Mediaboss Marketing

Joe Garofol, San Francisco Chronicle

When the Bay Guardian abruptly stopped publishing on Tuesday, Assemblyman Tom Ammiano likened the closure to a death in the family that the citys progressives would need time to mourn.

But the 48-year-old newspaper had been on life support since founders and spouses Bruce Brugmann and Jean Dibble sold it to the San Francisco Media Co. in 2012. Like at just about every other print outlet around the country, revenue had fallen and staff had been laid off.

Rich DeLeon, a retired professor of political science at San Francisco State University and a historian of the citys left, said the progressive movement has lost its ideological super ego. He said the Guardians demise is sad. But it is kind of like your great-grandfather dying at 95. It led a good life and it was extremely influential at some point.

David Latterman, a University of San Francisco political analyst, said the papers closure was inevitable, not only because of its failing business model, but also because of the continuing loss of its highly partisan readership.

It had an impact 10 years ago, but at best its support could affect 10 percent of the vote, he said. More recently, its probably about 3 percent.

The sale of the paper also robbed it of its image as the plucky underdog, with the new corporate ownership identity eclipsing Brugmanns founding promise to print the news and raise hell, said political consultant Eric Jaye.

Still, its loss has been keenly felt, especially among progressives who have lost their mouthpiece.

The biggest impact is that there wont be that 800-pound gorilla for the community to rally around, said Alex Clemens, a political consultant and founder of the Usual Suspects blog, an online aggregation of the citys political news from sources large and small.

But with any kind of information vacuum, it will open up opportunities for others to step into that leadership void, Clemens said, noting that there are dozens, if not hundreds of bloggers and online commentators in the city, and every neighborhood has some kind of news outlet.

More here:
Progressives mourn demise of the Bay Guardian

Lambert here: Its a shame to see Krugman kick the left (Susie Madrak has the definitive post on this). But then, when youve won the Nobel Prize for Obotics, that comes with the territory.

By Bill Black, the author of The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One and an associate professor of economics and law at the University of Missouri-Kansas City. Originally published at New Economic Perspectives

Paul Krugmans admirers would never list modesty as one of his characteristics. He has written a column In Defense of Obama that begins by explaining that his criticisms of President Obama were correct, but that unidentified others criticisms of Obama constitute trash talk.

Specifically, Obama came perilously close to doing terrible thingsto the U.S. safety net in pursuit of a budget Grand Bargain. Obama sought to produce a self-inflicted disaster by desperately trying to reach a Grand Bargain with Republicans that would have inflicted austerity on our Nation in 2012, slash[ed] Social Security and [raised] the Medicare [eligibility] age. As even Krugman admits, we were saved from this catastrophe only by Republican greed, the GOPs unwillingness to make even token concessions to achieve the Grand Bargain. What Krugman omits in the tale is that it was also a revolt by Democratic progressives against the Grand Bargain that saved Obama and the Nation.

Krugman does not, in this column, explain the consequences and implications of the disaster that Obama tried so hard to inflict on us. First, it would help the reader to inform them that achieving the Grand Bargain became Obamas top domestic priority.

It would have aided the reader for Krugman to explain that as part of the Grand Bargain Obama was also trying to inflict austerity on the U.S. in response to the Great Recession. Had Obama succeeded he would have thrown the Nation back into a second Great Recession for the reasons that Krugman has often explained. This would have doomed his reelection chances and caused catastrophic losses to the Democratic Party in other 2012 elections.

Readers doubtless would have found it useful to know that that Obama ran for office on the promise of protecting Social Security and Medicare from the cuts he sought to inflict. They also would find it useful to know that once Obama legitimized attacking the safety net programs it would make them fair game for unilateral Republican attacks on the safety net when they took control of the White House.

Krugman blames Obamas effort to enter into the Grand Betrayal as occurring because Obama was nave. He presents no support for that claim. Contemporaneous press accounts based on leaks from the White House revealed that Obama was motivated by a desire for fame. The Grand Bargain was to be his legacy and the fact that the Grand Bargain betrayed his supporters was the factor that demonstrated that he was a statesman. Democratic Presidents establish that they are serious by publicly betraying and deriding their progressive base.

