Reply #12: Interesting question.

[H2O Man]

Two thoughts: First, in every campaign, we do well to recognize that there are three distinct groups: (a) those who definitely support you; (b) those who definitely oppose you; and (c) those who are "undecided." Without going into the merits of if the current situation is "Stalinist," it might be worth considering how that word plays with those that you want to reach.

I suspect that a segment of the Group A Obama supporters would think the word "Stalinist" is accurate. But another segment of Group A would likely find that description unlikely to convince the "undecideds." Group B anti-Obama voters already have made up their minds, and favor the parts of the media that could be described as "Stalinist." They would be pleased to have the negative associations of that word injected into the debate, because anger and fear are their only hope. But perhaps the most important consideration would be Group C: is a loaded word, such as "Stalinist," likely to appeal to them?

This brings me to point #2: Malcolm X used to say that if you have a bottle of medicine that you believe that society needs in order to deal with a social ill -- and McCain is nothing if not a symptom of a social disease -- then you never want to put a skull & cross-bones on that bottle.

I think that it is important that democrats at the grass roots level confront the very real issues with the corporate media that you acurately describe. But I think that it is important to consider what tactics are most likely to work in our favor.

Interesting OP/thread. Thank you.