I actually haven't yet had a chance to read much of this, but I will offer two observations in advance.

1) much of your analysis comes from a small cabal of analysts, the folks who run CounterPunch, including Jeffrey St. Clair. After Alan Lomax died, they ran an outrageous article accusing him of racism. The article was written by Dave Marsh. But after I wrote a letter to the editor pointing out both factual and interpretive errors (for example, no black person who knew him seems ever to have accused him of such racism), I got a snidde email back, not from Marsh, but from Jeffrey St. Clair. Now Marsh is an expert on American popular music, but St. Clair is not, so I was not surprised that his own position was even more ill-informed, and seemed to include an intense hatred of Lomax for being white. St. Clair and I swapped about five or six emails arguing to facts, by which point he was making up outrageous lies, like saying that Lomax forced his collecting partner, Professor John Work [who was black], to carry around all the equipment like a porter, for which there is no evidence anywhere in Work's writings, or Lomax's, or anywhere else. St. Clair would neither budge from this position nor provide any evidence for it. He said he was outraged that Lomax never once mentioned John Work in The Land Where the Blues Began, so I pointed out that he THANKED JOHN WORK IN THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS, for God's sake. St. Clair ignored that and accused Lomax of still MORE racist acts for which there was no evidence. So I gave up.

My point: in my own personal experience, St. Clair plays very loose with facts, and in fact makes up lies fluently and easily to suit his argument. I suspected at the time that he might be a compulsive liar, so facile did it seem. He also seems obsessed with sticking it to what he sees as the "powers that be," including white people and anyone working for the government, even if those people were underfunded folklorists collecting traditional music in 1942, risking their lives and risking arrest and expulsion to go to black areas of town in the Jim Crow south, just because they thought old black bluesmen were geniuses.

In short, I really wouldn't trust what he has to say.

2) It seems to me you're making the "anyone but Bush" argument on a larger scale: "anyone but Rs and Ds." Many of your links are about "How the Democrats screwed the greens." But you still haven't said much that's positive about Cobb. What do you LIKE about Cobb?   You haven't talked about any specifics, except that he reflects your values as well as Nader.