Are Dem Vets the Key in 2006 / 2008?

[demdiva]

Howard Fineman, Newsweek, was on Hardball with Chris Matthews following Hackett yesterday and I really liked the way he phrased the central issue of the 2006/ 2008 elections. Fineman's assessment was that right now the public still doesn't trust the democratic voice on the war in Iraq because they still don't speak with a coherent / discernible message.

"It's too bad in a way (that Hackett is out of the race) because I think the democrats nationally would be helped if they could find somebody who could really properly frame a national message for them in 2008 on the war, and you need the midterm elections as a kind of laboratory in which to do it. If you find somebody who does it right, then all the other democrats can say 'We'll follow that person'."

"The democrats need to find a way to frame a message (on Iraq) and I think they need war heroes to do it."

Sign the Swift-Boat Response Petition to show your support for democratic veterans running for office
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/681546983

[Vektor]

1. Dem vets are all fine and good,

but with e-voting in the mix, we can run Jesus himself and he won't win. The votes have to actually be counted correctly before we'll see a desirable result.

Also the notion that Dems have an incoherent message on the war is horse shit. Fineman is spewing inaccurate RW bilge. Dems have been coherently and consistently stating their positions on the war since day one.

I guess it doesn't seem discernible to those who prefer the Repukes' "Kill em' all for no good reason" message, though.

[demdiva]

2. But somehow the public didn't hear that message

I'm a big fan of JK myself, so I heard his stance, but I really don't think that the public digested the democratic stance on the war. Most of this was the republican "bilge", as you call it, but part of politics is being able to get your message out over the bilge. Given the mounting republican scandals and public fatigue with the war in Iraq, the 2006/2008 political environment might make it easier for democrats to get their message out.

[Vektor]

3. The message was/is fine, but sadly...

the corporate media never let it be heard. As long as the Republican stranglehold controls the airwaves, nothing the Dems say will ever see the light of day. I'm not specifically referring to Kerry at all either, but the party as a whole.

Anytime any Democrat has managed to sneak a word in edgewise about the war, the talking heads spin it to death and/or cut the mic, so to speak.

I have heard the message loud and clear over the bilge, but I don't tune into the corporate media - I go elsewhere for my news coverage. Most of middle America doesn't have the depth of vision to do that - they watch Faux News, CNN, MSNBC, etc. as if it's actually accurate reporting - and it's far from that. That's why the public never hears the Dem message on these channels.

More importantly than any of that is the e-voting scourge. Without free and fair elections, none of this matters.

[demdiva]

4. Well if you had to go to alternate media sources

why would you expect that most of the public would hear what you heard? Most of the public gets their news from their local news / CNN etc. Like it or not, it's necessary for the message to penetrate these media outlets.

[Vektor]

5. Um that's what I'm saying...

The Dems' MESSAGE is fine. It's the media that is muddling it. That's what I said from my first post.

Edit - you added to your post so I'll address your add.

"Like it or not, the massage has to penetrate?"

In a perfect, corruption free world, that would be lovely. But when you have the media completely controlled by Rupert Murdoch and his ilk, a Dem message is not exactly going to be allowed to "penetrate."

What it boils down to, is that the problem is NOT the Democrats' message. It's the corporate media and the e-voting that are the problem.

Just because this Fineman clown spews the line that it's the Dem "message" that is failing the party in an attempt to distract the public from the fact that our elections and our media are corrupt doesn't mean we have to buy it.

The message isn't the problem. But yeah, I'm all for Dem vets - most of the vets in congress ARE Dems.

Very few of the Republicans have served.

[demdiva]

27. Who's in the "perfect world"?

OK. I am assuming that we will both agree that more voters would haved voted for Senator Kerrry had they really understood his posision on Iraq / if the democrat's message is understood by voters in 2006 they will vote for the democratic candidate.

Since you believe the voter's lack of understanding this message is the faulto of the "corporate media", here is what I hear that you are saying:

CORPORATE MEDIA = SIMPLE MESSAGE
ALTERNATIVE MEDIA = SUBSTANTIVE MESSAGE

So for the substantive message to get through, you are saying you have to use the alternative media. So you are also saying for the public-at-large to hear this message they have to go to the alternative media ??? Why not also present your message in simple terms for the corporate media where people already are? You will never get most voters to pay attention to the alternative media.

This is my only point . . . we don't have the White House (again this sucks, but we tried) so instead, maybe the conglomerate of democratic veterans running for office offer a unique opportunity for the democrats to get their message out through the mainstream media, where most of the voters are.