Krugman defines Obamas critics as illegitimate. Krugman labels Obamas critics as engaging in Obama-bashing. Krugman goes on to label progressive critics of Obama as Obama-bash[ers] by mischaracterizing the criticisms and then dismissing straw man arguments that he crafts as not requiring refutation because the criticisms are obviously not serious.

Theres a different story on the left, where you now find a significant number of critics decrying Obama as, to quote Cornel West, someone who posed as a progressive and turned out to be counterfeit. Theyre outraged that Wall Street hasnt been punished, that income inequality remains so high, that neoliberal economic policies are still in place. All of this seems to rest on the belief that if only Obama had put his eloquence behind a radical economic agenda, he could somehow have gotten that agenda past all the political barriers that have constrained even his much more modest efforts. Its hard to take such claims seriously.

Go here to see the original:
Bill Black: Krugman Bashes Progressives for Criticizing Obama on Grounds that He Criticizes Obama

Present Progressives
Regular ar, er, and ir participles.

By: Page Pelphrey

Link:
Present Progressives - Video

Spanish Grammar Mini-Lesson: Progressives and Infinitives
Dr. Todd Mack teaches about when to use the Spanish progressive (-ando/-iendo) ending and when to use an infinitive to replace the English -ing ending for ve...

By: Professor Todd Mack

Link:
Spanish Grammar Mini-Lesson: Progressives and Infinitives - Video

Six years ago, most progressives eagerly awaited the election of Barack Obama. Now many of us are unhappy with him. Indeed, Obamas unpopularity has become the primary theme of the midterm elections. As a consequence, Republicans are more energized than are Democrats. Before November 4th, what can be done to revitalize progressives?

Remember how we got here.

After eight years of a catastrophic Bush Administration, in 2008 progressives were quick to embrace the optimism of a smart, optimistic presidential candidate, Barack Obama. Most of us knew how hard it is to change the Washington establishment. Nonetheless, we bought into the euphoria of Change you can believe in.

The fact that President Obama wasnt as liberal as we believed he was, and hasnt accomplished as much as we expected, shouldnt dissuade us from working for a better democracy. When youre in the middle of a battle with the dark side, its discouraging to recognize that your leaders have flaws. But that shouldnt keep progressives from soldiering on towards a better world.

Reemphasize our values.

1. While Barack Obama managed to stabilize the economy which was in catastrophic disorder when he was elected he did not make it more equitable. In his memorable 2004 speech at the Democratic Convention, Obama said, It is that fundamental belief -- I am my brother's keeper, I am my sisters' keeper -- that makes this country work. This belief, that to make Democracy work we have to practice the Golden Rule, is one that differentiates progressives from conservatives.

Even though Obama hasnt done what we hoped he would do, we cannot let go of our objective to build a just and equitable society.

2. Since February 2009, after the passage of the economic stimulus package, Republicans have adopted the strategy of opposing President Obama at every turn. Republican Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell said, The single most important thing [Senate Republicans] want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president. As a result there has been record obstruction in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives. In the Senate, Republicans blocked a record number executive nominations and filibustered hundreds of bills.

Republicans say they dont believe in government and act accordingly. Progressives believe that government can be a positive force.

3. Republicans have not only opposed Obamas legislative initiatives, they have attacked him personally. Beginning in 2008, Republicans spread rumors that Obama had not been born in America, was not a Christian but rather a Muslim, and was connected to terrorist organizations. After he was elected President, this became an unprecedented disrespect. It first flared openly, in September 2009, when Representative Joe Wilson yelled, Youre a liar, when Obama addressed a joint session of Congress. Every day a Republican politician or one of the talking heads on Fox News suggests the President cannot be trusted.

Read the original:
THE PUBLIC EYE: Resurrecting Hope