The government of the wealthy, by the wealth and for the wealthy continues

[helleborient]

So...what would be happening in this campaign if Kerry did not have $6 million in mortgage money to rely on?

What if Wesley Clark had a $6 million house to mortgage...would he still be in the race?

What would the race look like if candidates could only give $2,000 to their own campaign?

The two major party candidates in 2000 were multi-millionaires...and it looks like in 2004 we will have the wealthiest senator in the country facing off against the corporate wealth of the Bush family.

Long live the aristocracy.

[redqueen]

1. Good question

I'd like to know what might have been different if the self-loan thing was not legal. :(

[AP]

2. I think that's such a bad symbol for America.

Free TV time and public financing -- first step to fixing this problem.

[Mass_Liberal]

5. agreed

there should be public and free advertising time for all candidates. Equal time.

[LizW]

3. No kidding

When we saw the web site showing the candidate's houses the other day, it hit home for me. Someone aptly called Kerry's house the "Tower of Power". The other candidate's homes were modest by comparison.

The bitter truth is that our $70 and $100 dollar donations were trounced by Kerry's vast personal wealth. This mirrors the many local and state elections I have followed where the candidate I liked and believed in had no money and they went up against a rich incumbent and got written off, first by the press, then by the voters. It's depressing as hell.

One of the reasons I will never give a dime to the Kerry campaign is that it would be used to pay off the debt he used to bury my candidate.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

15. The bitter truth is that Kerry was the better candidate

Dean trounced himself.

[LizW]

16. Kerry should be a better candidate

He's been one all his life.

Problem is, I am looking for a President. Kerry has shown that he can campaign, but not that he can govern. A good start would have been to show up to vote on the issues, instead of being off campaigning for the next big thing.

A politician is a poor deal, when we need a leader.

[theboss]

4. Kennedy and Roosevelt

Our two greatest Democratic icons were so wealthy they made the Bushes look like the help.

Wealth itself is not a disqualifier.

[ShimokitaJer]

8. Wealth may not be a disqualifier

But lack of wealth is. Being rich doesn't make someone automatically in the wrong, but being poor means not even having the chance to make your voice heard.

In Dean's small donor internet financing, as well as the money raising by MoveOn, TruthOut, etc., we are seeing the power of the internet finally being used to give the middle class, if not the poor, a collective voice that can compete with the wealthy. However, we're seeing that the power of personal wealth is still very much in play.

And yes, we need public financing of elections and equal airtime laws if we're ever going to overcome it.

[Mairead]

6. Excellent point well made, H.

When have we ever seen all the millionaires thrown out of the sleigh and a member of the 'proletariat' elected?

And it's not even so much that the members of the Plutarchs' Club have it to spend, it's that they have the cachet of belonging to the 'right' social groupings, so that their way is made smooth for them. And their privilege gives them an air of unquestioning entitlement that most of us mistake for merit, so they benefit across the spectrum.

[AP]

7. I think the issue is also, HOW did the candidate get wealthy.

It's an important symbol.

Lincoln started with nothing, but became a very successful lawyer. That's a powerful symbol to Americans.

Marrying rich, inheriting money, getting rich from politics -- those aren't such powerful symbols.

If there is no other choice, you can't do much about it.

[Mairead]

19. I agree, AP, I think the 'how' is really important, or should be.

Someone like Edwards, who probably made his money mostly in an 'artistic' way, i.e., by personal skill and effort rather than by skimming the value of other people's work, is much more worthy than an exploiter.

As you say, it's a big symbol and a good one.

I really wish Edwards weren't so @#$%! conservative! Of course, who knows whether in that case he'd even be a senator or candidate now.

[redqueen]

10. I wonder when the proles will bother to unite

behind a candidate who truly stands for them.

[ShimokitaJer]

13. When they stop voting out of fear

There will always be a Bush, or a conservative justice, or a racist gun nut -- someone that the Democratic leadership can hold up as the demonic force that we all must unite against behind whoever they choose for us. Everyone says this election is different, but they say that every election. The Democratic party establishment has seen to it that there is never a good time to vote for someone who can change the party, because we always have to vote out of fear of the alternative.

Not until we put aside the fear and prove ourselves willing to withhold our votes if the candidate does not truly represent us will we ever have a nominee we can be happy to vote for.

[helleborient]

14. Exactly...and we have done it in parts of the country...now it needs to be

National!

Sens. Wellstone and Feingold did not win office by running campaigns of fear.

[drfemoe]

9. Rich Friends Help

Media chiefs back Kerry campaign

Owen Gibson
Tuesday February 10, 2004
Kerry: media chiefs have pledged to raise between $50,000 and $100,000

Fresh from his latest win in Maine, the favourite to challenge George Bush for the US presidency has secured the financial support of some of the most powerful media moguls in the world.

As John Kerry's campaign to secure the Democrat nomination - and with it a crack at the White House - continues to gather pace, it has emerged that it is being bankrolled by key executives from News Corporation, MTV-owner Viacom and Sony.
...
Unsurprisingly, the donation from News Corp's boardroom came not from chairman Rupert Murdoch, a committed Republican, but from the company's chief operating officer, Peter Chernin.

Mr Chernin, one of Mr Murdoch's most trusted lieutenants, is among several media chiefs who have pledged to raise between $50,000 and $100,000 to support the Vietnam war veteran's campaign for the White House.
... con't
http://media.guardian.co.uk/city/story/0,7497,1144464,00.html

[Laughing Mirror]

11. Limit campaigns to 8 weeks

That's plenty of time to get the candidates out there for us to decide on which one we want.

[theboss]

12. You'd have Lieberman then

Or Kerry.

It took Dean a year to get traction. A short campaign gives the richest, best-known candidates the advantage.

[Laughing Mirror]

17. not if they have no need to raise a lot of money

because all media time would be free, as above posters have pointed out would be a true more equal system. The system we have now, where the person with the most money gets the most TV time, and gets elected, is corruption on a massive scale and must be repaired.

[redqueen]

18. And now, as we watch another multimillionaire Dem nominated

do you wonder why Democrats NEVER seem to further the agenda of the people on this issue?

I don't.