Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Hillary and Obama - it's blindingly obvious

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
info being Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-02-07 01:34 PM
Original message
Hillary and Obama - it's blindingly obvious
Is it not completely obvious to anyone why the US Corporate Media have pushed Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama as the two front-runners among the Democratic Presidential Candidates? Think for a second. On one hand you have a woman, on the other hand you have a black man with an arab name. Hmm...do we really think Americans are ready to elect either?

Corporate media, not just in the US but worldwide, is concerned solely with business interests. This is not only because they are corporations themselves, but because all of their customers (advertisers) are corporations. Right-wing governments are bought and owned by the corporate elite. The corporate media is biased, almost without exception, to pro-business, right-wing politicians.

Where did Barack Obama come from? Why does he, as a Junior Senator, have more "mainstream credibility" than Dennis Kucinich? Because the media says he does. The media will only back candidates who are either sure to lose to a more favorable candidate or who are not too dangerous to their interests should they manage to win. Both Clinton and Obama fit both of these criteria, so their status as front-runners is granted by the mainstream media.

What happens if Democratic Primary voters choose someone who isn't approved by the Corporate Media? One needs only to look as far as Howard Dean. In 2004, Howard Dean had the grassroots support of Democrats nationwide -- to the extent that most of his fund-raising was comprised of donations from average American voters. He became so confident that he even began talking about regulating media monopolies. What happened to Howard Dean? He screamed a bit awkwardly at one of his rallies. What followed was a 24/7 media frenzy analyzing The Scream; which was, in essence, meant solely as a demonstration, by the corporate media, of who's in charge. The issue was absurd: What was that scream all about? Geez, he really screamed. Yet that image, coupled with enough supporting propagandistic talking-points, was enough to bring him down. It was a clear message to the Democratic Party: fuck with us (the corporate media) and you're toast.

So, once again, the media has chosen its front-runners...most likely to lose in a general election yet completely safe if they win. What happens if, somehow, Democratic Primary voters choose someone more pure to their ideals...say, Dennis Kucinich or Bill Richardson? The media will find a way to completely destroy him...if not before the Primaries then after. They'll get him on drug use, womanizing, being a Socialist, a tree-hugger...it doesn't matter...they'll get him for what they will call a non-mainstream position, value, or history.

To counteract the Corporate Media, in any country, requires such a massive shift in public opinion that even the propaganda can't get the job done. This requires a highly-educated population that is influenced more by authentic personal relationships than by manipulative corporate relationships. In other words, present-day America has no chance of electing a great President...one who does the right thing regardless of the worst kinds of manipulation and threats from the powerful elite...the oil companies, insurance companies, military-industrial complex, WTO, etc., etc.

By the way, there is only one Democratic candidate who will do the right thing as President. Others might do the right thing occasionally, if under scrutiny and if given no other choice...but only one candidate is capable of transforming America into the country it needs to be. Not only are his positions correct, but his voting record in the House is flawless.

He's Dennis Kucinich.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
hippiechick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-02-07 01:40 PM
Response to Original message
1. Thank you for this. It's spot on.
:patriot:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Richard Steele Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-02-07 01:41 PM
Response to Original message
2. Recommended. And....
...may I also recommend one of these:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-02-07 01:55 PM
Response to Reply #2
7. Nice! Can I get one of those?
What with all of the corporate shills constantly muddying the waters and declaring preemptive failure of ideas never tried, these should be standard issue for anyone that wants to actually save our nation from the inevitable fate we are rushing toward.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jaysunb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-02-07 01:41 PM
Response to Original message
3. Would Gore also fall into this catagory ?
An unelectable , that is....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
info being Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-02-07 01:42 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. No I think Gore is the best candidate who can win...slam-dunk
Edited on Wed May-02-07 01:47 PM by info being
The only one. He's not in yet because he doesn't want to play this media game...I think his strategy is spot-on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enrique Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-02-07 01:43 PM
Response to Original message
5. you've fallen for their Kucinich scam
Kucinich is a corporate media stooge. The only real candidate is Mike Gravel. :sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-02-07 01:50 PM
Response to Original message
6. Off to the greatest with this one. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-02-07 02:01 PM
Response to Original message
8. Thank you for your concern.
Pushing a non-starter is just as viable as a vote for Nader.

