Arianna Huffington on the Media, McCain, and Obama

Last week I interviewed Arianna Huffington on the media and Senator McCain, two central topics in her new book, Right is Wrong. I couldn't help getting her candid opinion on Barack Obama as well. Below is my conversation with Arianna in a three part series:

"Right is Wrong" and The Media:

Who Is The Real McCain:

Who Is The Real Obama?

The Real News Network (TRNN) is the world's first truly independent, non-profit, viewer-supported daily video-news and documentary service. It does not accept advertising, government or corporate funding. The mission of The Real News Network is to engage millions of viewers in solving the critical problems of our times. We provide independent daily video-news imbued with verifiable facts, history and context.

Comments

[kristycu]

He missed the point of Obama not supporting the Lieberman bill, he had already introduced a bill before that that stating that group in Iran was a terrorist organization, either it has not passed or it is still waiting, (sorry can't remember). this is from factcheck. org

Obama cosponsored an earlier bill that also called for designating the IRGC as a terrorist organization.
The Kyl-Lieberman amendment did more than just label the IRGC terrorists. Obama stated at the time that he opposed the bill on the grounds that it constituted "saber-rat­tling."

there is more at this link http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/soft_on_iran.html.
so he did not change his position as noted earlier he already cosponsored a bill agreeing to the designation.

[TheEmptinessOfTruthiness]

Nice interview.

The outmoded terms "left" and "right" were put to rest by Prof Theodore Roszak in 1969 in his well-known book "The Making of a Counter Culture."

Why have these labels persisted? I can only guess that the MSM prefers to have an easy label to lazily slap on every idea and policy, and that this gross oversimplification is just one of the ways that critical thinking is suppressed.

[anney]

Oh, Arianna! Excellent interview! A real discussion without sound bites. We need more!

[iratior]

I'm just writing here to say thanks for the message boards. I enjoy commenting on the issues, and was very happy that a comment I had on energy policy was chosen as a Huff Pick. I'm hoping a story about the role of NATO in Afghanistan appears soon; it could be a very interesting topic. NATO was created so that if ono of the members were attacked, the others would come to its defense. "Defense" ought, as I see it, be a key word here. It doesn't say that help will be provided for wars of conquest or aggrandizement. It therefore seems a bit moot whether NATO troops can legitimately be in Afghanistan for aiding the U.S., at the same time that the U.S. wages what amounts, in effect, to a war of conquest in Iraq... Anyhow, thanks again for maintaining the message boards.

[donkat]

MC more than cozied up to the right - he abandoned any semblance of independence as she sought the nomination. Today's MC bears no resemblance to the old "maverick". For pete's sake, he's voting against his own bill. .

What does remain consistent in MC is his affinity for war as a solution preferable to diplomacy. It's the same old song, sung by the same old proponents of manifest destiny. What's mine is mine, what's yours is mine - that hasn't changed.

He has yet to tell us when our troops will come home. They'll stay if there are no casualties. They'll stay if there are. His policy is a lose-lose proposition for the troops. They'll be there indefinitely. The reason he didn't vote for the Gi Bill was fear that the troops would leave and actually go to college. His position is heartless and unfair. His solution is to withhold benefits to keep them in the military.

The biggest problem we face in this election is the lack of objective news analysys and the cozy relationships between candidate and press. Access is denied to those who criticize and reporters need access. It's a mess. As long as it goes on, there will be no serious, thoughtful, insightful journalism.

[Scarabus]

Great stuff. However, once again we hear the terms "win" or "be victorious" in Iraq. Personally, I see such thinking as way too simplistic. But that's not the point. The point is that the terms either mean nothing or mean different things to different people.

No responsible person should ever utter such terms carelessly, even when they aren't the central focus of a discussion. Always they should be defined if used by the speaker/writer, or identified as undefined and consequently meaningless rationally if used by someone the speaker/writer is quoting. Yes, regardless, the terms do have emotional, button-punching meaning. But I'm talking about serious, rational discourse.

[Johnnn]

So I expect HuffPost to endorse Obama, if it hasn't already, and despite the "rightward drift" of Obama because of his recent expression of support for Israel (as if that's a bad thing). And somehow McCain betrayed his early promise as a leader because he cozied up to the Bushes in order to secure the Republican nomination. Someday someone will bring back objective news analysis.