Why the "frontrunners" are the frontrunners...

[warren pease]

I posted this in response to a thread of a couple of days ago which the OP titled "Kucinich Isn't Running for President," correctly asserting that he really can't win, and urging him to get out of the race and leave it to the presumed "top tier" contenders. It's my position that Kucinich needs to stay no matter his chances if only to force the other candidates to acknowledge and deal with progressive positions. Because corporate America through its MSM surrogates has absolutely no damn business restricting my choices. And because I want to see him continue to have a platform from which to raise the issues of impeachment and election theft, since neither US media nor the any of the other "conciliatory" candidates wants to touch those issues.

And after all, why would poll- and focus group-driven candidates bring this stuff up? Might piss off an undecided voter in downstate Illinois. And really, what's the bid deal? They're only among the most critical defining issues of our times: Will malevolent liars, thieves and mass murderers be held accountable? Will the American voting system devolve into an international joke on a par with the old Soviet "two-party system?" Somebody's got to raise those issues and it sure as hell isn't going to be Ms. Clinton.

Anyway, one reply to my reply said I ought to post this as an OP and see what happens. So I'm caving to the massive pressure of a single DUer whose initials are "Truth2Tell" and reposting this questionable analysis. Blame him if it sucks or bores you to tears.


The Frontrunners are the Frontrunners...

... for two main reasons: corporate America and corporate America.

In the first instance, the faction of corporate America that plunders the public airwaves has chosen our frontrunners for us because they -- Clinton and Obama at the moment -- would seem to pose the least danger to the continued tyranny of the status quo.

They announce these choices, then establish and build their approved candidates' credibility in various ways: Through op/eds written by "respected political analysts" and placed with leading national newspapers; serious glossy backgrounders and in-depth cuddly feature stories in news weeklies and grocery store fashion magazines; slick, well-produced TV profiles or edgy rough cuts on the rigors of the campaign trail; a guaranteed "visibility spot" every evening on network news with a voice-over telling you what the candidate said (just in case they strayed from script); the kind of breathless celebrity worshiping swill that only the grinning CNN and Fux featherheads are low enough to engage in; guest spots on the Sunday morning pundit pap shows; more guest slots on the weeknight TV talk shows with Jay and Dave...

All this priceless PR is free. And you can't buy this kind of mass adoration anyway; it has to be awarded by corporate America in anticipation of significant payoffs on its investments down the road.

In the second instance, the bribe disbursement division of corporate America secures the frontrunners' leadership positions, along with their corporate loyalties, by giving them insane sums of money and other off-the-books perks, such as the use of corporate jets for campaign travel, free lodging at first-class hotels, a comped dinner for 30 and so forth.

Just for reference Clinton, the obvious corporate top choice, had amassed about $91 million in campaign "donations" through the first nine months of 2007. Obama, their number two, happily received around $80 million during the same period. And these people expect us to believe them when they cast themselves as agents of change? (All numbers from the Federal Election Commission via opensecrets.org. Year-end totals are expected to come from the FEC on January 21.)

So the background buzz and free mass media PR blitz inevitably force voters to focus on the corporate-approved frontrunners. TahitiNut made a great point about the tactics employed to keep the non-approved candidates from spreading their messages beyond the counter of a cheap diner, writing "...you'll notice that such candidates are torpedoed by a combination of smothering them under a blanket of silence (depriving them of any reasonable exposure) AND a litany of PERSONAL ATTACKS. The 'issues' and the candidate's stance on the 'issues' are NEVER discussed in association with them. Never."

Which brings us briefly to Kucinich's candidacy. When people are polled on the big issues -- Iraq, universal health care (not more fucking private insurance), alternative energy R&D subsidies, restoring Constitutional guarantees, seeking peace rather than war, repealing repressive crap like the patriot act and military commissions act, busting media monopolies, funding public education, environmental sanity, restoring the US' good name internationally, ending the drug war, verifiable voting and so forth... when polled on these issues, respondents mirror Kucinich's positions to an amazing degree.

However, when they're polled on Kucinich himself, he's the little guy with the stringy hair and the tall wife with the tongue stud and he seems like a good guy but oh that mid-west twang and, above all, he's just sooooo unelectable. Well, he's unelectable because corporate America told us so through its surrogates on network and cable infotainment TV and by investing heavily in those it deems worthy of carrying the corporate torch. Which brings us full-circle back to the "top tier" candidates.

All that corporate money buys further name recognition through massive media buys and allows candidates and their entourages to travel the 50 states glad-handing potential voters. It also buys hundreds of focus groups and push-polls that, on the one hand, determine the path of least resistance to the majority of voters' hearts and, on the other, force voters to think within a narrow box that doesn't contain people like Kucinich and Edwards. Or Mike Gravel, for that matter.