[demdiva]

32. Not trying to put words in your mouth

I just don't see how we can change the "corporate media" thing anyway . . . why not try to work with it?

[demdiva]

7. I find it odd

that you're arguing against a corporate media being against the democrats when Fineman, if anything, was speaking in support of the Democratic Party.

I'm sure I'll get trolled for this on DU, but I really don't buy the "corporate media" BS. Fox, yes, of course. But CNN? MSNBC? Just because there is a discussion on democratic abilities or shortfalls doesn't mean they are trying to get us to vote for republicans.

[FrenchieCat]

9. Not trolled...but if you think that CNN and MSnbc are nothing

but in the bushes in reporting the news--think again.

At least with Fox, with have informed consent and understand that up is up.

with the others up is down, down is up....

Time-Warner and General electric give a damn about nothing more than profits, tax breaks and deregulation....

[demdiva]

20. OK I think that's a fair point

I think part of the media reaction to the "liberal media" generalization is that the media tends to report on both sides, which often means they fail to make a judgment call that would counter the republican's talking points. This does happen on every single channel.

But honestly this wasn't the case with Fineman. He was simply offering a connection between the congressional races in 2006 and the presidential race in 2008 and giving the democrats a way to capitalize on their 2006 race. Why is this against the democratic message?

[Vektor]

10. You're reading way too much into what I'm saying.

I do believe Fineman was touting a myth that the Dems have no message.

And if you aren't buying the "corporate media BS" it's no wonder you are touting the same myth.

If you sincerely perceive a "shortfall" in Democratic abilities re: their message on the war, then yeah, likely you are eating up the corporate media line, too and I'm sorry to hear that.

It says a lot when you look at the fact that during the Nixon era, all media outlets were owned by 50 or so different independent companies.

Today, all mainstream media reaching Americans' homes is owned and controlled by FIVE CONSOLIDATED CORPORATIONS.

FIVE.

Own and control EVERYTHING, and guess which money hungry political party those corporations are sympathetic to?

Seriously, if you can honestly say the media is not the problem, and you don't buy the "corporate media B.S." then we are so NOT on the same page that continuing this discussion may serve impossible, since you haven't taken the time to arm yourself with the same common knowledge that everyone at DU has.

I suggest that the first thing you might want to do in examining "why Dems don't 'win'" is start scrutinizing your news sources. You really need to do your homework if you believe that CNN is any different than FOX.

Why don't you start a thread in GDP saying that you believe all the corporate media besides FOX is participating in honest, credible journalism, and giving the political parties equal time and see what bites.

And while you're at it, please stop twisting my words. I'm getting a little tired of you making statements indicating I said something I did not. You started from my first post by mentioning Kerry, whom I never brought up. You seem to be really hell bent on insisting that the Dems are all to blame for the shortcomings of the media and yes, that the media is good and honest, and totally glossing over the fact that we have no guarantee Dems AREN'T winning, since our votes are being swallowed by Walden O'Dell's machines.

Here's a great test for you. Is ANY mainstream media outlet holding this administration accountable for ANYTHING? Are they blowing the cover off election fraud? How about the Plame outing? What about Abramhoff? Are they showing the REAL response to our presence in Iraq? The list goes on. If the media was doing it's job, Bush et al, would have been indited a LONG time ago.

I hate to say this but your stubborn insistence on blaming the Democratic party and absolving the media of all responsibility is beyond suspicious.

What exactly are you trying to do here? Convince DU that the Dems are bad and the corporate media good? That won't work.

The party may have some issues to work on but their message regarding Iraq ISN'T one of them.

Most importantly, don't make the biggest mistake of all. Buying into this peddled notion that the corporate media and Fineman are feeding you about the Iraq war being the most important issue - the ONLY issue.

Where were Fineman's mentions of:

POVERTY
HEALTH CARE
VETERAN'S BENEFITS
CORPORATE CRONYISM
THE ENVIRONMENT
THE OIL CULTURE
CIVIL RIGHTS?

Don't choke on the Iraq War red herring. Sure, it's an important issue, but the others I listed are extremely important and our message on those beats the Repukes hands down.

Funny they didn't mention that.

You can continue to insist that Dems are to blame and the media is doing a great job but until you take a look at how our media operates and get a little insight, I just can't even consider your argument valid. Sorry.

[demdiva]

21. You are way off base, in more way then one

First of all, I so do not deserve the slandering which you just gave me. From one post you pretend to know the full depth of my intelligence, my knowledge about politics and the media and you turn my constructive posting on its head and try to make ME ONE OF THE MEDIA? If you knew me, which you don't, you'd know I deserve far more respect then you have just given me.

