I will not be "Anita Hill"-ed regarding Hillary and Barack

[arendt]

I will not be "Anita Hill"-ed regarding Hillary and Barack

First, if you look at the last two entries in my journal at DU, you will see that wading into this mudfest is the last thing I want to be doing. However...

since enough DUers have decided that we should blindly accept the media framing ( i.e., that the 2008 Democratic primary is all but over, with only two candidates left), it is time to remind people of a highly relevant twenty-year-old humbug, whose consequences are still with us today. I'm referring to the Clarence Thomas nomination circus.

I'm sure I will be called "boring" for giving the following history lesson. But, my experience around here is that, other than smears, accusations, and conspiracy theories, no one remembers any context beyond the last two weeks.

----

The Thomas nomination was one of the most cynical pieces of wedge-issue politics I have ever seen. It was clear to anyone with a basic grasp of politics that Thomas was a hard-core (both politically and pornographically) rightwing wrecker. He was appointed by the Reagan Administration to the Equal Opportunity office and proceeded to denounce that program from the inside. He was a perfect Uncle Tom, a perfect Oreo. When a Supreme Court vacancy occurred, this inexperienced ideologue played the race card for all it was worth, denouncing any criticism as "a media lynching". Black people came to testify in his behalf, because they judged the man by nothing more than the color of his skin. Democrats were paralyzed by this transparent case of a wolf in sheep's clothing.

When a reluctant Anita Hill was subpoenaed, it was her morality, not the divorced Thomas's, that was smeared as she testified against Thomas. ("A little bit nutty, and a little bit slutty.") Two years later, a Wall Street Journal investigative team reported that her testimony was true and that Thomas was, indeed, the pathetic, sexually-harassing creep she portrayed him to be.

As a result of the media circus, the ever-craven Joe Biden, and the hit job on Ms. Hill by the Warren Committee weasel-for-life Arlen Specter, the Democratic majority caved on this pivotal nomination. Twenty years later, it is perfectly clear that Clarence Thomas cares about nothing but himself. He has been a puppet of the uber-ideologue Antonin Scalia. He has one of the most reactionary voting records on the court and has rarely authored an opinon. He has done squat for his fellow people of color, unless you count his rigid opposition to any government help for minorities as a good thing.

Bottom line: America was fed a load of BS about Thomas by the media. They swallowed it; the Democratic leadership walked away from its duty; and America has been stuck with this craven hypocrite, this intellectual lightweight, this inarticulate ideologue in a position of power for decades. He dishonors the seat, previously held by Thurgood Marshall.

----

What, you may ask, does this have to do with Hillary and Barack? Well, children, the media often runs a sequel to a big hit. You know, like "Jaws 2". The media frenzy over Barack and Hillary is a remake of the Thomas nomination, right down to the "any criticism of a woman/black, no matter how legitimate and fact-based, is sexism/racism".

So, when Hillary defends her vote on the Iraq War in the face of 70% disapproval, when Hillary cozies up to Rupert Murdoch, when Hillary spends all her energy looking "tough" and invoking the Neanderthal libertarian Maggie Thatcher, when Hillary sends out her pet attack dog, James Carville, to repeatedly bash Howard Dean for doing his job well, some Democrats might be wondering what kind of a Democrat she is. But they can't wonder. That would be sexist.

And, when Barack takes the turncoat bum Joe Lieberman as his "advisor", when Barack is handed celebrity on a silver platter by a totally GOP-subservient corporate media (which normally would piss on a Democrat and, on a good day, report on one neutrally), when no-record, blank-slate Barack is jumped over a field of candidates who have views (and records!) much more representative of the majority of Democrats, some Democrats might be wondering just which corporate heavy hitters put the fix in for this guy. But they can't wonder. That would be racist.

The corporate media has some clever writers for "Clarence 2". They understand how infinitely distractible the Britney Generation is. They understand most people don't have enough historical awareness to debunk even blatant propaganda, much less the sophisticated shadow boxing of Hillary/Barack. Having taken the measure of the viewing public, the kingmakers have decided to stage-manage not merely one corporate-Democrat, wolf-in-sheep's clothing candidate, but two. Because, with two candidates and total control of the corporate media, they can stage a fight between them to the exclusion of any real political analysis. They can carpet-bomb the entire primary process.

This fight, of course, serves everyone except genuine, pro-labor, pro-government, pro-Bill of Rights Democrats.

It serves the DLC, and all its corporate apparatchiks by giving their people (Hillary and Barack) free publicity, raising bucketfuls of corporate cash for them, and cutting off the oxygen to all other candidates over a year before the first primary election.

It serves the Republican Party in several ways. First, it moves the media spotlight away from the ongoing trainwreck of democracy and foreign policy that is the Bush Administration and its multiple wars of choice. Second, it allows the media to run with "Democratic disarray" while avoiding the meltdown within the GOP. Third, it gives boxcars full of opposition research to the GOP, should either of these two folks becomes the nominee; and it provides ample evidence of the triviality of debate within our party. Again, should either of them win the nomination, the public will be as sick of them by November, 2008 as they were of the OJ Trial.

The fight serves our corporate masters by creating a quantum leap in disenfranchisement - the fight bypasses or eliminates grassroots, darkhorses, campaign workers, the primary process, and the real issues. The participants in this fight need only money to buy media and media to raise money. Genuine politics is replaced by a seamless web of corporate corruption and thought-smothering image-making. This scripted fight is a shot of firestarter to make the coals of the "permanent campaign" catch fire. Without something happening a year before the first primary, no one would pay any attention; and the corporate media would have no excuse to push real issues off the front page for celebrity politics immediately after the last election.

----

Which, at long last, brings me to the useful idiots on the GD-P board who willingly or ignorantly allow the media to frame our political priorites.

Every thread, every post on this board about this fight is a vote to allow the media to set our priorities for us. A vote that a petty, premature, celebrity beauty contest between two politicians, both of whom avoid real decisions like a vampire avoids sunlight, is more important than the long-overdue investigations into the multiple waves of war mongering, war profiteering, and war crimes in Iraq. A vote to ignore the oncoming suicide plunge into a war with Iran. A vote to avoid unifying the party around taking down the Bush gang right now, in the name of Constitutional Government. A vote for triangulation and disingenuousness when America needs people who tell the truth in spite of the consequences, people who will fight for the truth without needing a go-ahead from their pollsters.

I have voted liberal all my life. I know a liberal when I hear one. I've been "in the room" and seen the behavior. Like Anita Hill, I don't want to be here; but I am not going to shirk my duty to testify about what I have seen.

Hillary is not a liberal on the life and death issues at stake in this election. She has been drifting to the right ever since she was first elected. She is quite hawkish. Her political arc is Lieberman-esque. Been there, done that.

Barack is a limousine liberal, who happens to be black. He makes mostly the right noises, but he hasn't done anything. I can't name a cause or a movement in which he has played a major or extended role. All we know about him is his privileged resume and his exotic birth parents.

It will be that privilege plus his inexperience, and not his race, that will be the focus of any attacks on him. (The GOP get the racist vote for free.) If any serious charge against him gets traction, he has no record to anchor him. The slightest gaffe or bit of mud will blow him away. He will vanish as fast as Howard Dean after the phony scream. Been there, done that.

If we are even allowed to have an honest primary, I will work for the candidate who has done the most over the last eight years to oppose and rollback the creeping fascism of the Bush years. I will vote for someone who calls the GOP what they are: crooks, closet perverts, theocrats,authoritarians, racists, war criminals, torturers. I don't hear those words from Hillary the Hawk or Obama from central casting. In fact, I hear more of those words from a Democrat who is distinctly not a liberal - Senator James Webb.

I fully expect to be called every name in the book by Hillary and Barack supporters. This can only be because they are either in total denial about how their behavior enables the corporate agenda or because they are actively opposed on principle to having substantive debates about real issues. I fully expect the attacks to be trivial, personal, of the "you are racist/sexist/anti-democratic" variety. I will not respond to that kind of crap. This post has already explained at great length why these types of attacks are toxic to honest political debate.

This is supposed to be a political discussion board. You people have made it into a high school popularity contest. Too bad this isn't high school. Too bad your behavior has real consequences. Too bad American democracy is on life support, and you are stepping on the oxygen line. Too bad you are fiddling while a century of hard-won civil and labor rights and government services, not to mention the life savings of two generations, are being burned to the ground.

We are so sorry to get in the way of your right to amuse yourselves with this Corporate Dog Show while Thelma Bush and Louise Cheney drive us over a cliff.

arendt

[marmar]

1. Well said.....

BARBARA LEE FOR PRESIDENT!

[blm]

2. Well said, but I would still side with Geffen's outrage at this time even if

it does help Obama, because Obama is still further away from the Bush familiy protection racket than the Clintons are. He might still be influenced by more honest voices on the left.

[arendt]

7. I have refused to pay attention to the Geffen subplot of this soap opera...

my issue is with Obama's close association to Lieberman, his mainstream DLC
status, his lack of a record.

I hear what you are saying, but you are getting sucked into their narrative.

For all I care, Geffen and McAuliffe and Hillary can all cut each other up and I
will make the popcorn. But, its all about power, not about doing good for the
people. Geffen started his career by lying about his resume. He is a shark.