At last, the primary season ends, the dust settles, the losers claim solidarity with the winners and we're presented with yet another nose-holding "choice" between two corporate-approved and -funded candidates, one representing the far right wing of the Business Party and the other representing the moderate right of the Business Party. They both will have run on a platform of "change," whatever the hell that means, since if change wasn't allegedly necessary, they would rapidly become irrelevant. But any changes will be of the cosmetic variety. Neither of them will do anything to effect substantial change if it costs their employers -- the elite status quo profiteers of the investor class -- a single penny.

As an aside, it's completely undemocratic to exclude Kucinich from the Las Vegas debates, as NBC -- dutiful subsidiary of mighty war contractor General Electric -- has done in this case. Who the hell is NBC to decide who gets to present their ideas to the people and who has to stay home? Well... that's just corporate America deciding who the frontrunners are and enforcing that choice by limiting the options, presenting only approved candidates who will go along to get along, confining the discourse to "safe" subjects and plant the perception in the public mind that these are the only people who count; don't go voting for one of those other "weirdos."

I think it's fair to say that a Kucinich, Gravel or Paul candidacy would get decent exposure in an open society. Here, however, they're marginalized because the outcome is predetermined and the main differences between candidates in the general election are the names and the cut of their suits. And yes, the judges, the judges...

Public financing of campaigns, anyone?


wp

[Blarch]

1. I disagree.

When the race started we saw Obamas camp get flooded with small checks. Can you explain how the media made these people send checks the minute he announced ?

You can't.

The media is but a tumble weed blowing where the wind blows. They are not the wind, the people are the wind.

[redqueen]

2. Your last sentence is factually incorrect.

Advertising and PR work because people are followers by nature.

[bryant69]

3. I agree with what redqueen said.

Partially.

Advertising obviously works to a certain extent; PR works as well. On the other hand, it doesn't work universally and it isn't the only factor out there.

I do agree that the Media's laziness and corporatism does cause them to write about candidates a certain way, but we've seen candidates break through that.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Blarch]

4. so explain it.

Explain how the media made all those Obama supporters send in their small checks in such large numbers the minute he announced ?

I was one of them, and the media was painting Hillary as the President at the time , she was unbeatable.

Explain it.

[redqueen]

5. There's tons of research on the phenomenon...

if you're interested, it's available.

:hi:

[RaleighNCDUer]

8. Nonetheless, the media was TALKING about Obama --

what a great speech in 02...will he or won't he...the charismatic senator from Illinois. People knew who he was, because of the media, on the day he announced. Thus, the strong response.

Kucinich, OTOH, was known as the guy who saw a UFO. Gravel was known as the gadfly. The media has not covered the both of them combined with one tenth the attention given to Hillary or Obama.

The media wanted to create a contest between a woman and a black man. Not a contest about policies and ideas.

And that's what we've gotten.

[Asgaya Dihi]

6. A bit more than a tumbleweed.

The media is what tells the average American what they think and what subjects should be on their minds. The vast majority of our news be it print, broadcast or cable come from just a handful of corporations and those same corps also own other interests which they want to help out where they can. GE for instance owns the network, dozens of local stations in at least two languages, and GE enterprises ranging from aircraft engines to insurance, medical systems, plastics and more. They are one of the nations largest military contractors as well. Time Warner, Disney, News Corp and others also have conflicts across multiple fields and between them they control the vast majority of what we think and why. You can look up ownership issues on multiple media corps at http://www.cjr.org/resources/

Another area to look into for the impact of business in shaping our lives is groups such as the American Legislative Council. Just as Cheney met privately with energy interests so they could figure out how to regulate themselves other corps do the same all the time, many of our laws don't actually come from our law makers but from industry itself and they aren't even shy about it if you look, no conspiracy involved. That's just the way it really works behind the scenes. An example I'm familiar with is the for profit prison system, part 1 of the following explains the role of the American Legislative Council and others at least in part. Web search would find more. http://americanradioworks.publicradio.org/features/corrections/index.html

I don't mean to get into the argument about Obama in particular, but never discount the power and impact of the media. Even if we know what they say is garbage hearing it repeated again and again for long enough does tend to have us echoing some of the same garbage ourselves, the media frames the national debate more often than not. Sure, we can make a difference against them, but only if we recognize what we're really dealing with and why they do what they do. If he or anyone else didn't scare the media they'll play tumbleweed for a time but the moment they've got an interest in an issue they'll start shaping it themselves.

[warren pease]

7. I thought you might disagree.... ;-)

...since you started the other thread I originally responded to. I think Obama is a genuine vote and money magnet. He's got a lot going for him: obvious intelligence, looks, charisma, great voice, oratorical skills, the ability to connect with people in different kinds of settings and venues...

However, if you look at the breakdowns on opensecrets.org of where his money's coming from, who his main contributors are, which industries and sectors are most heavily invested in him and so forth... you find some rather lousy correlatives.

And for all his rhetoric about change, I just don't see the evidence. For example, his health care plan falls so far short of what's actually needed that it hardly qualifies as change at all. Rather, it's just paper and money shuffling, and somehow the money always seems to end up in the same pockets.