And you began with really rotten aspersions against the American people. How nice of you.

Kucinich deserves better than this crap. He's got the courage to take the hits that come from defining the outer edge. He knows someone has to do it in order to steer the argument. He's a brave and decent man. Exalting him by trashing the more viable contenders is utterly unworthy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
info being Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-02-07 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. Maybe you can articulate where I'm wrong...
...about the American people and the media. I think my criticism of Barack and Hillary are accurate...both have a very impure record and getting them to vote the right way is difficult. They are both politically expedient...in other words, willing to play ball with the corporate powers that be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Telly Savalas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-02-07 10:41 PM
Response to Reply #10
39. In the first paragraph you indicate that black people and women have no business
running for president.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
info being Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-03-07 09:11 AM
Response to Reply #39
44. I'm just trying to be dogmatic
Is the purpose of selecting a President to break down racial / ethnic barriers or to run a country?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
never cry wolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-03-07 01:10 PM
Response to Reply #10
54. Here, Obama doesn't seem so impure or difficult to get to vote the right way
Senator... ...is more liberal than __% of the Senate on these issues: Composite
Score
Name
Economic Social Foreign Liberal

Durbin, Richard, D-Ill. 87 95 95 95.2
Boxer, Barbara, D-Calif. 87 92 98 95
Kennedy, Edward, D-Mass. 87 88 98 93.7
Leahy, Patrick, D-Vt. 83 96 94 92.5
Harkin, Tom, D-Iowa 83 96 92 92
Reed, Jack, D-R.I. 87 89 88 91.3
Sarbanes, Paul, D-Md. * 87 93 79 89.7
Murray, Patty, D-Wash. 87 96 76 89.3
Mikulski, Barbara, D-Md. 87 80 88 88.8
Obama, Barack, D-Ill. 87 77 85 86

http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/sen/lib.htm

Kucinich, Dennis, D-Ohio-10 74 96 88 87

Also, please see the below article:

All that said, though, I can't imagine why we're talking about this stuff when we haven't even had the 2006 elections yet. There are a number of people I could imagine getting behind, and I'll decide which of them to go for when the election is closer, and the question a bit less hypothetical. But I do want to add one little data point while people are talking about him, because it's something I haven't seen people say. And it's this: a lot of people are going on about how Obama has not sponsored legislation on any of the Vital Issues Of The Day. Personally, I think that he'd have to be delusional to introduce, say, his own solution to the health insurance crisis: no bill on such a topic introduced by a freshman senator from the minority party would have a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding, and the only reason to introduce one would be to grandstand. For that reason, I think that his failure to do so tends to speak well of him.

(Besides, consider how many Senators must have been watching for any hint of self-importance when Obama arrived in the Senate, given the press he had coming in; how many of them would have had to have been waiting for any sign that he was thinking: here am I, the wondrous Barack Obama, ready to set the Senate straight! The fact that he seems to have disarmed most of them is, I think, an achievement in its own right; it would have been impossible had he introduced his own comprehensive anti-poverty program, or something.)

But I do follow legislation, at least on some issues, and I have been surprised by how often Senator Obama turns up, sponsoring or co-sponsoring really good legislation on some topic that isn't wildly sexy, but does matter. His bills tend to have the following features: they are good and thoughtful bills that try to solve real problems; they are in general not terribly flashy; and they tend to focus on achieving solutions acceptable to all concerned, not by compromising on principle, but by genuinely trying to craft a solution that everyone can get behind.

His legislation is often proposed with Republican co-sponsorship, which brings me to another point: he is bipartisan in a good way. According to me, bad bipartisanship is the kind practiced by Joe Lieberman. Bad bipartisans are so eager to establish credentials for moderation and reasonableness that they go out of their way to criticize their (supposed) ideological allies and praise their (supposed) opponents. They also compromise on principle, and when their opponents don't reciprocate, they compromise some more, until over time their positions become indistinguishable from those on the other side.


http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2006/10/b...

http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/house/lib.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mtnsnake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-02-07 02:17 PM
Response to Reply #8
14. I couldn't agree more with you.
Dennis does deserve better. He doesn't need to be built up at the expense of diminishing what Obama and Hillary have accomplished. They didn't get any breaks because of being black or being a woman. If anything, they accomplished much of what they did in spite of it.

