in November, I again ask what is the rationale for structuring the ticket this way other than giving in to the media and Blogger Boiz. At a certain point, it's going to look like what it is - the Democratic Party nominating a guy they don't have confidence in and using the Clintons to prop him up. And, again, I will ask why? Why would the party do this? Would any party that cared about winning do this? Would party leaders who had any spine let themselves be dictated to this way?

And for the four thousandth time tonight I say, it's not that they're choosing Obama, it's that they're not. They're letting him be chosen. Because, you know, the media narrative has always worked out so well for Democrats and the country in the past.

Now having made my point way too many times, I'm going to get some sleep. I've been up since 3 a.m. and as I'm sure you can tell from the quality of my comments, I'm tired and done.

koshembos's picture
Submitted by koshembos on

DB is right. My emphasis, however, will not be the media (they are commercial tools we can turn off) and not even the SD, but rather the individuals who make up the Democratic party. Let's not forget that the blood liable against the Clintons has been supported by our best educated ones. The party deserves to lose because its constituents don't deserve any better.

Gidget Commando's picture
Submitted by Gidget Commando on

are fighting till the (maybe not so bitter) end. They think the DNC now stands for DissNfranChise. (Their video's here.)

Funny how I'm hearing stories of TONS of formerly not-very-political women are now pissed off enough to be rumbling about a third party. They can't ALL be racist hateful scum, now, can they?

Submitted by scoff on

who has a big problem facing him if he is the nominee.

From CBS News:

Dem Strategist Sees Challenges For Obama A lot of Obama partisans have argued that his weaknesses are exaggerated right now in the heat of a primary battle. They say that in this environment in which 80 percent of the public thinks we're on the wrong track, Bush has the highest disapproval of any President in modern history, that this is a Democratic year and Obama will do fine.

Doug Schoen: Again, to me, it's an open question. I think it's certainly the case that the wind is at the back of Barack Obama. And I think if I had to bet, I would bet that Obama will beat John McCain. But that being said, when you look at states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Florida--states the Democrats traditionally need to win--there's every reason to believe that this will be a much more competitive election than the numbers on wrong track and presidential approval would suggest.

The (wholly unnecessary) divisions Obama and the OFB have created are making this election much less of a given than it should be.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

"... if I told you six months ago that she was going to win California, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, Arizona, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Michigan, Texas, and that she would not be the nominee, most people would have laughed. And I think just the vagaries of the way we pick delegates--the number of delegates that are apportioned per vote in the popular vote versus in a caucus--has been so skewed away from her, that it's almost like the process was apparently or effectively skewed against her.

Now, look, everybody can compete fairly. I'm not saying that anything was rigged against her. But I'm saying that she demonstrated a very broad and deep level of support that we saw [this week] as well as earlier. And, you know what? I just think the Democratic Party has to look at the system of apportioning delegates and be much closer to a one man, one vote system.

BoGardiner's picture
Submitted by BoGardiner on

A respected political analyst yesterday suggested that the Obama campaign has been using cynical, old-school political tactics by demonizing Hillary Clinton to raise funds for the most expensive political campaign in American history.

Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics, was asked on Air America's Bill Press show whether the Obama campaign is overstating anxiety about Hillary Clinton unfairly stealing the election. Sabato agreed, saying: "It's all about fundraising. There must be a devil to attack."

Thus, Obama literally struck gold with his good fortune to be the first Presidential candidate to face a serious woman challenger.

(For, as his "New Politics" staff anthropologist explained, everyone knows that she-devils are uber-devils.)

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

sadly--they're totally pro-Obama now, and used to be wonderful.

kateNC's picture
Submitted by kateNC on

The article is fascinating. Most of the sexist and anti-Clinton stuff I already knew but this discussed some techniques Axelrod used that I hadn't caught on to.

Women shouldn't voted for McCain who's as sexist as they come. They should vote Democrat down ticket and sit on their hands for president. Though most elected will be men, not all will be sexist and they'll be arguing policy after a prolonged honeymoon period.

I say prolonged because I think Obama's election will cause fear of opposition just as occurred after 911. But eventually elected officials will no longer fear the racism charge and will act independently.

All political parties come to an end and the Democratic party has indeed committed suicide.

We need a new party, not progressive because that's shown to be a hollow shell of shiney objects covering an ooze of slime.

We need a green FDR equal rights party, in my opinion.

orionATL's picture
Submitted by orionATL on

just to add to your post.

does anyone remeber way back in april when the north carolina republican party was running anti-obma/rev wright adds.

the press was outraged; pro-obama types were yelling their war cry - "raaaaace".

in an article discussing the ad and the rev's impact in the charlotte observer, an n. car poli sci prof was quoted as saying -

" hey, they aren't campaigning against obama yet, they are just raising money. jesee helms showed them a long time ago that you can raise a lot of money with a boogieman."

new politics, same as the old politics.


transformative politics of obama =

i'm an outsider politics of jimmy carter,

a tactic that every presidential candidate since carter has used, even bob dole.