Eric Alterman is an insufferable windbag. Consider this: "By the time I earned my history doctorate, it felt overly schematic, simplistic and ideologically driven. Politically, I also found myself at odds with Zinn, who supported Ralph Nader not only in 2000 but also in 2004 and even in 2008, and who recently judged Barack Obama's approach to foreign policy to be 'hardly any different from a Republican.' "
So "mainstream" history is not simplistic and ideologically driven? And why should anyone care whether Alterman found himself at odds with Zinn over Ralph Nader? And was Howard Zinn really off the mark when he judged Obama's foreign policy to be "hardly different from a Republican"? Are we supposed to genuflect before the wisdom of Alterman, who does not adduce a jot of evidence how Obama's foreign policy is different from Bush's?
San Francisco, CA
Feb 23 2010 - 11:28pm