I'm a huge fan of Kucinich as well, and I do agree with the OPer in his last paragraph, the one about DK.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Richard D Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-02-07 02:02 PM
Response to Original message
9. Spot on
I'd love to see a Gore Kucinich ticket. In either direction.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
info being Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-02-07 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. That would go down as the best Presidental ticket ever
Edited on Wed May-02-07 02:08 PM by info being
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FiveGoodMen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-02-07 02:07 PM
Response to Original message
12. I agree.
You've put it very well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polichick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-02-07 02:09 PM
Response to Original message
13. It's scary, the power the media has...
...to paint a picture that the public thinks is reality.

For me there's hope in the fact that online information sources and grassroots donations are beginning to make a difference.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Scriptor Ignotus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-02-07 02:19 PM
Response to Original message
15. good point
let's never nominate a black man or a woman ever again.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
info being Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-02-07 03:12 PM
Response to Reply #15
24. Good point
The gaping hole in my argument is that...how could people be bright enough to elect a pure progressive if they aren't capable of looking past race and gender.

Media or not, you can't sneak around the fact that the electorate ought to be a bit sharper.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BluegrassDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-02-07 02:19 PM
Response to Original message
16. You're a fucking lunatic if you think Dennis can win the presidency
I'm sorry, but I just have to tell to it like it is. All this idealism and fantasy talk is nothing but hot air. I have a better chance of winning the presidency than Kucinich. He probably wouldn't carry a single state.

And what is this crap about the "corporate media?" Maybe the media talks about Barack and Hillary cause they are leading in the polls! The idea that the media is controlling our brains and telling us who to vote for is very condescending. I think we have our own minds and have valid reasons for voting for Hillary or Obama.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Arugula Latte Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-02-07 03:00 PM
Response to Reply #16
19. I agree that placing any amount of energy into Dennis is a waste of time.
He has no chance. Zero.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
info being Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-02-07 03:16 PM
Response to Reply #19
27. I agree too...media wins
It is unfortunate, but we don't deserve Dennis if we can't be as intelligent as....say...the Venezuelans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Colobo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-02-07 03:21 PM
Response to Reply #27
30. Not only you're pushing Kucinich
but you are also a Chavez fan. I bet you think Fidel is awesome, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FiveGoodMen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-02-07 03:55 PM
Response to Reply #30
35. Hey there, Strawman!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-02-07 05:13 PM
Response to Reply #19
36. Nonsense!
ALL my energy, money, and time is going to support Kucinich. I don't think he will win the Primary, but I will back him as far as I can because I want his voice (and mine) to be heard for as long as possible.

EVERY time Dennis is at a public podium speaking the TRUTH is a payoff for the energy I invest. Edwards is even beginning to adopt some of Kucinich's positions because they have such popular support. If there is no one speaking for Working Americans in the Democratic campaigns, Big Business gets an easy WIN/WIN.

If enough people think like me, we might actually change things. Supporting the status quo candidates because its easy or popular NEVER changes anything.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
progressoid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-02-07 02:22 PM
Response to Original message
17. Uh....OK....
Are the Masons involved in this too?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kerry-is-my-prez Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-02-07 02:29 PM
Response to Original message
18. That's why they knock off all of the good people off early or ignore them.
Clark, Dean, etc., etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rinsd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-02-07 03:03 PM
Response to Original message
20. Why the need to attack Clinton and Obama to prop up Kucinich?
Is Kucinich is as great as you feel he is can't his merits stand alone?

Or is this your own play a media manipulation where you attack popular candidates to gain attanetion for yours?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
info being Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-02-07 03:14 PM
Response to Reply #20
26. I'm simply comparing and contrasting
Is it not ok to politely point out what is wrong with one candidate as a justification for why one might support another?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NYCGirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-02-07 03:18 PM
Response to Reply #26
28. Allow me to point out that if Kucinich could win a Senate seat, it might be
a more apt comparison. He's shown no ability to yet get elected out of his district.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlameCanada12 Donating Member (56 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-02-07 03:04 PM
Response to Original message
21. It's so friggin obvious - I can't understand people.