Please try not to take your eye of Iran and Iraq because of this H-O distraction.

arendt

[blm]

10. Actually, I have been pushing AGAINST the narrative. Rich pardon is HUGELY relevant

to today because he was an ARMSDEALER working with the BFEE, he was a figure still under scrutiny for IranContra and BCCI and his pardon was asked for by Scooter Libby.

Since 9-11, this Iraq war and the Plame outing never even would have happened if IranContra and BCCI figures and their crimes had been fully exposed, the ISSUE of Rich's pardon should be given GREATER scrutiny by ALL truthseekers. The Bushes AND the Clintons have alot of explaining to do.


Does anyone really believe he was only hiding out because of tax evasion?

[arendt]

14. Oh, Geffen brought up Marc Rich...

that's a beautiful piece of hatchet work! And, he is "speaking for himself", according to
Obama. Yeah, right.

Now, all the Clinton haters who thought the Clintons were liberals can now hate
them for being part of the BFEE.

Its a twofer!

(Please don't interpret the above sarcasm to mean that I am upset with you. I'm just trying
to have a dialogue, instead of a monologue. And, I am a little bit aggro on the topic.)

But, you are making my case for me. This dirt discredits Hillary. I'm sure Hillary will
find some equally creative way to hurt Obama.

The net result for the Democratic Party is two disgraced candidates and a lot of money
down the drain.

----

Now, as a follower of politics, I agree that the Marc Rich thing leads straight into the
conspiracy jungle that was Arkansas in the 1980s (Mena, Promis, Bill's sugar daddy
Jackson Stephens). But, to the average American, we will just come off sounding
like conspiracy nuts. The only thing people care about is Iraq and the economy.
This stuff won't play in Peoria.

arendt

[blm]

19. It SHOULD be part of the Libby scrutiny and WHY Plame was outed. I don't CARE

about political fallout for anyone - I care only that any opportunity was taken to get closer to the overall truth that has led this nation into events like 9-11 and this Iraq war, and is leading us NOW into war with Iran.

Rich was an armsdealer working covertly for Poppy Bush. Libby and Cheney outed a CIA agent whose firm was also outed when they were charged with TRACKING arms dealing networks.

[arendt]

25. I see. Direct tie to Libby corroborates the "kill the CIA arms trackers" motive...

getting Hillary is just "collateral damage".

I can buy that.

As I said, I am aggro about having to filter all real news (like Libby
was covering up arms dealers) through the H-O filter.

arendt

[Captain Hilts]

54. He pardoned Rich, at the request of Barak [of Israel] who took an electoral hit...

for the negotiations with the PLO right at the end of Bubba's term.

That's why Bubba did it. What you say about him very well might be true, but Clinton did it as a favor to the PM of Israel as a reward for being cooperative in the negotiations with the PLO that cost him his job.

[blm]

156. That may be part of it, but what stopped the further scrutiny of armsdealing

and funding of terror networks and Marc Rich and AQ Khan that were part of the outstanding matters Bill Clinton inherited when he took office in 1993?

Do you really think Rich was merely a tax evader being pardoned?

Do you really believe that Poppy Bush and his cronies woke up one day in Jan 1993 and decided to STOP their drugdealing, weapons proliferation and funding of global terror networks just because he was no longer president?

Do you really believe that when Bill's WH was attacking Gary Webb as a fantasist over his 1996 CIA drugrunning story that they didn't have the information that would have exposed Poppy Bush's network even further?

You would be assuming that Clinton only made his pardon based on Barak's plea and that Clinton never knew anything about Rich's involvement in IranContra, BCCI and armsdealing

He HAD to know plenty. And he had to have made some deal with Poppy Bush, because he certainly did his best to completely ignore or downplay every outstanding matter that was left to his administration.

Ignoring and not dealing with the outstanding matters outlined in the BCCI report he received when he assumed office is just as bad as GWBush refusing to read or implement the HartRudman Report on Global Terror that he received when he took office.

[NYCGirl]

11. Here are some of the bills he's sponsored (so you can check his record):

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/R?d109:FLD003:@1(sen+Obama)

He's also co-sponsored many more.

[arendt]

28. Bad link - can you give me one that works?

No items were found for the search "@1"
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[NYCGirl]

30. The search doesn't give a valid link to post (that one was from Google), but here's

the search link:

http://thomas.loc.gov/bss/d110query.html

Click the name, etc., you're looking for.

Here's info from Wiki:

Obama sponsored 152 bills and resolutions brought before the 109th Congress in 2005 and 2006, and cosponsored another 427.<55><56> His first bill was the "Higher Education Opportunity through Pell Grant Expansion Act."<57> Entered in fulfillment of a campaign promise, the bill proposed increasing the maximum amount of Pell Grant awards to help students from lower income families pay their college tuitions.<58> The bill did not progress beyond committee and was never voted on by the Senate.

Obama took an active role in the Senate's drive for improved border security and immigration reform. Beginning in 2005, he co-sponsored the "Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act" introduced by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ).<59> Obama later added three amendments to S. 2611, the "Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act," sponsored by Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA).<60><61> S. 2611 passed the Senate in May 2006, but failed to gain majority support in the U.S. House of Representatives.<62> In September 2006, Obama supported a related bill, the Secure Fence Act, authorizing construction of fencing and other security improvements along the United States–Mexico border.<63> President Bush signed the Secure Fence Act into law in October 2006, calling it "an important step toward immigration reform."<64>

Partnering first with Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN), and then with Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), Obama successfully introduced two initiatives bearing his name. "Lugar–Obama" expands the Nunn–Lugar cooperative threat reduction concept to conventional weapons, including shoulder-fired missiles and anti-personnel mines.<65><66> The "Coburn-Obama Transparency Act" provides for a website, managed by the Office of Management and Budget, listing all organizations receiving Federal funds from 2007 onward, and providing breakdowns by the agency allocating the funds, the dollar amount given, and the purpose of the grant or contract.<67><68> On December 22, 2006, President Bush signed into law the "Democratic Republic of the Congo Relief, Security, and Democracy Promotion Act," marking the first federal legislation to be enacted with Obama as its primary sponsor.<69>

On the first day of the Democratic-controlled 110th Congress, in a column published in the Washington Post, Obama called for an end to "any and all practices that would lead a reasonable person to believe that a public servant has become indebted to a lobbyist."<70> He joined with Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) in pressuring the Democratic leadership for tougher restrictions in S.1, the Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2007, which passed the Senate with a 96-2 majority.<71><72> Obama joined Charles Schumer (D-NY) in sponsoring S. 453, a bill to criminalize deceptive practices in federal elections, including fraudulent flyers and automated phone calls, as witnessed in the recent midterm elections.<73><74> Obama's energy initiatives scored pluses and minuses with environmentalists, who welcomed his sponsorship with Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) of a climate change bill to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by two-thirds by 2050, but were sceptical of Obama's support for a bill promoting liquefied coal production.<75><76> On January 30, 2007, Obama introduced the "Iraq War De-Escalation Bill" to cap troop levels in Iraq at January 2007 levels and remove all combat brigades from Iraq by March 2008.<77><78>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama#Senate_career

[arendt]

33. Thanks for the info; but its about what I expected

I like some of the bills (as I should if the guy is a real Democrat), but there are a couple of real clunkers
in this article:

> Obama supported a related bill, the Secure Fence Act, authorizing construction of fencing and
> other security improvements along the United States–Mexico border.<63>

This is a f**king boondoggle. It was immediately investigated for using illegal immigrant labor.

> Obama's energy initiatives scored pluses and minuses with environmentalists, who welcomed
> his sponsorship with Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) of a climate change bill to reduce greenhouse gas
> emissions by two-thirds by 2050, but were sceptical of Obama's support for a bill promoting liquefied
> coal production.<75><76>

Surprise, surprise, a politician pandering to his local big energy companies. Just what enviromentalism
means in America today.

----

As I said, this guy has had no extended and major role in anything. Of course, it would be hard to get much
of a record in a GOP dominated Congress. So, I am not beating him up for that. I am beating up the
press for the mindless cheerleading of this unproven person at one of the most critical presidential
elections in our country's history.

I'm sure a record can be manufactured in the current Congress. I doubt it will mean much.

arendt

[NYCGirl]

34. Re: the liquefied coal — isn't it the Senator's job to pass legislation to help

the LOCAL companies and their employees?

Edited to add: Check out the search at Thomas.gov — there's lots more there.

[arendt]

35. Its suggests he's just more of the same. sucking at the corporate teat. n/t

[NYCGirl]

36. Some see it that way, others see it as making sure his constituents remain employed.

There's lots of gray area there, IMO.

[arendt]

41. "lots of gray area" hardly squares with the media coronation he's getting...

if you don't think the media could gut him like a fish if they chose to,
you haven't been paying attention. In two exchanges, without any
"hidden agenda" on my part, you admit to grayness. The media could
take this and make him look dirtier than Tom Delay. Or, conversely,
they could accept it, but use it to exonerate Delay and all the other
GOP criminals.

Rohrshack blot candidates like Obama are risky like that.

arendt

[NYCGirl]

50. Name one person they COULDN'T do that to. NT

[arendt]

60. My point is that its much easier to do that to someone like BO, who has no record n/t

[NYCGirl]

90. No, it's easier to do that to a long time senator, who has lots of votes to twist.

We saw that in the last election.

