Actually, the reason you offer as to why a US politician can't just pull out of Iraq is flawed. The real reason is because it would leave Iraqi oil to the most powerful military that stayed behind in the region - Turkey in the North, Iran to the East and perhaps Syria to the West. Once you understand that, it becomes clear that there ain't never gonna be a withdrawal, coz "our oil" is gonna become "their oil".

It's your thinking which is "flawed" by your tendency to put things in either/or terms - the kind of thinking I'm generally objecting to, e.g. US journalism is either alive and agreeing with us - or dead. So you imply that if it's about oil it can't "really" be about such political considerations as likely voter reactions. It can, of course, be about both, and I didn't say the reason I gave was the only, nor the "real" reason.

Regarding your "positive approach" to American politics and wanting to see the glass as being half full rather than half empty, I can only sympathize. But it's sorta like that guy who's fallen off the Empire State building - he gets to the 70th floor & thinks "so far so good...I'm still alive" down to the 50th & he thinks "so far so good..." down to the 10th...

Very droll, but, of course, another either/or caricature. The alternative to cynical general dismissals of something is not uncritical acceptance of it: "so far so good". How many times do I have to note that I generally agree with Chomsky and Herman's powerful critique of the US media (I spent years encouraging students to read it) - hence so far is by NO means "so good" - so far is very bad in general. Got that now? But again I prefer, with Chomsky, not to just   dimiss the whole of US journalism, and not even the mainstream like the NYT, but to note what is worthwhile it and support it. Those who investigated Watergate were a tiny minority, they persisted, luckily got some support, and in the end had an important effect. Seymour Hersh has had a major impact.

The major problem of the US political system is its incestuous relationship with business.

As to your "solution": "building a second power base. Grassroots fundraising, recruiting, campaigning, communicating." This is pretty much Chomsky's view and why he tirelessly gives talks to grassroots groups, often documenting the faults of the media. But, because he isn't a prisoner of either/or thinking, this doesn't stop him acknowledging the efforts and successes of some journalists in the mainstream media - see the quotations in the diary. As I said it's a mixture of very critical realism and optimism that change can happen - as with Gramsci - and that journalists who want to help that process should be recognised and encouraged - not lumped together with all journalists and cynically dismissed.

Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.