The MSM is full of shit 100% of the time - that is until they start to trumpet Clinton or Obama, then they're credible.

'Can't see the forest for the trees'...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-02-07 03:08 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. Sometimes the media utilizes reverse spychology......
meaning they push some knowing that we will push back (in particular this early on).......

And so maybe the person that they want is not the ones they are currently pushing.

I remember Howard Dean being the Inevitable one chosen by the media for much of the primaries back in 2003.....and yet, at the end of the day, they buried him at the exact moment they chose to.

The media is fickle and manipulative, but they are not stupid. If it is that obvious, than it may not be what it looks like.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
info being Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-02-07 03:09 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. Good point
really
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jillan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-02-07 03:13 PM
Response to Original message
25. Did they do this in 2004?
I wasn't paying as close attention as I am now.
And besides, I picked Kerry from day 1.

Chris Matthews is the worst. ALL HE TALKS ABOUT IS HILLARY!
That's great if he supports her, but there are SEVEN other candidates.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KurtNYC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-03-07 12:57 PM
Response to Reply #25
53. The MSM is very personality driven
Edited on Thu May-03-07 01:07 PM by KurtNYC
they think it makes a huge difference who reads the propaganda. Look how much effort they put into rehabilitating Don Imus -- I think it shows how much they wanted to protect their investment in him. God knows it is not like they won't be able to find another scruffy racist a-hole but they won't be able to find one with a name that that audience recognizes.

That kind of thinking extends to their politics. They love the strong name ID and strong personalities. They are salivating over Giuliani's candidacy because he has huge name ID and they have years worth of cross dressing, ferret bashing, poop art criticising, etc. and he just keeps on saying insane stuff. His ex-wife, his son -- it is the whole package. It is like having Ozzy Osbourne run. Rudy is like the Jerry Springer show meets "The Osbournes." It is like getting a first run TV show that already has a bunch of TV episodes that most Americans haven't seen.

And how many times has GE run Pat Buchanon for President ? What other chronic Pres candidate has an ongoing TV career?? Personality is what they understand and it is what they push.

As for 2004, according to Counterpunch, a mostly Gephardt and Kerry-supporting group was formed and called "Americans for Jobs" and they swiftboated Dean (mostly because he was the guy to beat):
http://www.counterpunch.org/lewis03062004.html

Dean was running from the outside and the more mainstream candidates mostly closed their eyes and wished he wasn't kicking so much butt. Then Kerry won Iowa and the MSM did their character (eg: personality) assassination on Dean with the "scream" tape just to make sure the coffin was nailed shut.

IMHO Kerry was total wrong for television. If Kerry had run in 1936, he would have done whistle stops on the Atchison Topeka line and done well -- but the guy couldn't deliver a modern sound bite (or a simple joke) to save his life. And his team failed to understand how to control his image in the attack-dog world of RW MSM media.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-02-07 03:19 PM
Response to Original message
29. Obama was against the Iraq War from the get-go.
Don't diss him because his shot at the top job is so far a screaming success.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mtnsnake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-03-07 10:59 AM
Response to Reply #29
52. That's true, AK, though I think DK is the only 1 who can truly claim to be the anti-war candidate
Don't get me wrong. For the time being, I'm still high on Obama. He has little to apologize for when it comes to being opposed to the war from the start. The only thing that bugs me a little is what Kucinich pointed out in the debates last week how none of the other candidates can truly be anti-war purists if they still continue to finance it. Even Obama has voted aye for the funding bills. Dennis has not voted in any way, shape, or form, to enable this war at all. If it were up to him, he'd cut off funding for it period, and stop the madness.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
info being Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-02-07 03:21 PM
Response to Original message
31. Should be interesting how he votes to fund the war
Cuz a vote for more money is a re-vote for the war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nolabels Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-02-07 03:25 PM
Response to Original message
32. We need to get rid of the idea of a president
parliamentary representation works better

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speaker_of_the_House
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lonestarnot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-03-07 08:41 AM
Response to Reply #32
43. We already have.
Edited on Thu May-03-07 08:42 AM by lonestarnot
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nolabels Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-03-07 09:22 AM
Response to Reply #43
45. Forgive me for the Homer


The Simpsons Are More Popular Than the Bill of Rights

A new survey conducted by the McCormick Tribune Freedom Museum finds that only 28 percent of Americans are able to name more than one of the five fundamental freedoms granted to them by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, while 52 percent could name at least two members of "The Simpsons" cartoon family.