[KoKo]

161. Let's face the Truth....MS Corporate Media pushes a guy that Pundits call OSAMA

and immediately Lefty Dems have to expend energy e-mailing and correcting that his name is really OBAMA and not OSAMA...then they go after his father who was raised Muslim (I don't give a shit if he was raised Episcopalian...but Corporate Whores lie and say he was schooled in Radical Islam) which then gets Dem Grassroots into defending the lies and taking their eye off the ball that Bush/Cheney should be Impeached and in PRISON!

Hillary and Obama get in a "convenient Food Fight! Does this mean they will Make Up and Hillary will choose Obama as running mate? Surely Carville/Begala and Clinton WOULD LOVE THIS SCENARIO.

So...it's all MEDIA MANIPULATION and we Dems NEVER SEE IT UNTIL THE MAC TRUCK HAS CRASHED INTO US ONCE AGAIN!

[BlackVelvet04]

46. And that's supposed to be a good thing?

"Obama supported a related bill, the Secure Fence Act, authorizing construction of fencing and
> other security improvements along the United States–Mexico border.<63>"

One of the very DUMBEST ideas the government has had to date. I've lived on the border and I can tell you a stupid fence isn't going to work.

[arendt]

52. That's what I said. But the poster ignored it. n/t

[BlackVelvet04]

58. Don't feel bad....

I get ignored a lot. :-)

[NYCGirl]

91. Why don't you look at ALL the votes instead of singling out one?

That'd give you a much better picture.

[arendt]

124. Because it only takes one for the corporate media to crucify somebody (e.g., the scream) n/t

[NYCGirl]

128. Name me one person who hasn't had a record that can be twisted. The only one

would be someone with no record at all.

[geek tragedy]

67. Obama is NOT DLC. That is a lie. A flat-out lie. eom

[Telly Savalas]

73. But if you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it's true.

The "Obama is DLC" crowd is stealing from Bush's playbook.

[geek tragedy]

74. And he voted for the bankruptcy bill. And he doesn't

have any record.

I love how these dolts say he doesn't have a record when they haven't tried to look it up.

[NYCGirl]

92. Actually, he voted AGAINST the bankruptcy bill. (Just in case any dolts are taking

that statement as reality.)

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00044

[geek tragedy]

97. Yeah, I should be clear with my sarcasm-- the level of

ignorance is appalling here.

[Cha]

151. That's good

to know.

[KoKo]

162. How do you know this? Isn't Obama for FREE TRADE...I've not heard him

support FAIR TRADE...or talk about how his African Relatives are being USED and KILLED by Big Pharma and Globalists Mining Interests?

[Telly Savalas]

72. Obama is a member of the DLC?

When did he join?

[geek tragedy]

81. Facts don't matter to the OP--they just want to whine. eom

[Lerkfish]

85. and the predicted personal attack comes, right on schedule

I think you're demonstrating his point.
What is wrong with the OP, beyond calling attention to the media framing of a candidate you might support? The point is still valid.

[geek tragedy]

94. The poster spouted falsehoods about Obama--such

as the fact that he has no record and that he is DLC.

If people want to criticize his record, criticize it. But they shouldn't pretend it doesn't exist and they damn well shouldn't lie.

[papau]

9. I read Geffen's rant as a gay fellow upset with the backseat gay issues have taken so

far. Geffen is a great liberal - but this did not seem to be a issue thing - and the only "lie" that I can imagine he was referring to, as there were no Clinton lies except about the affair, was the no tell military policy being a help to gays in the military.

Obama has a little dust on his shoes (its too early to say they are feet of clay) from his energy bill being a suck up to the rich soft coal folks in Illinois - kicking to the curb the environmentalists on this issue.

I am on a wait and see for a while before I could agree - or disagree - that Obama is less corporate desires sensitive than other candidates.

[arendt]

20. If Geffen wants to do something for gays, he should attack the theocrats, not Hillary...

I named the issues average Americans pay attention to: Iraq, Iran, the economy.
I will add rabid fundamentalism as a threat to democracy.

But, that still does not mean we must lead with gayness. Anti-gay is merely
one expression of the patriarchal, authoritarian platform designed to overthrow
demcracy.

If Geffen dredged up "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" in the middle of the Iraq clusterfuck,
he is adding to the perception of Democrats as incompetent to run the military.
We have to make sure wounded soldiers get treated. Sour grapes about DA-DT
is a very low priority at this moment. And you can bet the GOP will use this against us.

I am back to my original point. All these charges do nothing but discredit specific
Democratic candidates and the party in general. I refuse to play.

arendt

[bettyellen]

45. we totally should avoid gay issues because the GOP will hurt us with them? low priority for you....

is what it is, just so we're clear on that.

[arendt]

49. I told you what my issues are. You continue to push this one issue. Its not mine.

I said Geffen should fight the theocrats, not Hillary. You got an argument with that?

I said making a big deal out of DA/DT is a losing strategy in the midst of ongoing
slaughter and horrendous injury to ALL soldiers, men, women, black, gays.

You continue to represent my priorities as nothing more than prejudice.

You got your priorites, I got mine. I do not hate gays, contrary to what you keep
repeating every time you show up in one of my threads. I wish you would let
someone other than yourself have a thread with a topic other than your topic.

Have we now added David Geffen and gayness to the Clarence 2 soap opera?

arendt

[bettyellen]

144. supports gay rights means NOT SUPPORTING THE TROOPS!?! Lol- thanks, mr framing, nice work there....

get that one from Fox news, did ya?
good lord, these threads get more and more embarrassing.

[blm]

24. And I read it as an opportunity to get closer scrutiny on Marc Rich, armsdealer for the BFEE.

The political chips can fall where they may as long as even an inkling of truth about the Bush family and their covert dealings gets any chance to be heard. Oddly, there will be some Democrats fighting AGAINST any more revelations about the Bush family's covert dealings, Marc Rich's actual role in those dealings and Scooter Libby and Cheney's involvement.

[papau]

3. Wow - a bit over the top - and I'd still vote for Obama if his eventual detailed positions are

the best - and I'd certainly vote for him in the general.

But I agree that many DUers seem to repeat the GOP controlled media mantras - not only about Hillary - but also in that what the media has dismissed as long shot/ignore candidates are also not being discussed on DU. It is Obama/Hillary with Edwards thrown in once in a while.

I'm looking forward to the 3/24 debate on health as detailed proposals will be out by then for all the candidates - and after Iraq that is my number one issue.

[arendt]

12. Have to be over the top to "break through the clutter"...

of one of the most massive media campaigns since the runup to Iraq.

My objection is to the highjacking of the process by the media. H-O are
along for the ride; and who can blame them for taking the free publicity.

However, it is a tragedy of the commons. The public attention is a finite
commodity. This fight is over-grazing the commons of attention.

It is way too early for this level of campaigning. In my mind, fighting Bush
in the Congress and in the States and in the Courts is the only kind of
"campaigning" that scores any points with me.

Why are you even considering making up your mind this early? Any day
now, Bush is going to nuke Iran; or Iraq is going to turn into a bloodbath.
That is, the assumptions driving the politics will be completely different
by the time of the first vote. All that has gone before will be irrelevant,
except that H-O will have "dirtied each other up" nicely.


arendt

[papau]

13. If single payer national health has only one proponent that is who I work for in the primary n/t

n/t

[Cameron27]

113. That's a major consideration for me also. n/t

[fooj]

21. KandR!

Truth is our most powerful weapon. Thanks for this post.

[KoKo]

160. You would vote for a Corporate Pushed Candidate who isn't Ready?

A person who needed more time to "Grow" but got sucked in by the HYPE and EGO FEED? :shrug:

[cali]

164. Corporate pushed candidate is an utterly mindless

meme. Provide any evidence that he's a corporate pushed candidate. And no, you're subjective take on how the media is covering him, doesn't count. In fact, there's considerable evidence that Obama has resisted being sucked into that. He could have joined any number of top law firms and made a bundle representing corporate clients. What did he choose to do? Oh, that's right, public interest law and community organizing. And frankly, his experience is not something to scoff at: THAT'S the real MSM line. 14 years teaching Constitutional Law, 3 years of Community organizing in poor, black neigborhoods, 7 years in the Illinois Leg and 2 years in the U.S. Senate.

[KoKo]

166. Hey! There have been a number of DU Posts: OBAMA, the ROCK STAR!

If you don't know the meaning of "Rock Star" in Today's Media Corporate Whore Scenario...just tune into Anna Nicole and Britany ...24/7.

Maybe you are so pure that your ears are not assaulted daily when you look for REAL NEWS...Maybe you are purer than me..and others who have been working their guts out (WITH YOU) to get the Bushies out and REAL GROWN UPS in CHARGE of DEFENDING OUR CONSTITUTION....

If you want the STAR OF THE MOMENT...and don't want to see the HYPE over this...okay...but I, and others still have the right to voice our experience with the HYPE we've LIVED THROUGH over many elections.

:shrug:

[cali]

167. OK, but DU posts are not the MSM

I happen to hate that rock star equivalency shit. I don't even bother reading a thread that's captioned in such a way.

