[lbo-talk] Palast's Palimpsest: Lying About Galloway.

Michael Pollak mpollak at panix.com
Sun Sep 18 10:05:52 PDT 2005


On Sun, 18 Sep 2005, Doug Henwood wrote:


> It's not just that - it's something about Palast himself. I know some
> people who used to work for him; I intend to get to the bottom of this.

Two ideas, fwiw:

1) There are a lot of left-liberals in England who have been consistently adamantly warning that Galloway has a long history of embarrassing statements and that one embraces him at one's peril. His pandering to Saddam and Islamic conservatives was a constant beaten to death thing when he ran for office on the Respect ticket. But it didn't get much play here.

So what I'm thinking is that Palast basically bought into what passes for common sense among many British center-leftists, and now sees an opportunity to break a story he feels is unknown here. And he's kind of lost his instinct for what his story reads like here, in the American context.

In short, this might be him being a 21th century example of Wolfe's Mid-Atlantic Man.

2) This might be off the wall, but I wonder if this outburst has anything to do with his desire to bond with Cindy Sheehan? Palast's first Galloway slam article ends by making her son the focal point, who he mentions by his first name twice his two concluding sentences:

<quote>

I cannot support the Prevaricator-in-Chief, the President who ordered Cindy Sheehan's son, Casey, to march to his death in Baghdad. But I'll be damned if I'll cheer some rich white Brit-hole who brings joy to Casey's killers.

<quote>

And his second piece is prefaced by announcement in italics that he and Cindy Sheehan will be appearing together at an event in Washington today.

Perhaps he sees Sheehan as the Joan of Arc of the new peace movement? Perhaps she feels that way about Galloway -- which would be perfectly understandable in personal terms. And perhaps talking with her was his cue to express something he's been itching to for awhile -- sort of tying up three ends at once?

He does talk an awful lot about defining a movement in that first piece, which is not how he normally talks. Maybe he's dreaming he's been called by history. He's got a big head.

Michael



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list