It's perhaps a sign that the subject of civics in schools is getting pushed aside for other subjects like advanced math, chemistry, biology, that people also forget completely about.

And while 22 percent of Americans can name all five of the fictional Simpsons family members, Homer, Marge, Bart, Lisa and Maggie, just 1/10th of 1 percent were able to name all five freedoms granted under the First Amendment.
http://www.politicaldogs.org/2006/03/simpsons-are-more-...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Recursion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-02-07 03:40 PM
Response to Original message
33. See, this is what bugs me about Kucinich fans
"He's right, he's 100% right about everything and it is impossible for someone to disagree with him on something unless he or she is a shill of the Corporate Media." (To paraphrase)

It's like watching that horrible movie Billy Jack.

The media and large corporations (and especially large media corporations) are influential -- too influential -- but saying they have "bought and paid for" the government just isn't true. Have you forgotten November already?

I'd have a hard time voting for Kucinich because of his stated desire to ban civilian handgun ownership. I also don't particularly like his bearing or demeanor, both of which are very important in a President. I don't think he would be a very effective President because he strikes me as similar to his supporters -- 100%, all or nothing, he's right and everybody else is wrong -- and I don't want to vote for someone who is ineffective.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
illinoisprogressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-02-07 03:47 PM
Response to Original message
34. Isn't he kind of strange???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MethuenProgressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-02-07 10:39 PM
Response to Original message
37. Vote Dennis cuz "Americans won't vote for a woman or an arab-named black"???
Edited on Wed May-02-07 10:40 PM by MethuenProgressive
On one hand you have a woman, on the other hand you have a black man with an arab name. Hmm...do we really think Americans are ready to elect either?


All that was missing from the OP were the words "upitty" and "pushy broad"...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ecstatic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-02-07 10:41 PM
Response to Original message
38. The problem is, we aren't getting the word out on their top 2- Giuliani and McCain
We spend so much time bashing our own, and there is currently no dirt that mainstream America can point to regarding the two repug frontrunners. I just don't understand why we aren't plugging away at this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cosmicdot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-03-07 12:55 AM
Response to Original message
40. corporate money: who's giving? who's getting?
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08 /

lobbyists
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?cycle=2008

seurities & investments
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=F07

commercial banks
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=F03


sarcasm: I buy what is sold on TV and advertised in the corporate media.
If I can trust them about Bu$h, I can trust them on anything. /sarcasm

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arendt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-03-07 07:38 AM
Response to Original message
41. Did you read my thread "I will not be 'Anita Hill-ed' about Hillary and Barack" ?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

You have expressed my views in much less inflammatory language. I hope it gets as
much play as my thread.

k&r

arendt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenPartyVoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-03-07 07:50 AM
Response to Original message
42. Yep
You got it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ripple Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-03-07 09:27 AM
Response to Original message
46. If you refuse to support a candidate based on their popularity in the media,
you are doing exactly what you claim to oppose. You are allowing the media to choose your candidate by default.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Seabiscuit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-03-07 09:44 AM
Response to Original message
47. Good points - just another reason why I support John Edwards. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
garybeck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-03-07 10:31 AM
Response to Original message
48. I really hate the corporate media. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beam Me Up Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-03-07 10:32 AM
Response to Original message
49. Spot on but this goes deeper than just the media.
After all, the media corporations are owned by people -- and those people own interests in what else? It is a SYSTEM and it is a system established and maintained to benefit the few at the cost of the many.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
info being Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-03-07 01:26 PM
Response to Reply #49
56. I would say "elite" not "people"
I agree...we're talking about the who's who in terms of the masters behind the systems...those who oversee the banking system, etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BREMPRO Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-03-07 10:32 AM
Response to Original message
50. Kucinich has an image problem, lets Draft Wesley Clark!
I agree with most of Kucinich's policy positions,and admire his willingness to step out of party line, but he comes off as a door to door vacuum cleaner salesman, and what up with the very young tall hot redhead wife? I saw him speak in person last year at a rally for a local candidate and he came off as plastic, phony and self-serving and a little weird. In the middle of a speech, he even forgot the candidates name he came to endorse and had to look at the banner behind him to remember who it was. His speech was preachy, and didn't connect at all with the audience. He's a maverick but not smart enough or charismatic enough to pull off the stature of leadership needed to sell his vision to win the nomination. He doesn't seem to work well with his colleagues either, didn't even consult with them about the Cheney impeachment-kinda important. He doesn't have a prayer to win the general election, but i'll support him being in the race and keeping the others honest.