As for your "oh maybe you're just sooo pure" line, nothing I said indicated that, though come to think of it, I don't get assaulted by faux news. Don't have a TV. I've never seen Olberman or Matthews. I use the Web as my news source- and read. That's how come I knew that what the OP was posting was bullshit- because I am well informed. Yes, I realize that there's hype over Obama, but if that's your reason for discarding him as a possible good candidate, then that's just pathetic.

Yes, there's hype every election. It's your job to wade through it, or avoid it, or ignore it, or assess it.

Oh, and of course you didn't answer the question I posed about providing any evidence that Obama is a corporate candidate. No surprise there.

[KoKo]

173. Ummmm... Two Books with an Updated Preface to the first one?

Fawning and Preening reports and hype from the MS Corporate Media who refuse to report much more than Gary Condit 24/7 (just before 9/11 Attack) and every time we have a crisis find a Young White Woman to push in the Media 24/7 and they still do this even after a Democratic Take Over of House and Senate they push "Brittany and Anna Nicole" when the WORD IS OUT...WE ARE PREPARING TO ATTACK IRAN?

And yet all we see is Media HYPE about OBAMERAMA and HILLARY's HUGE WAR CHEST...and Vilsack just dropped out of the race and no one even knew who he was or what his message was?

You've gotta be kidding or very innocent about the MS Corporate Media. :shrug:

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

4. Very thought-provoking comment.

I am already worrying about the media picking our candidate -- having apparently decided it's going to be either Clinton or Obama (this year's designated "novelty" candidates), and egging on the catfights between their handlers. This leaves all the others in the lurch. Will the corporate media even cover what they have to say, or, when they're not obsessing over Brittney Spears and the moldering corpse of Anna Nicole Smith, will they keep feeding us the same old Barama vs. Clinton crap? I'm afraid I know the answer to that question.

[Benhurst]

5. Recommended #1

[evlbstrd]

6. Draft Al Gore!

[Skittles]

32. I hope Gore knows

that there is a huge amount of support to be tapped from those of us disgusted with the options at this point

[Stephanie]

75. yes

he will run

[jaxx]

8. Interesting.

I really liked the last sentence of your post.



As for the rest, I can decide for myself, but it's good to see other perspectives.

[election_2004]

15. The difference

The MSM is getting ready to "DeanScream" Obama once the primaries heat up...because it's to the corporate media's advantage to ensure eight full, "exciting" years of a Hillary Rodham Clinton presidency.

[arendt]

16. Agreed. What the media creates, it can destroy. What does your title mean? n/t

[election_2004]

22. It means...

The media will make Barack Obama's attempt at the presidency much more different than Hillary Clinton's (holding the two candidates to different standards), because the MSM wants the Clintons back in the limelight FULL-TIME (in order to more easily manufacture faux-news to distract the public's attention).

[Captain Hilts]

17. With three top candidates HRC, BO and Edwards no valid source is saying it's over.

And my three faves are Clark, Richardson and Dodd, in that order.

[election_2004]

23. Agreed...

Except I haven't quite yet determined if Clark would be ranked ahead of Richardson...and I'm not sure about Dodd.

[arendt]

26. It amazes me that GENERAL Clark can't get airtime in the middle of a huge war FUBAR n/t

[The Count]

38. Somehow, Edwards comes ahead of him in "anti-war candidates" test I took

in spite my opting for the IWR vote as my most important issue. It's THAT warped.

[arendt]

39. The media is the Court at Versailles...

its not about being right. Its about positioning and currying favor with
the right people.

Edwards is at the limit of my tolerance for warmongering. To call him
more antiwar than Clark is the typical bizarro world nonsense I have
come to expect from the media.

arendt

[Captain Hilts]

55. Generally, I think you're right, but, ultimately, they'll want a good race. A walk away...

real or fake, just isn't interesting.

[Adelante]

18. Extraordinary, arendt

Thoughtfully done in analysis and tone. Also very much on the money ($150 million per candidate, to be exact). :thumbsup:

[Skittles]

27. I'm with you, arendt

I am tired of being called something akin to a bush-lover because I am not comfortable with Clinton or Obama or Edwards.....I want better candidates - we - AMERICA - deserves better candidates

[arendt]

29. The media doesn't want better candidates to emerge. This whole move...

to the permanent campaign is meant to disenfranchise anyone without
seven figure corporate support. Without the ability to game the system,
as opposed to work within the system.

As I said, this is a quantum leap in dis-enfranchisment. I would protest
any candidate they tried to ram down my throat this early. The fact that
it is Hillary makes me even more disgusted.

Bush - Clinton - Bush - (Clinton) is NOT what I call democracy.

arendt

[Skittles]

31. I agree with you

something has been extremely unsettling to me from the start of this campaign and I think you have nailed it - I feel they are forcing these candiates at me, and pitching them against each other, like it's some sort of circus side-show - I'm completely disgusted

[JackRiddler]

111. Seven figures? Peanuts!

Obviously you need eight just to be allowed into the lobby for a beating. If you want to make it to the stage, you need NINE.

[The Count]

37. Wonderfully put! I knew you're right when I heard Ed Koch say they'll be the ticket

It was when the media circus was just barely begun. Considering that he was in the primary election in NYC gambit (hype for us the most unqualified candidate, then let him be buried in the GOP-er millions of publicity, with total blackout), I believe this is the plan. And I am afraid it's succeed. The two will be on a ticket and then bulldozed by the same MSM in favor of whomever the BFEE machine designates.

[Hawkowl]

40. Eloquent

Very, very good points indeed. WE need to select our nominee, not the corporate media which helped drag us into this war.

[Laurab]

42. Any links for the Obama/Lieberman connection?

I haven't seen anything about it, and would like to see it.

I am beginning to like Obama, "limousine liberal" or not - I like what I do know that he's done, which I admit, isn't a whole lot. Anyone who turns down a high-paying lawyer job, and accepts a lower paying civil rights lawyer position, in my mind, has at least his heart in the right place. I like his quick retorts, and his little attack on Cheney. I don't see him as being at all the same corporate creature as Hillary.

I could be wrong, but for right now, he's the one I'm watching, and trying to learn about. I agree that the media will try to tear him down, but I think he may be too sharp for it to work. Obviously, only time will tell, but I would appreciate some links to the Lieberman thing, since this is the first I've heard of it.

[arendt]

64. Googling: {obama, lieberman, senate, mentor} gets 29k hits...

didn't have time to count, but the majority of them agree that the
connection is solid. A minority claim it is overblown.

We report, you decide.

For my money, Alexander Cockburn (hits 3 and 4) thinks its true. And he has one
of the best web pages around. He is a seasoned journalist and author
of many books, and not some corporate hack.

arendt

[Laurab]

65. Interesting links - thanks! n/t

[cali]

140. Senator Lieberman was assigned to mentor

Obama. That's the way it works. Obama didn't choose him. And personally, I think Cockburn is simply a left wing hack, no better than his counterbparts from Human Events or World Nut Daily.

[KoKo]

171. Remember when we Dems were sold "Bill of Goods" with Bill?

DLC is always about "status quo" meaning gloss over Nixon/Reagan Iran Contra/now Iraq. It's always about Moving ON and sweeping the DIRT and DEAD BODIES under the carpet.

As long as we ENABLE THIS...we will keep losing the last threads of our Constitution. And, maybe young voters don't see a need for the CONSTITUTION...that was a Model for Democracy coming out of the Magna Carta....but ..some of us are worried and see the Bushies as a NEW WORLD ORDER that is CORRUPT and dependent on GLOBILIZATION...

It's possible that many here on this site see GLOBILIZATION without RIGHTS FOR THOSE in TURMOIL from it PLOWED UNDER AND RAPED AND USED by CORPORATISTS...as a PROBLEM.

But, this DU'er DOES....:shrug:

[JackRiddler]

43. Bravo! Bravo! Bravo! and...

What happened to your GD: Serious idea?

Hope you don't mind a cut-and-paste job on the same topic:

IT'S FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND SEVEN!

(1)

Do you understand how completely democracy has been mocked, twisted and torn? You're talking about front-runners and fundraisers. Can anyone overcome Hillary's warchest? Will she find enough kryptonite to neutralize Obama's invulnerable charisma? Did Joe Blow blow it by waiting a week too long? Is America really ready for Mary Doodle?

It's a year before the first primary, and the sick thing is -- those of you already focused on the campaign circus are probably right. It's too late to enter, unless your name happens to be Oprah or Bruce Willis or Gore. That's how low the farce of politics by corporate mercenary has gone. Why do you accept it without a peep?

(2)

Funny how many people can't see - that within this context - the smartest campaign is being run by Gore. He's packed in educated audiences of first adopters and multipliers at 1,000-plus campaign stops. All of them leave thinking the same thing: How come a moron is president instead of this guy?

He gets invaluable, neutral publicity thanks to his movie, the film academy, the Nobel rumors -- and like the Aqua Teen Lite Brite campaign, it's all for free. People actually think there's a reason to read his coming book -- as a book, and not as a maudlin collection of childhood anecdotes and prescription-soundbites pitched to Hockey Dad, Soccer Mom and Britney Baby.

