Reply #1: This is interesting, but it may somewhat overstate what the PTB can sell

[karynnj]

It may be they are better at limiting who is "eligible", than in seling the one they want in some cases.

In 2008, it is very clear that HRC was "inevitable", the media and party were clearly behind her. Yet she didn't win. As she lost, there was an immediate lobby that she get a "special" position - a chair, she was entitled to, the majority leadership, and Secretary of State, to which Obama appointed her.

But, it is true that the PTB declared the choice to be Clinton, Obama and Edwards. Of them, Edwards is someone they pushed in both 2004 and 2008 - even though there was no "there" "there". Before the PTB showed with the "joke" exactly how he would be treated if he ran by, Kerry polled in the same range as Edwards or higher throughout 2005 and 2006. This was with both Edwards getting as much attention with their book tours as Palin, except with syrupy positive coverage and when Kerry was getting ridiculed for positions HRC later claimed as hers. What Taibbi describes explains completely why Kerry, who really was positioned 100% correctly in December 2006, could not have won. In some ways, the joke happening when it did was possibly lucky. Think about what would have happened if it didn't happen then, Kerry opted in after November 2006, using those 5 brilliant Faneuil Hall speeches. There is no way that he could have stayed 100% error (or spinnable as error) for a full year. As soon as that happened, the media would have destroyed his chances - and it is not clear MA would let him reverse his decision on running for Senate.

Tiabbi's blind spot in 2004 is not limited to Dean's implosion. The fact is that it is likely that Republican and Democratic PTB might have wanted Bush to win. Many were still intriguer by neo-con ideas (the NYT lavished praise on Bush's "spread democracy" inaugural speech) or they may have seen the Democratic chances as better if Bush was President for the next 4 years.

Judging by the what I saw in the media, if the media represents what the powers that be wanted, they:

1) Built Dean - Altough the left is reponsible from taking him fram a 1% to 5%, the bigger rise started when he got media coverage. Starting mid 2003, the media started covering Dean as the only antiwar candidate (ignoring Kucinich, etc) where in the first half of the year, they quoted Kerry and Dean. His numbers broke into double digits when 3 major newsweeklys put him on their covers at the same time. (I checked Pollingreport.com on that timing. http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04dem2.htm ) NO ONE else in that time frame had near the coverage.

(I suspect TBTB wanted a scapegoat from the anti-war side to lose to discredit the "McGovern" wing, but then were concerned that he was polling 20 points behind Bush --- then they started questioning Dean and ..

2) Built Clark, who came out of nowhere and was called the only star in the Democratic party except HRC by BC. Before he had any support, he had glowing front page stories in all major newspapers. It worked - until

3) Clark both imploded and didn't run in Iowa. Kerry won Iowa and NH. Kerry got the coverage of his victory speeches.

4) Then the media made a big effort for Edwards. Noone in the last 10 years has received more undeserved positive coverage than Edwards. The timing here was important. Clinton did not compete in Iowa and came in second in NH, he then became the frontrunner by winning the first multistate day, where most of the states were Southern. The next events in 2004 were SC, OK, ND, NM, AZ, DE and MO. This was a set of states that favor a Southern populist and are not the best for a NE liberal. Even when Edwards won only SC, they titled it a big Kerry win and a smaller Edwards one. (In fact, the NYT had an op-ed favoring Edwards after Kerry won 14 states and Edwards 1.

5) Then started the media tilting 100% to Bush.