In defense of invective

From the Idea of Ancient Literary Critisism by Yun Lee Too:
Invective ( in the Illiad) is meant to be perceived as a challenge to the elite monopoly of public discourse.

Sometime last fall it became clear that the media would not challenge the Obama campaign in any real sense. The Wright tapes, available to all for a while now, being ignored until the largest gap in the primary calendar being the central example of the media's timidity regarding Obama - or in MSNBC's case - its outright cheerleading for him.

Around the same time Clinton was hammered for a bumbled response to a question about drivers' licenses for those here illegally and the major left wing blogs began to function as a cheering section for the Obamites and as attack dogs on Clinton. The subtext of the media and blogs like the Dailykos is "ignore, excuse and blame Clinton" for any misgivings that may arise about Obama. While in Clinton's case the subtext has been to highlight and deride every move her campaign has made. The best example here is Olbermann's almost insane "special comment" about Ferarro's innocuous remarks and Clinton's response to it while excusing and encouraging a far more disturbing 20 year commitment by Obama to Wright's church.

The media narrative has been and remains: The Shining Knight versus the Evil Queen. This is patently false and based in a wild misreading of both Obama's and Clinton's histories. It is only since the Wright story was amplified that the dam has been breached somewhat. The tapes were so disturbing that Fox News could not continue to ignore their own audience - they risked losing it. The right wing radio heads have followed their lead - or lead them.

I have no issue with most of the invective used here. It has a purpose: to shove anyone who might read it into a different thought about the dominant and unfair narrative being manufactured and sold by Dowd, Olbermann and the rest. How and why Olbermann decided to use his platform to work for Obama I know not. But it is clear he has. It is no longer an outlet for those of us who want to see some balance to the mindless CNN and the biased Fox. He uses his show to dismiss Clinton and fete Obama. Nightly.

He is an asshole for this. A dirty, rabid cur.

Olbermann, like Obama, has created a situation that is more divisive not less. It turns out - that people can - and often do - think. They ask questions. They want to know more. In the case of Obama "more" never came. Further, it is became clear that no matter what negative story is on the horizon for Obama he can count on a large portion of the press to ignore or excuse it. So frustration among those who want more information became anger and sometimes fury. The reason 28% of Clinton voters state they will vote for McCain in November is, in large part, because the media has treated her so shabbily.

When Saturday Night Live highlighted this obvious to all pro Obama bias in the media MSNBC incredibly asked its viewers if SNL had an "pro Hillary" bias...stretching the bounderies of irony.

So yes: Dowd is a brittle, pissy priss. Olbermann is just this side of madness. Cafferty is a gas bag, and Huffington is what she has always been: envious of any woman with more power. Or to put it another way- she's a hack with enough money to create a following. Nothing about her has changed since she traipsed around California in 1994 insulting Diane Feinstein.

Until the media comes out of its Obama trance calling out the elite monopoly on public discourse will be the order of the day here. If and when Olbermann and his ilk begin to ask fair and reasonable questions about Obama's fitness and history we can get back to a good old fashioned fight on the issues.