Gore is framed in terms of causes, with little focus on his personality, his "chances" or any other bullshit -- except for the mythic aspect of being The Man Who Should Have Been. He can basically wait long as he likes and watch his stock rise, then play Clean Man and sweep aside all the compromised hairdo midgets. I disliked him once but very much admire how he's doing things.

Some folks say he won't be running because he's found a "higher calling." I guess more than a few sure hope so! Yeah, it's a "higher calling" to be a saint on the sidelines -- loved as universally as you are ignored.

If he means it about global warming, not to mention democracy under siege, then the only logical course is to run for president -- and this time, we can hope that he won't be a trojan horse for kinder-gentler Reaganism (as was the case with the Clinton administration). This guy's got enough depth and seems to have gone through a process of discovery that makes me willing to believe his rhetoric despite my better judgement, and despite the sorry record of 1993-2000.

A couple of the candidates are dismissed preemptively for speaking truth too plainly and therefore tagged as untelegenic (Gravel and Kucinich). Other than them, Gore is the only one talking about anything that remotely matters -- who isn't some war-affirming echo of Bush, or a narcissistic, idolized, phantom-bullshit hairdo.

[arendt]

48. I keep getting side-tracked fighting the sheer idiocy of all of this...

but I have a name for the serious forum: the DU Party Platform Forum.

Can DU come together and write a document that we all agree about?

More later.

----

Gore is about the only chance. Your scenario gives me hope.

arendt

[rgbecker]

119. I like that idea...a Party Platform Forum...

How about a post to start us off? Unfortunately, and I know I'm not the only one of this mind, Personality of the candidates trumps the issues when the positions are not that far from the "Democratic" mainstream. After 2000, electability, even with questionable election day tactics, is paramount. The media is just reflecting the popularity of the "Rock Star" attributes that the disengaged population wants as shown so often when you see the response Bill Clinton gets at any podium. The confusing thing is the press doesn't see any Rock Star in Hillary and has turned to Obama to get a response so early in the race. An oscar will help Gore in this "Rock Star" rating category.

[arendt]

122. It is in the works, but this H-O fight has pushed it back..

I have downloaded the 2004 Democratic Party platform doc and
am reading it.

I am also trying to read the stated process for creating the document.
It seems there are a lot of preparatory committees, which is probably
driven by who appoints whom to what committee.

Its complex. But I am working. You should check my journal about
three threads ago for a post where I listed about 20 important "planks"
of a platform.

arendt

[bettyellen]

44. they are untouchable now because of gender or color ? so why are lots of people attacking them?

it's a bit early to speculate, but i don't see either getting the nomination. even the dlc people aren;t that stupid.

[arendt]

51. People are attacking the hijacking of the normal primary process...

I won't waste my time following this mud-wrestling match, so I don't know
which politicians are attacking them. Given the state of the media, I doubt
anyone not involved in this staged fight is allowed airtime to point out the
hijacking.

Please explain what you mean - "even the dlc people aren't that stupid"?
I can't create a scenario where them not getting the nomination is the DLC
plan. Please elaborate. I'm curious.

arendt

[bettyellen]

143. okay, i'll go slower for you! if you don;t see people attacking hil or BO - you are fricking blind!

they are being attacked, NOT being treated as sacred cows, sorry ... your premise is BULLSHIT. they CAN WILL and HAVE ALREADY BEEN ATTACKED>
Doh!

[BlackVelvet04]

47. K & R

Thanks for the post. Some of those things I have wanted to say but would not have said them so eloquently.

[AtomicKitten]

53. It's just a soap opera.

Different day, same channel.

[KoKo]

172. If you are TRULY that Cynical that you see it all as "Soap Opera"

then that means that YOUR WAY OF LIFE will go down with the REST.... Do you really look forward to eathing with the Homeless? Or, are you so well off you can just dabble in Politics from the Left feeling secure that YOU will never be DRAFTED and YOU will never be hungry..

You can sit on the SIDELINES and CARP and SNIPE to your hearts content...and be a HERO...A BEACON..a Truthteller in the Ultimate Cynical Mode...and applauded and cheered.

:shrug:

[Lena inRI]

56. Bulls-eye analysis, arendt!!!

Just as I was weary of the Obamarama-Austin-HYPE, even here on DU Greatest Threads,you came along in the nick of time to say EXACTLY what is FALSE about BO. . .exaggerated potential. . . advertised and paid for by Big Bucks. . .and

calling all this hype "Clarence 2" is soooo dead on right!

What I want to know is who exactly are the Big Bucks behind Obama? How transparent are campaign finance laws. . .I never tried to research such. . .have you? Seems knowing exactly who and how much is behind Obama would explain much of his mecurial popularity.. .

follow the money. . .follow the money!

As for Hillary, no brainer that she is bought and being sold by corporate America. End of story.

Yeah. . .it's so profoundly pathetic that the current, front-running Democratic candidates are providing the "Corporate Dogshow" while the Derby Stallions are left grazing on the sidelines. . .

Geezlouise, do we need GORE AND CLARK!!!!A S A P !!!!

:bounce: :kick: :bounce: :kick: :bounce:

[arendt]

61. Good question! (who is bankrolling BO) - anyone have answers? n/t

[cui bono]

57. Excellent post. nt

[cosmicdot]

59. kn(highly)r

The Deal by arendt
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=308x366

(which I had saved)

[The Count]

69. Thanks! It's only clearer from where we are now.

[Straight Shooter]

62. I was just telling a friend today the Obama-Hillary dustup is a media distraction ploy.

"Rock star" Obama versus "Hawk Hillary."

One good reason not to vote for Hillary, to stop this political dynasty crap. The Clintons and bushes remind me of lawyers sparring, at each other's throats in the courtroom, putting on a good show.

When the day is over, they share drinks and laughs at the local watering hole.

Thanks but no thanks to both these candidates. I'm tired of all light, no heat. I don't trust the media to reveal to me exactly who these candidates are. I want Al Gore to run. I would support General Clark.

Excellent, thought-provoking post, arendt. I remember the disgraceful treatment of Anita Hill. It reminded me of how women (the victims) are treated in rape trials when they're cross-examined by over-zealous defense attorneys.

[bvar22]

63. K&R

Well Done!
:patriot:


The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

[geek tragedy]

66. What an ignorant post.

Do some research on Obama. Not his fault you're too lazy to research his record and achievements.

Obama was ASSIGNED Lieberman as a mentor, and endorsed Ned Lamont.

Obama's big paying job after college? $13,000 a year working as a community organizer.

His choice after law school? Working as a civil rights lawyer instead of cashing in at a big law firm.

Get off your cross. Ignorance is not martyrdom.

[Colobo]

68. Zing!

[arendt]

70. You got nothing. You deliberately miss my point. Screw this premature campaign.

If you read the whole thread, you would see that my basic gripe is with the media,
Barack is along for the ride.

Besides, my post is ignorant? Is that why it has 32 recommends and is the third highest
on the Greatest Page? Get over yourself.

You want details? I posted a four word Google Search that turns up 29,000 hits about
this mentorship fight. You go dig through that. I don't care. Its all bloody distraction.

I am sick of fights about "he said, she said". This country is going down the tubes, and
the media is making sure that happens. We haven't got time for some neophyte to learn
on the job when the GOP vacate the WH. I have nothing against Obama except his and
the media's insistence that NOW is his moment. Right now.

If you can't see that, it is your post that is ignorant.

arendt

[geek tragedy]

71. No, your point was to bash both Obama

and Clinton and whine how the two candidates with BY FAR the most popular support somehow have gotten the majority of the media attention.

You got 32 recommends. Whoop dee shit. Shows we have at least 32 Kucinich supporters.

The number of bald-faced lies, ignorant assumptions, and just plain stupid comments in your post just makes its recommendation unfortunate.

For instance, you claim that Obama is an empty slate, then complain FALSELY that his record is not at all representative of the Democratic party, when you haven't done the basic research on him.

Your bleatings are full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

A true idiot's tale.

[Lerkfish]

84. I think you're demonstrating his point very effectively

without realizing it, perhaps.

[geek tragedy]

95. The person said a bunch of false crap and then predicted

they'd get criticized.

[Lerkfish]

100. "false crap"...? apparently you disagree on the evidence

the evidence being that in the media, there are only two candidates getting any airtime at all, and the evidence being that both of those candidates are being trashed separately, and pitted against each other.

do you deny that is what is going on?

[geek tragedy]

103. I'm talking about the smears on Obama--calling him DLC, saying

he doesn't share positions/values with the Democratic party, saying he doesn't have a record, calling him a 'limousine liberal."

All demonstrably false, and all known to be false by anyone who's done basic research on the guy.

Fact is that Obama and Clinton have a LOT more support amongst actual voters than do anyone else in the field, so yeah duh of course they're going to get more attention.

15-20,000 showed up in Austin for Obama--based purely on Internet buzz.

Go to places like Facebook or myspace--Obama's appeal is much more than just a media concoction.

Again, the OP would know this if they weren't more interested in whining than learning.

[arendt]

120. We are so sorry to get in the way of your right to amuse yourselves with this Corporate Dog Show...

while Thelma Bush and Louise Cheney drive us over a cliff.


Always with the horse race, the head count, "the support".

Do you comprehend that turnout can be generated? That internet buzz
can be generated?

Can you get your head above the local brawl and think strategically?
How is this premature campaign going to prevent war with Iran, especially
with Hillary shilling for it? How is this premature campaign going to unify
the Congress to bring down Bush?

Ask the larger question.

arendt

[geek tragedy]

123. I don't see how your peddling of falsehoods

stops the Iraq war or prevents an Iran war.

But, no, it's a conspiracy of thousand generating the Obama support.

Keep your head in the sand. Ignorance will remain your friend.

[arendt]

127. You clearly believe Obama is more important than Iraq/Iran...

to a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

I am not here to argue about Obama's CV. I am here to argue
that the media has no business starting the 2008 campaign the
minute the 2006 campaign ended.

I said that I am not going to get into fights about what someone
said or didn't.

In post 64, I gave a google search that produced 29,000 hits
about the topic you are so incensed about. That, IMHO, is reason
to stay away from such "he said, she said" catfight.

If I wanted to play "Six Degrees of Separation" between ANY
candidate and the DLC, I could do so.

My point is that all of that is distraction from the imminent escalation
of the Iraq Quagmire to the Iran Jihad. Campaign 2008 HAS TO
wait until we stop Bush. And we must stop him in the next two
months.

If I see Obama take a major role in stopping Bush, I will take a look
at him. Right now, I'm too busy.

arendt

[geek tragedy]

130. Please. Obama and Clinton got in a stupid fight, and now

it's over. They've moved back to the Iraq issue.

Or did you miss Obama blasting Cheney on Iraq in front of 15-20,000 people on Friday?

Again, if you're too busy to do basic research on the candidates, then your speculation on the dynamics of the primary contest is worthless.

[bettyellen]

155. well, see the OP wouldn't know about that because it's beneath him to even THINK about

the primary race.... Except when he feels like gassing off about it in an uniformed manner. THEN it's a valid topic for discussion, and ceases to become one as soon as his pontification is over. Because it's really not worth discussing then, unless of course the OP feels like replying...LOL.
Got that?

[bettyellen]

141. ignorance is the point of the OP, making BS arguments to suck you in...and thn blame u for it!

:apllause:

[geek tragedy]

148. Is the OP a purity troll or a concern troll--or both? eom

[Name removed]

154. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[leftstreet]

76. Outstanding observations!

:applause:

The corporate control of this Clobama phenomenon will prevent ANY national discourse on labor, healthcare, war crimes, and economic/social justice.

[bling bling]

77. Drivel.

Typical drivel from critics who love to chastise people who's only real crime is daring to support a candidate. Also typical self-righteous tone in a lecture-filled yet ironically void-of-research "lesson".

"Barack is a limousine liberal, who happens to be black. He makes mostly the right noises, but he hasn't done anything. I can't name a cause or a movement in which he has played a major or extended role. All we know about him is his privileged resume and his exotic birth parents."

That's all YOU know about him. Do a google on the matter and you can rectify that. Ordinarily I'm the type of poster who will happily (well, not really happily) spend my personal time looking up and combing through information and summarizing and posting links for anonymous strangers here when I see that they are uninformed or don't have all the facts or whatever. But since you somehow managed to pro-actively dismiss my response to you in your OP talking like the only reason I could disagree with your insulting assessment is because I'm in denial, I won't be spending (wasting) any time doing that here.

[KitSileya]

78. K&R! I completely agree.

With the suspicion most of us here on DU view the media in any other matter, it is strange that so (relatively) few have questioned the motives of the media in promoting Clinton and Obama. We know that the media owners have their own agenda, and will work toward it even if the whole country is outraged against it, so why are they promoting Clinton and Obama so? It cannot be for any altruistic motive, nor because they have had a change of heart, and heard the voice of God tell them to support the proper Democratic values.

I can only discern only two possible reasons - either they are pushing Clinton and Obama because they know they will more easily be able to tear them apart later than any of the other Democratic candidates, or because they know CLinton and Obama will support the issues they think are important - not christofascism, but corporate welfare.

[bonito]

79. Recommended

[BeyondGeography]

80. "Useful idiots"? Good luck with your self-esteem issues

Anyone who puts others down with a broad brush and brags about the number of times his post has been recommended has a little work to do himself. You come off as someone who may have eagerly competed and lost a few of those high school popularity contests you pretend to find so reprehensible.

As for the content of your post, The Wizard of Arendt's attempts to paint Obama as an empty vessel are hardly original, or accurate. Limousine liberal? A man who went straight from Harvard Law to community organizing? Who eschewed corporate law for civil rights law? A legislator who has always worked for open government and is making publicly-financed elections a signature issue? Celebrity handed to him? A man who wrote a first-rate book himself while he was still in law school? Whose "exotic" origins could just as easily have left him stranded at the starting gate of life in this conformist culture of ours? A legislator who has consistently outworked his colleagues at every level of government he's participated in?

It's February of 2007, and Obama is holding a getting to know you tour. If your bored with this "dog show" phase, why don't you use your spare time to brush up on the candidates and get some of that cartoon imagery out of your head. Your knowledge bank could obviously use a few deposits.

[Lerkfish]

87. wow. I'm frankly amazed, that even after he predicted what you do, you still do it.

drop the personal animosity and think about the point: that the media is ginning up both candidates and pitting them against each other.
Instead of arguing whether each candidate is worthy, we should be analyzing WHY the media is doing that.

retract your claws long enought to engage your brain.

think.

[geek tragedy]

96. Um, they are the two candidates with the most popular

support and consider each other the main rival in the race for the nomination.

The eeeevil media is not the reason that more people prefer Clinton and Obama to Edwards or Kucinich.

And, the diarists point was that both Obama and Clinton are DINO's foisted on people by the MSM. That is false. Obama is drawing tens of thousands of people to rallies that aren't even publicized by the media.

[Lerkfish]

101. um....ok. we'll have to disagree that the media is framing this debate

I contend they are, and are doing so consciously.

[geek tragedy]

104. Of course there is some media framing, but to pretend

that there isn't some underlying justification, i.e. that these are the two candidates who draw the most interest from potential primary voters, is to just be in denial.

If John Edwards had made a stronger impression in 2004, he'd be right up there as well. But he didn't.

Richardson is running for VP--notice how he's playing nice with everyone.

Biden and Dodd are jokes in this race.

Clark and Gore aren't running.

[arendt]

112. We are so sorry to get in the way of your right to amuse yourselves with this Corporate Dog Show...

while Thelma Bush and Louise Cheney drive us over a cliff.

----

You just don't get it.

All you talk about is the horse race. You never ask who staged the race
to distract you while they rob your house.

arendt

[geek tragedy]

125. When you stop pushing lies and smears, then I'll

respect what you have to say about the primary contest.

[arendt]

129. Ah, outrage, everyone is outraged. Its so passe. n/t

[geek tragedy]

131. Not my fault you backed up your theory with a pack of lies. eom

[bettyellen]

142. veracity or substance doesn't matter in the OP, only that they get a big "reaction" and sneer at you

for it.
it's a pointless little game, so the poster can continue to feel superior to the unwashed masses here at DU.
LOL

[geek tragedy]

147. Yep. Empty, ignorant cynicism posing as genuine insight.

Lots of gullible people lapping this nonsense up, unfortunately.

[JNelson6563]

139. I disagree

The OP was offensive to a minor degree to many DUers. The facts of that argument (re: media manipulation of Dem primary) could've been made less insultingly. I think this post you are responding to is on an equal level in that respect. There is another poster in this thread who is using a much more insulting tone than either the OP or this response you reply to here. And they have posted this level of insult several times in this thread.

Just my .0125

Julie

[Lerkfish]

169. That's a valid point: that the point could have been made differently, however

The point that was made is VERY important to what's going on, and I would have hoped people could discuss that instead of an ad hominem slugfest.

:shrug: It gives the impression that people are intentionally trying to distract from the real valuable observation.

How about we start acting like adults and start discussing the framing issue and leaving the rest at the door?

[KoKo]

165. Someone was giving OBAMA MONEY......and the RW Media Knows

WHO it is...

Sadly those enthralled with his CHARISMA don't want to DIG DEEPER...they are happy to go with the STAR OF THE HOME TEAM...and want to see him as Kicking us to the Goal Post!

Separate OBAMA from the MSCorporate Media Hype...and you see a person that has "signed a contract with the Devil, too early to be the Quarter Back. :shrug:

[hippywife]

82. Kicking and recommending!

I so completely agree with this and who could not? It makes incredible sense.


:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

[Lerkfish]

83. bravo! well put

[Punkingal]

86. Great post, and I offer this:

On Saturday, February 17, John Edwards was in Las Vegas for a town hall meeting on health care issues at a local electricians union. The hall was packed. It was briefly mentioned on the local news, and he had a decent article in the Las Vegas Review Journal.

On Sunday, February 18, Barack Obama was in Las Vegas and gave a speech, which was TELEVISED LIVE on local television. TELEVISED LIVE! (And I heard from various friends who went to the Edwards event, and then watched Obama's speech, that there was no comparison when it came to SUBSTANCE. The opinion was that Edwards was by far the better of the two.)

I am not jumping into your thread to tout Edwards, but I think this reaction from local media in Las Vegas proves your point. And having been deeply involved in a Nevada Congressional campaign in 2004, I can tell you from personal experience, the local media there decides which candidate to support, and gives the others short shrift. I see no reason to believe it is any different all the way to the national level with the media, and people are naive if they don't believe that is so.

I will go one step further with regard to the Las Vegas media...they pretty much do Harry Reid's bidding, and while he says he is staying out of backing a candidate, the media's coverage of Obama says a lot about who Reid is backing behind the scenes.

[bemildred]

88. Bravo, we need to pick our own "leaders". nt

[5X]

89. K & R and totally agree. n/t

[OneBlueSky]

93. bravo, arendt . . . and thanks for articulating what many of us are feeling . . .

to our corporate rulers, Hillary Clinton is just as acceptable as George W. Bush . . . both support the status quo, and neither will make any waves that might threaten corporate profits . . . neither she nor Obama have the gravitas to lead this nation out of the BushCo abyss -- nor do they have the inclination to do so . . .

we desperately, desperately need a populist/environmentalist for president, NOT a diehard corporatist . . . we've been down that road for the past however many years (Reagan-Bush-Clinton-Bush), and look where it's gotten us . . .

[Time for change]

98. It seems that you're comparing Obama to Clarence Thomas -- and if so, I feel that the comparison is

extremely unfair.

Clarence Thomas is scum, as you note, he is a wing nut, and I don't believe that he has any redeeming features.

Obama, on the other hand, is a liberal, with some leaning to the center perhaps. He is not a blank slate. He has plenty of views, and they are very well articulated in his book, "The Audacity of Hope".

I hope you didn't seriously mean to compare him to Clarence Thomas.

[Lerkfish]

102. I don't think he did: if you'll reread, he's comparing the MEDIA FRAMING

honestly, I don't understand how this point keeps flying over people's heads.

its not rocket science.

[arendt]

108. 1st, thanks lerkfish for your posts. 2nd, yes. "its the framing, stupid".

I'm amazed how many people do not grasp the abstraction of framing,
how all they can do is pick a side and fight.

Your defenses of my position were much more credible than my own
answers would have been. I appreciate that you got my point.

Now, how are we going to wake these people up?

arendt

[Lerkfish]

115. 1. your'e welcome, 2. not sure about "waking them up"

I think they are fixated, as was intended, on the individual horses, instead of asking who arranged the horse race and why they get to handicap the frontrunners

[Name removed]

126. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lerkfish]

134. Because those are two separate points.

:shrug:

Someone can say "football tv coverage is making the games longer by padding commercial breaks, and the Dophins are better than the Cardinals"
If the Dolphins AREN"T better than the cardinals, does that mean tv coverage ISN"T padding time with commercial breaks?

And to label this a conspiracy theory is simply wrong. Its observable data.

We need to get to the point where we are not blinded by our own fealty to one candidate or another and figure out how to COUNTER their framing. We fail to do so at our own peril. Remember the swift boaters? Because we didn't address the FRAMING of that attack, we suffered.

[geek tragedy]

135. The theory is that Obama and Clinton are tools of the corporate

media and therefore the corporate media is rigging the primary contest to make sure that it's one of those two who get the nomination.

The framing will go away when they stop making stupid and frivolous attacks against each other. No one forced Gibbs and Wolfson to make asses of themselves in press releases.

[Lerkfish]

137. you're still missing the point. After all this time, I have to assume deliberately

I'd explain it again, but I can see that would be counterproductive.

[geek tragedy]

146. The problem is that I do understand it. The problem is that this post is dishonest horse crap.

What, you may ask, does this have to do with Hillary and Barack? Well, children, the media often runs a sequel to a big hit. You know, like "Jaws 2". The media frenzy over Barack and Hillary is a remake of the Thomas nomination, right down to the "any criticism of a woman/black, no matter how legitimate and fact-based, is sexism/racism".

So, when Hillary defends her vote on the Iraq War in the face of 70% disapproval, when Hillary cozies up to Rupert Murdoch, when Hillary spends all her energy looking "tough" and invoking the Neanderthal libertarian Maggie Thatcher, when Hillary sends out her pet attack dog, James Carville, to repeatedly bash Howard Dean for doing his job well, some Democrats might be wondering what kind of a Democrat she is. But they can't wonder. That would be sexist.

And, when Barack takes the turncoat bum Joe Lieberman as his "advisor", when Barack is handed celebrity on a silver platter by a totally GOP-subservient corporate media (which normally would piss on a Democrat and, on a good day, report on one neutrally), when no-record, blank-slate Barack is jumped over a field of candidates who have views (and records!) much more representative of the majority of Democrats, some Democrats might be wondering just which corporate heavy hitters put the fix in for this guy. But they can't wonder. That would be racist.

The corporate media has some clever writers for "Clarence 2". They understand how infinitely distractible the Britney Generation is. They understand most people don't have enough historical awareness to debunk even blatant propaganda, much less the sophisticated shadow boxing of Hillary/Barack. Having taken the measure of the viewing public, the kingmakers have decided to stage-manage not merely one corporate-Democrat, wolf-in-sheep's clothing candidate, but two. Because, with two candidates and total control of the corporate media, they can stage a fight between them to the exclusion of any real political analysis. They can carpet-bomb the entire primary process.


Again, this fantasy falls apart if someone spends five minute actually researching and thinking.

The person who started this thread is just plain ignorant and Cheney-like with regard to their concern for truth.'

[Time for change]

109. "The corporate media has some clever writers for 'Clarence 2'".

Seriously, I think a statement like that can be taken either way. And when put in conjunction with aggressive criticisms of Obama, such as referring to him as "blank slate, no views", it sounds like a comparing of more than just the media framing.

As a liberal, I also object to some of the things that I have heard Obama say. And it is unlikely that I will vote for him in the primaries. But I think that any comparison to Clarence Thomas is very far off the mark.

[Sparkly]

110. That's not the comparison.

This has been misunderstood in things I've written, as well.

A is to B, as C is to D.... That means the relationships are being compared in some way. It doesn't mean B is being compared to D.

[Sparkly]

99. You make some really good points.

Oh BOY do I remember the fiasco of Thomas' confirmation, and what they did to Anita Hill. Another example is the fiction built up about Al Gore in 1999-2000. The RNC developed a script, and the media went to town with it. It became "common wisdom" that Al Gore was at best an "exaggerator," at worst a "pathological liar." It still infuriates me to think of it.

My own view is that this media-manufactured story about Clinton v. Obama is an annoying waste of time, but not much more at this point. The longer they hype this contest, the more time there is for people to tire of it, and for both candidates to get damaged in the process. If the past is any indication, the annointed front-runners at this point will fizzle, and someone ELSE will rise from the back of the pack later, as an "alternative," if you will.

I'm not as negative on either Clinton or Obama as you are (I think there are worse possibilities), and I'm not sure there'd be a substantive debate even IF the media weren't absorbed with this particular storyline (since they're even more absorbed with Anna Nicole Smith, American Idol, whatever local sensational shocker can grab ratings, etc.). And, I'm not sure race and gender innoculate them against criticism. As you pointed out, that was one shield used to protect Thomas, but it didn't help Anita Hill any.

Anyway, I appreciate your thoughtful post. :hi:

[Seabiscuit]

105. Two question:

1. You wrote: "when Barack takes the turncoat bum Joe Lieberman as his 'advisor'". What on earth is that about?

2. You said Obama was "DLC". What on earth is that about?

Otherwise - good article.

[arendt]

106. Even Libertarians, like "The Economist" get my point...

The Economist, Feb 24, 2007
(title redacted to avoid a huge digression)
page 41

"Enough already. The primaries are 11 months away and the race is already growing
stale. The citizens of Iowa and New Hampshire are longing for the day when they can
visit Denny's withouyt having to meet Hillary or Rudy. And the press is busy recycling
the same old stories...

"...there is a sever shgortage of attnetion. People will not be able to watch the same old
soap opera, endlessly repeted on 24-hour cable news and pored over in the blogosphere,
for months on end without getting sick of the main ccharacters.

"Which means that there is a huge opportunity for somebody to arrive late and steal the
show. The late entrant will not only have the advantage of being a fresh face. He or she
could change the whole dynamic of the race, gaining enough momentum to storm through
Iowa and New Hampshire."

-----------------

Of course, the Economist avoids my point that this disgusting "soap opera" is keeping the
real issues off the front page. Iraq, Iran, global warming, economic disaster, who cares?
I want my Obamarama. I want my Hillary.

The conservatives used to say in the 1980s when something was so clear that even
the liberals got it , "even the New Republic...". I just want to point out that "even The Economist"
gets what a fraud this whole "fight" is.

arendt

[JackRiddler]

Those who recommended this might be interested in this poll...

Should candidate threads be limited to a single forum?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=284698&mesg_id=284698

Let's start by restoring some semblance of sanity to discourse at DU and sticking all the campaign ads in one, convenient place.

[Cameron27]

118. I think it's probably a good idea.

Things are heating up around here way too early, but then again, I'm still too new to know what happened last time around.

I'd like this all purpose candidate's forum posted in the lobby next to GD, GDP and the other big forums though.

[arendt]

121. Yes. There was a Campaign 2004 forum. Do it again. n/t

[JackRiddler]

107. Those who recommended this might be interested in this poll...

Should candidate threads be limited to a single forum?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=284698&mesg_id=284698

Let's start by restoring some semblance of sanity to discourse at DU and sticking all the campaign ads in one, convenient place.

[Lerkfish]

114. you consider this a candidate ad thread? if so, you've entirely missed the point

if anything, I suppose this could be accurately labeled for the "media" forum.
Its a discussion of how we are led by the nose by the media, and how we allow them to frame our perceptions.

[JackRiddler]

116. No I do not. Quite the opposite.

Perhaps you misread me.

In endorsing arendt's statement, I add that it's time for DU to stop being a platform for the stage act he decries. The candidate threads should be restricted to a single forum, as has been the case during election seasons in the past, so that the other forums are free to discuss what matters.

[Lerkfish]

117. ahhh. thanks. sorry for the misunderstanding.

I thought you were labeling THIS thread that way. Now I gotcha.

[Felinity]

132. Hey there Lerkfish!

edit for meaning



Shout out to your dogged support of arendt's remarks. I've been posting similar sentiments here for weeks. He did a great job of breaking it down.

At this point, being a lemming to the the big, shiny, MSM lemming that is leading us all down the road to a Corporate sponsored cliff by the sea is just plain irresponsible. And, there was a thread recently that discussed the increasing interest and presence of paid political workers on this, and other blogs. Maybe that is one reason why posters fight do doggedly to keep the the topic on the greatest list.

The current "discourse" on the 2008 primaries is a SHINY OBJECT topic at this point, and while we are mesmerized by our silly, distorted image in the scraps of polished metal offered up, we march to the sea. Where we will swim in Fascism.

[Lerkfish]

136. hey there! I seem to be working to allow arendt to make his point

a point which seems clear to me, but which others either intentionally or unintentionally bypass.

I fear this is our biggest problem, as you say, by allowing others to point out shiny objects and us staring at them for hours, while we're being pickpocketed.

Republicans have become too adept at FRAMING. the "clear skies act" allows more pollution. The "Tax relief act" implies tax is a burden rather than an investment in infrastructure.

we can continue to be bounced around their pinball spin machine or we can choose to step out of the machine.

Our survival as a party, a nation, and as a species depends on us being able to do so.

The reality is this: the media picks its favorites. The media trashes its targets. The media likes to target its favorites, because watching them crash and burn is more interesting and profitable. "Deanscream" anyone?

Couple that with limited media ownership in smaller numbers of conservative hands, and it shouldn't be "rocket surgery" to figure out how we're being played.

From the beginning, I"ve stated I was suspicious of the corporate media and the republicans telling us Clinton was our frontrunner, independent of whether she was qualified.

framing. its all framing.

[Capn Sunshine]

133. Very interesting construct

In your writings ,you've apparently "Anita Hilled' anyone who disagrees with your notions regarding the credentials of the candidates, or at the very least accused those who don't buy your worldview as being aligned with the forces of evil.

You're either with us or aginst us, huh?

All you can do is follow your heart. I'm a longtime progressive and realtime activist for the past 40 years- including antiwar. I don't need a lecture from a keyboard kommando on how Barack Obama isn't this or that. I do my homework, and I back candidates with a chance of winning in the general.

To pretend omniscience or believe you're speaking for "all progressives" or "the party regulars" does a disservice to free thinking individuals everywhere and implies that there is some agenda that must be rigidly adhered to.

This isn't the right wing partider republikanerische. . We don't play that.

[KoKo]

159. Shocking that you would reply to Arendt's Post this way..

I remember you as an "In the Trenches Liberal" back in the old days...with b.Pilgrim's site.

I was younger and more innocent in those days though. When did you turn to the DARK SIDE?

:shrug:

[cali]

138. One of the worst pieces I've ever seen here

Extraordinary.

Your little comparison between yourself (and presumably other long suffering noble, righteous, likeminded folks) is historical baloney. First of all, the dems on the Judiciary weren't cowed by charges of racism. They fought that nomination like hell.

Your piece starts on false premises: That "enough" Duers have accepted the media frame. And how many is that? A dozen, two dozen? What a crock. And the suggestion that one will be called sexist for criticizing Hillary is way off. I've done my share of Hillary criticism and I've seen a lot of here, and I've rarely seen anyone here, at kos or in the press accused of sexism for it.

As for Obama, you clearly know jackshit about him, and yet you don't hesitate to call him a "limousine liberal". Disgusting. You can't name a cause or a movement that he's been involved in? That's because your ignorant and too fucking arrogant to find out about him. And it's so easy to inform yourself.

Here's the funny thing, I'm neither a HIllary or Obama supporter, though she's out of the running for me, and he's not, but if it weren't against the rules, there's a few choice names I'd like to call you.

[geek tragedy]

150. Amen. This ignorant poseur has a way of spinning bullshit

to make it sound like they're saying something worth listening to.

[Radical Activist]

145. You may not be racist but your full of crap.

How ironic that you use the conservative media's term "limousine liberal" to denounce Obama. If you had any clue about what he has done with his life you would know how ridiculous it is to call him that. If you can't name a cause in which Obama has played a major role then it is because you are too lazy or uninterested to learn anything truthful about Obama other than the baloney framing from the media.

Do limousine liberals go door to door as a low-paid community organizer in poor black neighborhoods. Do they pass up lucrative private practice to be civil rights attorney's? Get a fucking clue!

That's right YOU are the one repeating bogus framing from the media when you say Obama lacks substance. How many other candidates have recently released a book on their views? I guess the reality that Obama talks at length about his views is less important than the framing found on conservative talk radio and the blogosphere that Obama lacks substance.

Maybe you should learn something truthful about Obama rather than quickly buying into the BS framing in the media and blogs you've been reading. How pathetic that you don't realize you've become victim to the very framing you claim to detest.

But hey, I guess you'll turn your back on any progressive who manages to be successful at getting media coverage and inspiring the public. How incredibly self-destructive. People like you guarantee that a progressive can't be elected President because you'll stab a knife in their back just as soon as they start to reach a mass audience. How disgusting that we have to eat our own. Thanks for nothing!

[cali]

149. You know what's really sad?

Aside from the disgusting OP? How many people thought that this stinking pile of shit was "thoughtful" and noteworthy. Look at the recommends.

The Mods just shut down a slightly less revolting thread in GD about Obama. I wonder when they'll discover this?

[BeyondGeography]

153. Correct...talk about driving off a cliff together

not a proud moment at DU, this thread.

[bettyellen]

152. the OP is so full of disgust with the media and with everyone at DU it blinds them

as to the utterly ignorant, offensive homophobic and racist RW rhetoric they are spewing.
Somehow they believe this making a much bigger contribution than people here talking about basic human rights or cultural perceptions.
hey, it may not be THEIR cup of tea, but at least it's not damaging, and insulting to all of DU.

[Lerkfish]

168. whoa. this post, among others, is completely unwarranted.

This thread raises some valid issues about how things are being framed in the media. Those willing to discuss in that vein have enjoyed a very civil discourse.
I have tried, unsuccessfully on my own, to try to steer people back into the actual discussion.

This post is beneath you, and certainly beneath DU, and certainly seems to have little or no direct connection to the topic at hand.

[cali]

157. LOL

I forgot to comment on your bullshit about how you won't respond to certain posts. Shorter arendt: "I won't respond to anyone who challenges me".

[bettyellen]

163. someone should tell the OP that Anita Hill was both a woman and black.....

:rofl:

[Lerkfish]

170. I"m sure the OP is completely aware of that.

now, do you have anything worthwhile or adult to contribute concerning media framing of our candidates?
I'd be interested in your thoughts on the matter, if you have any.

[cali]

174. I'll tell you what; I'll answer your questions about what I think

about the media circus, if you answer why you think it's legitimate to use right wing frames such as limousine liberal, and state that the DLC is pushing a candidate who's never been remotely involved with the DLC. And btw, much of the OP wasn't about the media, it was mischaracterization of the candidates. And as i mentioned, ourtright falsehoods.

[KoKo]

158. As one who watched ALL the Clarence Thomas hearings conducted by Joe Biden agree with your Analysis!

Your postreally hits home with me as one who was up until 2:00 a.m. in extended Biden hearings over Clarence Thomas. Those of us who watched those hearings from beginning to end can understand the astute connections you've made in your post as to how the Hillary/Obama Front Runner "Super Star Food Fight" could play out and WHAT and WHO is the driving force behind it.

Quote that hits to the gut:


The corporate media has some clever writers for "Clarence 2". They understand how infinitely distractible the Britney Generation is. They understand most people don't have enough historical awareness to debunk even blatant propaganda, much less the sophisticated shadow boxing of Hillary/Barack. Having taken the measure of the viewing public, the kingmakers have decided to stage-manage not merely one corporate-Democrat, wolf-in-sheep's clothing candidate, but two. Because, with two candidates and total control of the corporate media, they can stage a fight between them to the exclusion of any real political analysis. They can carpet-bomb the entire primary process.

Glad to see you back posting Arendt! Your voice always cuts to the heart...and this quote from you:

[The Magistrate]

175. Locking

This begins with several group attacks against forum members who support leading candidates, and from there has degenerated into a flame-war.