Rigging the presidential race with “rock stars” and “front-runners”

[Luckyduck]

Those who run the country are hard at work selecting the next president. No, I don’t mean the Bush regime -- higher up. No, not Exxon-Mobil or General Dynamics -- higher up than that. That’s right, the big transnational investors who rent our elections with their euphemistic “campaign financing” bribes, often through their corporations, then get the money back for campaign ads on the TV networks they control. They are currently working on a three-option plan to decide who our next president will be....

Kucinich has taken great risks to his career on behalf of leftist causes going back to his days as mayor of Cleveland. Corporate media see Kucinich as a much feared threat in the way they treat his candidacy. I have read several of their articles discussing Democratic candidates for 2008, in which a dozen or more candidates were listed without the name Kucinich, even though he was an announced candidate and the others were not. They are obviously trying to kill him with silence, a favorite tactic.

Kucinich is the best force within the Democratic Party to push other candidates to the left. Unlike the other Democrats, his health care plan, call for defense cuts, environmental plan and much more are in line with the wishes of the overwhelming majority of citizens, polls tells us, so if he could only be heard, he would win.

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_1688.shtml

[rinsd]

1. This article is pathetic.

It seeks to raise Kucinich up by tearing other Democrats down.

My favorite though is one in a continuing theme of that if only the people knew what Kucicnich stood for they would flock to his side.

"
With everyone left of center getting on board the Kucinich bandwagon early, it is possible to raise money on the Internet and go around the corporate media, as Howard Dean did last time. With enough attention to his issues, it is probable to, at the very least, move the Democratic platform to the left, and possible, in a longshot (because of corporate media hostility to one they see as opposing their special interests, Big Oil, the Nuclear Mafia, Polluters Inc., etc.) to win the Democratic nomination."

Howard Dean went out and did it. Kucinich even with said blueprint in hand has about the same web profile as Al Sharpton. He does not know how to run a campaign.

[Luckyduck]

2. Why is it all about money raised?

The Corporate media gives the rock stars and front runners all kinds of free press.

We have to fight with the truth on the internet.

If people knew what Kucinich stood for,people would flock to his candidacy. Universal Health care alone is wanted by the majority, Republicans and Democrats alike, and would change everyones lives for the better.

[FrenchieCat]

3. As much as you and I might fret, the fix is already in......

and won't be changed, no matter what....because most of the masses, including us here at DU, buy in to at least 70% of the Corporate media's assessement and conventional wisdom, and even if you look at what media information DUers use to substantiate various claims about various issues, most sources are Corporate news links.

The issue of influence over our elections by corporate media will not be solved, because we, the community that should be gatekeeping them, are ourselves part of the problem.

They tell us who we should support, and we select who we might support between those they have selected for us, period.

They say that Kucinich is unelectable, and so that's why he is.

Many will also end up voting for someone other than Obama, because the media will be telling us shortly that he is also unelectable.

Wes Clark is unelectable because the Corporate media reports on him so little...although he is not rididiculed a la Kucinich, he is just made a minor player via deafening silence.

Hillary and Edwards will be our choices....because that is where the media is going....slowly but surely.

The CW is inevitable because we make it so.

We are weak, and they are strong.....and so your frustration is noted, but I doubt that anything will change due to it. I've tried and I have failed...and although I believe in numbers we could make a difference, not enough of us are willing to make that stand.

Unfortunately sad, but true.

So I, personally am at a loss as to what to do.

[Luckyduck]

4. The internet is the miracle we need

The only way the lies have been exposed is by us freedom loving free thinkers on the internet.
The corporate news knows that, and they hate us for it.
That is why we must continue in full force, until we get what we want...

[MonkeyFunk]

5. Like it or not...

politics today is a media game. That's the cold, hard fact.

To succeed one most both be mediagenic AND media-savvy. Kucinich appears to be neither.

[Luckyduck]

6. don't like it...and I think you are wrong

The internet is the key!

This is our chance to take back our country from the Corporations, and they know it!

Have you heard Dennis when he manages to make it on the Corporate media, he kicks those whores in the arse!

The truth will set us free.

[MonkeyFunk]

7. sorry

we had the internet 4 years ago when DK couldn't get past 5% of the vote in any primary.

Agreeing with someone on the issues doesn't mean they can be elected president.

This is truly Bizarro-world when people argue that Kucinich IS electable, but Clinton ISN'T.

[Luckyduck]

18. who does Hillary represent?

Kucinich speaks for the majority who want to end the war in Iraq ,stop the war in Iran, repeal the patriot act, finally have universal health care, end the drug war...

[FrenchieCat]

8. In agreeing with what you are saying, even the cold hard facts

are not so evident. What is mediagenic and media-savvy is what the media decides, not us.

They tell us that Hillary has got the money, and so the majority believes it.
They tell us that OBama is good looking to die for, and so the majority believe it.
They tell us that Edwards talks owls out of trees, and so the majority believes it.
They tell us that McCain is a maverick, and so the majority believes it.
They tell us that Giuliani is a 9/11 hero, and so the majority believes it.
They told us that Bush was a resolute leader who'd you want to have a beer with, and so the majority believed it.
They tell us that Kucinich is not mediagenic or media savvy, and so the majority believes it.
They told us that the 2000 votes had been counted, and counted and counted, and so the majority believed it.

In other word, reality is relative; the media game is not about what things actually are but instead it is about what "they" make it be.

So when the media dictates that we have just heard a good speech, when we know we haven't......they will make it hard for us to fight for what we believe because they will tell us the exact opposite long enough until enough of us break-down and "go with" what they say; hence the bandwagon effect.

It is much easier to go with a "perceived" media "winner", than to go against the grain.

The media game plays the odds that enough will not question what they have determined; and they win hands down just about everytime.

[Luckyduck]

9. But we MUST FIGHT BACK

even W attributes his downfall to the 'internets'

[MonkeyFunk]

10. I don't understand

first, I'm not sure "the majority" agree with the subjective issues you cite. But some are just factual - Clinton DOES have $$ and the ability to get a lot more. That's not a media-driven fact. It's just a fact.

Obama is good-looking. I don't think the media can ever tell people that an ugly person is good-looking with any degree of success. Obama IS an attractive man, not just physically, but with his personal charm.

Kucinich is NOT media-savvy, or mediagenic. He's short, funny-looking, has bad hair and an odd voice. The media didn't tell me that - I saw it for myself. He also ran an awful campaign last time out, and doesn't seem to actually be interested in winning.

I know it's unpopular to say it here, but I think the media generally reflect what we're interested in, instead of driving it. If nobody cared about missing blonde girls, then nobody would watch the shows or buy the magazines that focus on such stories. Instead, people DO buy those magazines and watch those shows, so the media keep giving it to us.

If a lot of people were interested in a 24-hour news channel devoted to economic issues in the developing world, I guarantee there would be one.

[Luckyduck]

12. Money doesn't make the candidate.

We must take our message to the people.

How did everyone figure out Bush is a liar? It wasn't through the corporate media.

I think you should watch Kucinich when he does get on TV, the truth speaks for itself.

[MonkeyFunk]

14. I have seen Kucinich many times

that's the problem.

And yes, it WAS through the "corporate media" that I learned Bush was a liar. It wasn't through blogs!

[Luckyduck]

16. well if it took you that long

you weren't paying attention

[MonkeyFunk]

17. Huh?

How long? What're you talking about?

I knew Bush was a liar when he first started running for President. I saw it for myself in the "corporate media". I didn't need a blogger to tell me. I listened to what he said and knew he was full of shit.

I've been paying very close attention for decades. The fact I've come to different conclusions about the electability of Dennis Kucinich than you have doesn't mean I'm ignorant.

[Luckyduck]

21. The corporate media has enabled Bush by lying themselves

The internet is what has changed the majority opinion in the US, not the corporate media.

[FrenchieCat]

20. Well, you may have learned through the media that Bush was a liar....

but the media learned it from me and others.

(edited paragraph based on response noted elsewhere) I knew Bush was a liar by the day after election 2000.....and certainly I could only watch corporate media footage to make my assessement of him....but what they were saying wasn't who he was. In other words, I chose not to believe the media even then. But many do believe the media....and their numbers outnumber you.

In reference to money....donors are allowed to give a fixed amount...but can give to as many candidates as they want each that fixed amount. So if you are saying that somehow when Mr. X gives Hillary $2,100 or whatever it is now, that Mr. X cannot give Obama the same......cause Mr. X certainly can.

In addition, Internet small givers can add up to quite a lot.....so whatever Hillary has now is moot.

A candidate that gets a lot of free media doesn't need a lot of money...cause they are getting their message out there fine.....

So the money aspect doesn't really mean what it means.....as I was stating in my earlier post....reality is relative these days.

[MonkeyFunk]

23. I disagree

the money thing means what it means - a candidate who can raise a lot of money has a big advantage.

Yes, the internet can help. The unknown Howard Dean did fairly-well last time out due to internet $$. But of course, money isn't the ONLY important factor.

Kucinich could have a billion dollars and still not win a primary.

[FrenchieCat]

24. Well, I'll agree to agree on some things and disagree on others...

how's that? :)

[MonkeyFunk]

26. No worries

that's why I post here.

BTW, I hope Clark gets into the race - He could very likely become my choice.

[cynatnite]

15. You are right n/t

[walldude]

11. When Kucinich takes back his statement

that "impeachment will be on the table if Bush attacks Iran" then I will consider him. To say that what Bush has done in the last 6 years isn't deserving of impeachment is playing politics with peoples lives. How am I supposed to support a candidate like that?

[Luckyduck]

13. I KNOW that is a stupid statement

but I think he was trying to support Nancy and Conyers or something.

I wish he would introduce articles of Impeachment NOW. His statement about impeachment was because of public pressure, so we should keep it up.

[walldude]

25. Conyers is after impeachment so it's not him Kucinich is

supporting. And honestly his job is to support the will of the American people, and support and defend the constitution of the United States not his colleagues. I keep waiting for these people to take their oaths of office seriously. I wish he hadn't said it, but he did and until he backs off of it I can't in good conscience support him.

[Luckyduck]

27. Conyers said Impeachment is off the table

after he promised everyone he would pursue it.

[walldude]

28. WHAT??? I missed that one.. are you sure?

Conyers was the one holding hearings in the basement. I can't believe he changed his tune.

[walldude]

30. Not according to what he said Saturday:

"Not is it only within our power to stop Bush, it is our OBLIGATION to stop Bush." -- Mr. Conyers.

[Luckyduck]

31. He meant through cutting the funding...

WASHINGTON -- Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., presumed to become chairman of the House Judiciary Committee in January, said Thursday that impeachment of President Bush "is off the table."

"In this campaign, there was an orchestrated right-wing effort to distort my position on impeachment," Conyers said in a statement released by his Judiciary Committee spokesman. "The incoming speaker (Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.) has said that impeachment is off the table. I am in total agreement with her on this issue: Impeachment is off the table."

[bigtree]

19. Rep. Kucinich is indeed

"the best force within the Democratic Party to push other candidates to the left"

He's a necessary force

[Jeanette in FL]

22. I worry about Kucinich, like I used to worry about Wellstone

"They" don't like them trouble makers making noise.

When people ask me who is going to be the Democratic candidate for 2008, I say Gore. Leave them scratching their head.

[MonkeyFunk]

29. Seriously?

You think Kucinich is important enough to assassinate?

And oh, by the way, Wellstone died in a plane crash. A very understandable plane crash.