The media follows the money (think advertising)and Clinton and Obama have it. So i disagree that its just the corporate media that has anointed these two. I'm not too enamored with either candidate, but there's no-one else in the race that i'm excited about either. Gravel speaks the truth, but his demeanor is too angry. Richardson looks good on paper, but i didn't like his pure racial support of Gonzales.

I think Wesley Clark with his experience, intelligence,credentials, progressive policy positions, military experience, and presidential demeanor makes the most sense to me as a candidate, and would be appealing to moderates too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bonito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-03-07 10:55 AM
Response to Original message
51. I agree, tks. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EnviroBat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-03-07 01:24 PM
Response to Original message
55. The saddest realization of these truths is this:
The blithering sheep of this country are more concerned with what happens on fucking American Idol, (the name says it all by the way), then with the reality that's happening outside their doors everyday. We are where we are today because of a failed education system married with constant bombardment of media drivel resulting in a nation of mouth-breathers who couldn't articulate an intelligent opinion if it were handed to them in an iPod. Face it, we are becoming a nation of morons, easily controlled by corporate fascist media, and the shit they sell us every day. I weep for the future...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LibDemAlways Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-03-07 01:51 PM
Response to Original message
57. To answer your question about the electability of
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, I don't think either one is electable. Neither is Dennis.

I think the most electable candidate currently in the race is Edwards. The most electable candidate of all, if he chooses to run, is Gore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LoZoccolo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-03-07 01:52 PM
Response to Original message
58. "choose someone more pure to their ideals"
Edited on Thu May-03-07 01:53 PM by LoZoccolo
And how did you determine that Kucinich or Richardson are candidates like that?

As I recall, Kucinich got something like 3% of the primary vote last time.

I think the people who vote in the primaries know what their ideals are and which candidates are more pure to them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MGD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-03-07 01:52 PM
Response to Original message
59.  US elections nearly always involve choosing between the lesser of two evils.
With that in mind, don't count anybody out. Also with that in mind, John Edwards is probably our most electable candidate. DK doesn't have much of a chance IMO. It's one thing to call for Dick's impeachment. It would be altogether another thing to make it happen however. If he can actually make it happen, I and a lot of other people will be considering him a lot more seriously.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Connonym Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-03-07 02:05 PM
Response to Original message
60. Check out the book Spanking the Donkey by Matt Taibbi
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrightKnight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-03-07 02:18 PM
Response to Original message
61. Bullshit! - Senator Clinton, Senator Obama,
and Senator Edwards are all actually trying to WIN the election. Both Senators Obama and Clinton have worked very hard to reach as wide an audience as possible throughout their careers. Congressman Kucinich is just in the race to influence the debate. There is nothing wrong with that but to characterize it as a vast media conspiracy is wrong.

Congressman Kucinich is a good man and he sends a pure message that appeals to a lot of the base. He does not make the effort to speak to a wider audience.

The MSM can be very biased but in this case you have missed the mark.

Referring to Senator Clinton as Hillary was Limbaugh like cheap shot.

I suspect that Congressman Kucinich would find a much of your post offensive. If you don't believe me send it to him and let us know how he responds.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
info being Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-08-07 11:59 AM
Response to Reply #61
62. So everything just works pretty much as it should, huh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Oct 17th 2019, 03:07 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC