Thursday, September 09, 2004

Medea Benjamin Comes Clean, But David Cobb is still Dirty

By Josh Frank

Read full article...

Posted 09/09 | Add a Comment

    Comments:

    You must register to comment.

    Login | Register

  1. “[Jeffrey] St. Clair said. ‘The only power the Left (loosely speaking) enjoys these days is the power of negation. We can’t elect Nader or Camejo or Jackson. But we can defeat bad Democrats, like Gore and Kerry. Until the Democrats bend in our direction or a new political party rises to challenge them. And it doesn’t take much, other then courage, to make this happen—an all out anti-war & anti-free trade campaign waged in Florida, Ohio, Michigan, Oregon, New Hampshire, Maine and New Mexico. Those are the states that matter. Those are the states that will force the power elite to deal with the Left.’” </br></br>

    Now it finally becomes clear to me with this candid admission what the Nader campaign is all about. It’s not about supporting progressive issues, building a movement, or trying to do anything positive. In their own words it is about hurting the Democrats by helping the Republicans. What does that achieve? Possibly you could get the Democrats to try to cover their butts with IRV, which would be good, but clearly you are never going to move the agenda of the Democrat Party to where you want it. The only way to do that is to build a movement, and the way to build the movement is by attracting people, and since the overwhelming majority of folks believe there is at least a slight difference between the two corporate parties, a campaign strategy that respects that makes good sense, particularly when it is also what will build a third party. The Nader campaign is a one-shot deal that will leave no organizational foundation. Vote for the future, support David Cobb.

    Posted by Blyden from  on  09/09  at  11:00 AM

  2. Blyden,St. Clair is not a spokesperson for the Nader campaign. Besides that, however, the Democrats are bad enough that defeating them is hardly a bad thing.Also, what good is having an organization if you haven’t convinced people to look outside the two major political parties? Convincing people to do so should be, at this stage, the major focus of independent and third party politics.

    Posted by micah holmquist from  on  09/09  at  01:33 PM

  3. Gosh, can it be that Joshua Frank is admitting a rumor was wrong?  Well, it doesn’t matter, it’s served it’s purpose.  Very kind of him to de-bunk a rumor he started.

    Hey, did you know the Pat L:aMarche was rumored to have eaten one of her children?  She hasn’t denied it.

    Posted by holly from  on  09/09  at  04:23 PM

  4. @robably aren’t familiar, but what Josh Frank did is called muckraking.

    Here’s the definition in case you don’t have a dictionary.

    (n) To search for and expose misconduct in public life (n) one who spreads real or alleged scandal about another (usually for political advantage)

    Maybe you’ve heard about this sort of thing before.  It’s another term for good journalism.

    Posted by TR-avis from  on  09/09  at  06:28 PM

  5. It’s not good journalism if it involves fabrications presented as facts.

    Posted by holly from  on  09/09  at  09:05 PM

  6. Oh look Holly! A story by the WP that talks about “rumors” and “allegations”.

    For the record, from my reading of Frank’s piece, he let the Greens reply. Hmm.. Maybe you are just mad because Cobb is sort of a silly guy to be rallying around. Like George Kaztanza, but nerdy.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9967-2004Sep9.html

    Posted by TR from  on  09/09  at  10:48 PM

  7. Too bad for you, George COSTANZA was the best Seinfeld character!

    Posted by holly from  on  09/10  at  12:36 AM

  8. Having grown up on a farm in one of those states that Josh says doesn’t matter, I know of an earlier definition of muckraking that better resembles what he tries to pass as journalism.

    Ralph Nader is nothing more than a lobbiest with a Christ complex.  He doesn’t want to destroy the duopoly.  He feeds off of it. 

    Any integrity Ralph may have had once seems to have been misplaced.  He stands idly by as his alcolites and his running mate attack the campaign of a man who stands for values that Nader claims to espouse.  Among those that have pledged their soul to the Great God Nader, their righteous anger is directed first at Cobb, next at Kerry, and, if they happen to get around to it, Bush.  That tells me a lot more about their values than any bogus platform their deity might put forward.

    Posted by N. Shane Cutler from  on  09/10  at  01:30 AM

  9. Josh never reported the rumour as “fact”; he said that it was a rumour and he cleared it up. But it is pointless for us to continue any more discussion about Cobb; no one else is paying any attention to him (and now the Greens as well, sadly).

    Posted by Brandy Baker from  on  09/10  at  09:10 AM

  10. He didn’t need to claim a rumor as fact in order to get mileage out of it.  Once the cat’s out of the bag, it’s out.  Even an imaginary cat.

    Posted by holly from  on  09/10  at  09:50 AM

  11. If they are worried, let them vote for John Kerry. Voters should follow their conscience.
    --Nader, in interview with Josh Frank on 8/5

    How is this different from Cobb’s position of “understanding” if voters won’t vote for him?  The answer is that Cobb asks voters to register Green and Nader doesn’t.  At least Cobb’s answer could be helpful in prying voters away from the clutches of the Democrats.

    Josh finally took the time to look at Cobb’s website to see what Cobb’s strategy actually was (too bad… researching facts means he’ll never get a job at the New York Times).  But having found the facts inconvenient, he redefines the “safe states strategy” as “any strategy an obscure candidate like Cobb could possibly choose.” So by definition, Cobb’s running a safe states campaign.  Nice spin!  Why work for the Times when you could get a job at the White House?

    Posted by Green Democrat from  on  09/10  at  06:37 PM

  12. Green Democrat (what a paradox)

    Nader would never make the following statement. And if he did I would criticize it as well.

    “In the battleground states that will decide the election, we understand if you won’t vote for our ticket this time. That’s OK.”

    That statement is different then telling voters to “follow their conscience.”

    Posted by Josh from  on  09/11  at  09:13 AM

  13. If I were a ‘bettin’ man’, my money would be on Bush.  The ‘politics’ of the ‘Green Party’ can be discussed until the cows come home.  Who’s this ‘Cobb’ guy anyway?  Never heard of him.  I must be out of the loop.  Thank God.  Deliver me from the ‘Greens’.  Good Lord.

    Bush is going to win the election, by hook or by crook; it’s a done deal.  Everything else is academic.  Have fun.

    Posted by MDPB from  on  09/13  at  09:29 AM

  14. The difference between the Nader and Cobb campaigns can be seen here in Michigan, definitely a ‘swing state’, where Ralph appears to hundreds and David appears to dozens. A Grand Rapids paper stated that reporters sometimes outnumbered supporters at a Cobb event yesterday. The Green Party got the candidate it wanted. Unfortunately, he’s also the candidate Medea Benjamin and John Kerry wanted.

    Posted by Lou Novak from Detroit  on  09/16  at  06:00 AM

  15. If they are worried, let them vote for John Kerry. Voters should follow their conscience.
    --Nader, in interview with Josh Frank on 8/5

    In the battleground states that will decide the election, we understand if you won t vote for our ticket this time. That s OK.
    -- statement attributed to Cobb

    Josh, just HOW are these different? They seem to me to be saying exactly the same thing. What is there to criticize in the second statement that is not also present in the first statement?

    Posted by Blyden from  on  09/16  at  06:47 PM

  16. How disappointing!!

    I thought PressAction would have more to print than recycled Counterpunch articles.

    Actually, Nader said almost the same thing as Cobb about swing states in an interview with the very same Joshua Frank.

    Posted by arlingtone from  on  09/29  at  05:42 PM

  17. But, Arlingtone, did the Counterpunch site let you offer your two cents about Nader saying almost the same thing as Cobb about swing states? Glad to know, though, that people are thinking about Press Action before they actually review the site. On the other hand, sorry to disappoint.

    Posted by Mark Hand from  on  09/29  at  07:29 PM
    18. Commenting is not available in this weblog entry. {/if}

    Next entry: The Zionist Silencing Machine...Seven Examples of Zionist Authoritarianism

    Previous entry: Round Up the Usual Suspects

    [ads]

    Support Press Action