Mass media, unfortunately, and mainly TV in this case, is the most powerful bullshit machine ever unleashed upon the bead-blasted brains of the poor unsuspecting "normal" bastards of the world. Its power to manipulate opinion is unparalleled. If that weren't so, sponsors wouldn't spend trillions of dollars each year to buy TV time in hopes of turning lead into gold.

And when mass media, on behalf of its holding corporations, decides to elevate one candidate and slaughter another, it's as good as done. The people who work at high-level PR and marketing jobs in the industry are pretty smart overall. They've got graduate degrees and a ton of real-world experience in some pretty hostile spots. They've spent their time reading Bernays and Goebbels. Even Chomsky and a few others who critique from the left perspective.

Despite our inflated opinions of ourselves, people are really pretty easy to manipulate. Just witness the con job BushCo has run on all those people who remain terrorized by evil, death-dealing Arabs but, because BushCo had no intention of letting 9/11 get in the way of retail sector corporate profits, these same people were told that the best way to assert their independence was to go shopping. And damned if they're not still out there, extending their credit limits for gawd and country. Either that or the terrorists win.

Nope... I've spent a lot of time as a member of mass media and a lot of years studying how it influences behavior. I've even got the official UC Berkeley paperwork to prove it.

The people are not the wind, I'm afraid. The people are simply a mass market that media delivers to its sponsors in return for their advertising dollars, which drive more people to spend their money the way mass media tells them to, which generates more ad revenue, and so on around the circle, with the only certain outcome being debt slavery and probable bankruptcy for the overmatched consumer.

And then the final insult: the rich corporate bastards get to buy your repo-ed house for dimes on the dollar, another step in the endless upward movement of wealth in this country from the bottom to the top.

Now watch your daytime TV and go shopping. The economy's depending on you.


wp

[warren pease]

9. One kick for the East Coast evening crowd.

[lonestarnot]

10. Well damn! What about the west coast afternoon crowd?

;)

[warren pease]

11. Back to work, sluggo...

But have one of these first.


:beer:


wp

[lonestarnot]

13. tee hee righto!

Too cold for beer.

[bvar22]

12. If Kucinich "Drops Out", who will tell America

*that Single Payer Universal HealthCare is not only possible, but cheaper.

*that "For Profit" HealthCare is obscene

*that Mandatory Health Insurance is NOT REALLY Universal HealthCare

*that the Democratic Party and American taxpayers should NOT be forced to subsidize some of the richest CEOs in history by subsidizing the HealthCare Insurance Corps and HMOs.

*that the USA SHOULD give the Imperial Palace (Green Zone) back to the Iraqis, close the permanent bases, expel all Corporate Consultants, withdraw ALL US Troops, and begin paying reparations NOW.

*that redeploying some troops at some future date is a PRO-WAR position.

*that the "Oil Law Benchmark" supported by the Democratic Party is a War Crime

*That we can have election accountability with "Paper Ballots publicly hand counted at the precinct".

*that we CAN cut $Billions$ from the Defense Budget

*that the RICHEST Corporations in history do NOT need $Billions$ in welfare subsidies

*that NAFTA (Free Trade) has not been a good thing for Americans who have to work for a living

*That protecting The Constitution is NOT an option of convenience, and Bush and Cheney should be IMPEACHED



Who will tell the truth to America if DK drops out of the campaign? :shrug:
Dennis Kucinich's voice is one of the few reasons I am still in the Democratic Party.
Who speaks for me if Dennis Kucinich drops out?


”Unlike other candidates, I am not funded by those corporate interests.
I owe them no loyalty, and they have no influence over me or my policies.” ---Dennis Kucinich

[leftchick]

14. outstanding warren!

I believe the democratic party has become so corrupted that it is unrepairable. The only solution for better choices will be more viable parties like most democracies in the world have. How many countries choose between two parties that are basically the same?

[lonestarnot]

15. kick

[Orwellian_Ghost]

16. It's pretty amazing

and pretty disgusting to watch the whole process. And of course it's no surprise.

So tonight I was at a meeting with a bunch of progressives and the conversation got around to the candidates and the presidential election. Various opinions and preferences were tossed around with absolutely no depth to the discussion. I didn't say much for awhile and then asked for a turn to speak. When that came I asked for us to go around and each name 5 advisors to each of the candidates. Only one other person could even name one.

What are people actually saying when they say they support so and so? Not alot it seems.

[warren pease]

17. Five advisors for each candidate...

Man, that's a tough standard. I'm one of the more hopelessly addicted political junkies I know and I know I couldn't answer that one, at least without sneaking off for a quick google search. I can't even think of anyone now except for that hideous tool Mark Penn who's working for Clinton. Maybe Carville has been given a work furlough pass from his crypt until November? Begala too?

Supporting Kucinich, I haven't had to worry about stuff like that yet. I suppose when I have to switch to Edwards, the issue will take on increased importance.

So far, I guess I'm more focused on who's bribing the candidates and how much they've got invested in them. And that's disgusting enough without peeling off the slime creatures who pretend to advise them.


wp

[warren pease]

18. One more kick in case anyone actually gives a shit.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

19. Very important

topic.