Not that I’m wild about any of these too-many-candidates debates, but the Youtube one demonstrated yet again to me how useless the mainstream media is. Average people with a webcam asked way better - harder - questions of the candidates than any of the blow-dried “journalist” mediators have so far.
By the way: Am I the only one that thought Mike Gravel should have saved everyone’s time and just said “Jew, Jew, Jew” while he was yammering on and on about “Bankers” backing the other candidates? He’s a pretty distasteful guy, in my opinion.
Speaking from a Jewish point of view regrading Gravel, I didn’t get that impression at all. IMHO it was more an attempt to point out that corporate interests of Wall Street might be more important than actual constituents to some on the stage. Who knows why he lumped Clinton, Obama and Edwards into that group —especially Edwards and not Richardson.
(Disclosure — I’m holding out for Gore to be re-elected, but of the candidates that appeared on stage tonight I prefer Edwards closely followed by Obama with Dodd a distant third)
It was just you Oliver.
; )
He said bankers, he meant bankers and the ultrarich who the banks work for.
Is your celebration of “the people” here applicable? It was my understanding that the questions were screened before hand. So the MSM really dictated what was asked and what was not asked.
It’s most definitely you.
Gravel was clearly talking about corporate interests and Wall Street in particular. He re-emphasized this position when making his criticism of Chris Dodd.
Maybe OW has been reading too much neo-con drivel? Use of the word neo-con = anti-semitism. Wes Clark mentioned the moneyed in NY and he was tarred with that same brush.
Please make your case by going into the top Dems contributors lists and show us the link between Gravel’s and Clark’s comments and the charge of knee capping anyone other than the corporate elitists who want more war.
I did not get the impression that Gravel meant “Jews” when he said “bankers.” I got the impression that he meant “rich people.” Perhaps he ought to have said “rich people” or “corporations” or some other term.
That leading Democrats, presidential candidates and congressional alike, are financed by, and presumably beholden to, rich people and large corporations is an important issue. Not in the Naderite “no difference” sense, but in the sense of “Who, exactly, do you answer to on important issues?”
I don’t think that Gravel will raise the issue effectively or generate an answer. Edwards might, if he pushed it with more force.
I have to say, I too thought he was using code for “Jew bankers”. I’d be very glad to be wrong about that, as it is loathesome.
Am I the only one that thought Mike Gravel should have saved everyone’s time and just said “Jew, Jew, Jew” while he was yammering on and on about “Bankers” backing the other candidates?
Uh, based on what conceivable logic or evidence would you think that?
It’s disappointing to hear these neoconservative shibboleths about supposed “left-wing anti-semitism” regurgitated on a nominally progressive site like this.
But the incarnation of this shopworn slander on Oliver Willis’s blog is exactly as fact-free and phantasmal as it is when it gets barfed out of the mouth of a Larry Summers or a Paul Wolfowitz.
Same old shit, different asshole.
I don’t know, the term “banker” seems pretty heavy-handed to me. Ask yourselves this: when have you said or heard someone use the term “banker” in this day and age?
Don’t get me wrong, it would be great if it was just a really bad word choice. But I’m not willing to dismiss the dog whistle entirely.