I adore Senator Kerry . . . I supported his candidacy in 2004 (in a very active way) and I hope he runs again in 2008 . . . I plan on supporting him again BECAUSE I am an informed voter.

But he, himself, has admitted that he failed to connect with voters. And if he hadn't admitted this, he still failed to win the elections, and yes . . . if you don't win an election there is some shortfall there and the democrats have to be honest about that. I simply want the American people to hear the truth about elected officials, good and bad, and I'm open to ways that the truth can get out.

My only intent here was to offer up a perspective on the 2006 races that a commentator on TV gave and I thought it was interesting. I think the veterans running for office are important to the Democratic Party . . . that includes the newbies in Congress and that includes more seasoned politicians like Senator Kerry. I think it's helpful to listen to constructive criticism . . .this is a skill which you most obviously lack.

[Vektor]

29. You are so overreacting.

Believe me, if I had slandered you, you'd know it. I did ABSOLUTELY nothing of the sort.

I have a very low drama tolerance, and you are way too fixed in your opinion to be able to tolerate a differing one. You might want to look in the mirror when assessing the ability to listen to constructive criticism, since you have been freaking out ever since I dared utter the phrase "It's the media."

Thanks anyway. This is getting old, and my drama quotient is way succeeded.

[FrenchieCat]

6. Whether they are "key" or not, I'd rather have them on our side

Then having them coming back from Iraq wanting to run as Republicans. It does say something about the Democratic Party....

Gen. Wes Clark has been framing the message.....and he is a War hero!

Finneman and Matthews pretending that the Democrats don't have any real Coherent voice on Iraq is a bunch of shit. The Democrats don't all need to agree on where we should go on Iraq (it's not like it's their call anyway)...they just all know that this war is messed up and we got there in a fucked up way...and most know that!

[demdiva]

8. I agree. The "You're with us or your with the terrorists" BS

doesn't work as well with a veteran (unless of course they dispute the veteran's war record as they did with Kerry)

[Vektor]

11. Kerry's war record was spotless.

They chose to smear a decorated war hero who volunteered to serve in Vietnam, and preferred to vote for a coke snorting, alcoholic, AWOL chicken hawk with ZERO foreign policy experience.

This is the kind of stunted mentality and complete idiocy the the Repukes embrace - and your beloved media did NOTHING to expose the truth. Ok, poor Dan Rather TRIED for a second to do so, and look what happened to him.

If the corporate media was doing its job there would be no question in America's mind who the heroes were and who the yellow bellies were.

[FrenchieCat]

12. The "Corporate Media" is doing it's job.....it's just not the job they

advertise....

They say that they report the news.....

but their real job is promoting the welfare of the corporations......

[Vektor]

13. Amen, FrenchieCat!

Perhaps I should have rephrased. ;-)

[Totally Committed]

14. I agree. It was the media, yes...

But, I wish he had stood up and defended it far more vigorously than he did.

So, it wasn't just the media.... "If the corporate media was doing its job there would be no question in America's mind who the heroes were and who the yellow bellies were." -- I do, however, agree with this part of your post.

TC

[Vektor]

15. I'll give you that.

Definitely.

It's a shame that he was even put in a position where he HAD to - ya know? It seems so obvious who the better man was in that election and the fact that his service was even called into question is amazing. But we are dealing with lying RW scum, and sadly, they DID smear him, as they do all noble men and women.

I would have liked to have seen him be more vocal too, and I do believe he has learned from that.

[demdiva]

23. I agree with you here

[demdiva]

22. Since when do I "belove" the media?

I just have the ability to listen to another person and make my own judgment. This is not a failing.

[Vektor]

30. Of course not.

Look, you have been insanely defensive on this thread to anyone who doesn't agree with your assessment. You have to expect this is going to happen on DU and develop a thicker skin. You can't take everything so personally.

[demdiva]

33. You have been insanely personal against someone who was just

posting someone elses views. I have a pretty thick skin . .. I just don't think it's helpful to turn someone looking for constructive criticism as to someone who is part of the corporate media problem. I'd like an substantive conversation instead of one that's predicated on the basis that I'm now the enemy. . . I'm not

[karynnj]

16. John Kerry framed the message as well and he was a war hero too

Wes Clark was an excellent surrogate.

My point is: it serves no one to claim that one and only one Democrat is coherent. I read Wes's plan, it is coherent. Kerry's plan - laid out several months earlier - was also coherent. The problem is not that Democrats have no plan, the plans are bad or they are not coherent. (i prefer Kerry's plan - I assume you prefer Clark's)

It's that" THEIR MEGAPHONE is bigger than ours" as John Kerry said.

[demdiva]

26. Who's claiming only one Democrat is coherent?

Exactly, the democrats don't have the White House or the House or Senate so it's harder for them to get their message out (yes this sucks) while the republican message has naturally been formed by the White House. I assume this is what you meant by the megaphone?

The point isn't that one single person sends out a message, the point is that the war heroes running in 2006 might offer a unique perspective on the war that will resonate with voters in 2006 . . . and then hopefully that "resonation" will carry through to 2008.

I also think because so many democratic veterans will be in the field it will be harder to Swift-Boat them. I don't see how the republicans can honestly attack the record of multiple democratic veterans at once without it backfiring on them. It will be too easy to see through, which not necessarily true when they focused their attacks on only Senator Kerry. (Again I SAW THROUGH THEM WHICH IS WHY I VOTED FOR SENATOR KERRY . . . but it worked too well)

[karynnj]

34. The OP was suggesting that in the 2006 midterm elections

We might find someone who is credited with having a coherent message on Iraq.

I re-read my post and realize that I was pretty unclear. What I was meaning was that many Democrats DID have coherent messages in 2004, but the media willing to propagate the Democratic message was much much smaller than that available to the Republicans.

There was nothing incoherent or vague in the real statements that Kerry or Clark made on what they would do in Iraq. The problem was that the media opted to give almost no coverage to Kerry's NYU signature Iraq policy speech at NYU, in fact giving equal (or more) time to Republicans saying that it was what Bush was already doing. Bush on the other hand was given an hour of time when he said he was going to give "a major policy speech" after the first debate that he blew - no response was sought from Kerry or other Democrats.

I used Clark and Kerry, because Kerry was the candidate and because Clark was an adviser and surrogate on this issue and had been a candidate as well. I also knew that the person I responded to supported Clark. The point was that it was PERCEPTION of clarity not clarity that was the issue. I assume that ANY candidate who wins the nomination will work (and succeed)at having a clear position on a core issue. (In 2004, Kerry and Clark didn't need to "work" on this - they were people others would choose as advisors. Kerry investigated terrorism more than anyone in the Senate and was on the SFRC for 20 years, Clark was head of NATO). The megaphone comment was a reference to the media as you assumed that Kerry made on the Ed Schultz show. (which I should have explained.)

[oscarguy]

17. Gen. Wesley Clark seems a good choice in this regard.

I believe he is very electable. He seems to be a very decent human being to me. ...Oscar

[Vektor]

18. I like him too.

He's a good man.

[oscarguy]

19. Thanks Vektor. He was my first choice for the last Presidential election.

I asked myself who was the most electable of the Democratic candidates whom I genuinely liked and it was Wesley Clark. I definately supported Kerry, but Clark was my first choice. ... Oscar

[Cosmocat]

24. And ...

what exactly is the republican "message" ??? BRAINDEAD, MEANINGLESS mantras like "stay the course" and "Don't cut and run" ...

Are there a number of variations on the D theme of getting the heck out ... YEAH ...

BUT, what the MSM absolutely refuses to drive home is the fact that this admin, and the Rs have NO plan whatsoever ... If you had the MSM spouting the TRUTH that the admin and Rs have NO plan for Iraq as much as they parrot the Ds have no plan meme, you would have such an overwhelming civil call to bring the troops home that this congress would HAVE to put the skids on the operation ...

[demdiva]

25. Their message is

You are with us or you are with the terrorists (9/11)

WMDs, Axis of Evil, or Stay the Course(take your pick for Iraq)

We're Not Going to Play the Blame Game (Katrina)

Sorry, but their messages are memorable. I'm not saying their message is substantively better then the democratic message (especially when they are lies which many of them are) WHICH IS WHY I VOTED FOR THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE

but unfortunately more people (please . . .let's not get into the Deibold thing here . . . that makes any election discussion invalid) voted for the republican candidate, and we all KNOW that Kerry was the better choice.

[DemBones DemBones]

28. You might want to check out this thread

that I started:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2474243

It's about a column in "The Progressive" discussing Dem vets taking on the chickenhawks, has some interesting info.

[demdiva]

31. Can someone throw me a bone?

My real intent here was just to get others views on the strategic importance that democratic veterans will play in the 2006/2008. Maybe some constructive criticism on how they can be used to benefit the whole party in 2006/2008? Obviously I will not use Howard Fineman to do this in the future.

I'm really not to convince you that the democrats are inept or something.
REALLY