Why did we marginalize Kucinich/Edwards and Run an African/American and a Woman?

[crankychatter]

Why did we marginalize Kucinich/Edwards (Peace & Anti-Poverty Dems) and Run an African/American and a Woman.... IF THIS ELECTION IS SO CRITICAL AND RACE AND GENDER ARE SO SENSITIVE?

Does the MSM create Democratic Realities? Who pays THEM for THAT service?

[Skinner]

1. Oh, I don't know...

...perhaps "we" did because we preferred the African American and the woman. :shrug:

[bdamomma]

11. or maybe the "media" preferred an African American and a woman.

[quantass]

13. ,,,because Obama is just AMAZING (color means nothing to me).

Hillary...not so much :puke:

[onenote]

23. gee, if the media didn't tell YOU who to support, and they didn't tell ME,

maybe, just maybe, your theory doesn't hold up. Maybe we're not the only two people who made their own decisions about which candidate connected with us.

[Tesha]

37. They certainly prefer candidates who won't rock the Corporate boat.

Kucinich would have been anathema to the corporations
and the 2008 model Edwards almost as much so.

Now, they've got the election rigged so no matter
which of the three win, the corporations win too.

Tesha

[crankychatter]

53. I did "misspeak" when I said "we" up there, but WE, are complicit

thanks for your imput

[GodlessBiker]

22. Sounds about right to me.

[Inspired]

29. Don't discount the influence of the MSM, Skinner.

You know better than that.

It is easy to dismiss this....especially if you bought into it. I didn't but I am now supporting Obama, and I'm OK with the candidate.

I will always wonder what might have been if equal time, and positive coverage, had been paid to all of our candidates.

[LTR]

33. I thought it was because the voters chose them

Then again, I don't usually subscribe to ridiculous conspiracy theories like that.

[TwilightGardener]

60. Someone really oughta look into that voter thing--sounds like a

shadowy special-interest group.

[jakem]

2. he is too short and elf-like to be president.

yes, it is that shallow.

(and I am his height, so dont flame me!)

[GodlessBiker]

24. Are you elf-like, too?

[jakem]

27. i am a bit more on the hobbit-like end of things...

the hair on the top of my feet is a give away...

[Captain Hilts]

30. We always prefer the taller candidate for president. nt

[Tesha]

39. Unless the candidate's name is George W. Bush. (NT)

[Captain Hilts]

63. In 2000 more of us voted for the taller guy. We're heightists. nt

[Eurobabe]

3. Oh boy.

:popcorn:

Let the flames begin

[goddess40]

4. We didn't but the MSM sure did

The only way we did was the bull crap that people kept saying that Kucinich was unelectable, almost all the dems I talked to would have gladly voted for him.

Edwards was also either their first choice or their second.

[harun]

36. Seems to me like the media doesn't necessarily pick who people

will vote for but they definitely pick who they will NOT vote for. The media vets who they really don't like then pretend it is a democracy to pick from who is left. Same shit different year.

[crankychatter]

50. that's a fact, thanks for noticing

this post was just a musing

people sure are prickly.... I can't blame them though, holy cow this place is scary

[harun]

62. Hehe, yes it is scary (n/t)

[LakeSamish706]

5. Not only did they create the Realities, they tried for how many months to...

bestow the title on Hillary. I guess one can understand a bit why she is upset at the turn of events, cause after all the MSM told her she would win.

[alcibiades_mystery]

6. You'd prefer we run the elf?

There are only so many D&D geeks in the demographic.

[davidpdx]

7. Back when this race was still in its infancy

I was torn between Obama and Edwards. While I have nothing against Kucinich, he didn't interest me that much. In the end I choose Obama. If the race had come down to Clinton vs. Edwards, I probably would have switched to Edwards.

[Captain Hilts]

8. MSM hates DK, ignored JE and hates HRC. nt

[saltpoint]

9. I did it because I'm afraid of Chris Dodd. He has truck with aliens from

a far galaxy who wish to visit destruction and despair upon mankind.

[TheDoorbellRang]

10. Because WE wanted to run the candidates we preferred

would be my best guess.

Wow. Just...wow.

[islandmkl]

12. i thought Obama and HRC got more votes in the primaries....

is there some other way to determine our candidates?

the MSM can push all the b.s. the want about ANY candidate...

it's the voters who push the buttons in the booth...

[Sweet Pea]

14. UFOs and $400 haircuts killed them.

n/t

[Tesha]

41. Just like "Snipers!" and "Wright" will now kill the ones left standing. (NT)

[AllentownJake]

15. To be honest

You should say Richardson, Biden, or Dodd I think all of them match up better against McCrazy...Dennis is great...I love Dennis but he isn't presidential material. Edwards has no more experience than Obama or Clinton. He's charismatic and has a lot of great ideas but he isn't really a heavyweight on issues other than poverty and workers rights.

Of course the true great candidate chose not to be Re-elected President but he's doing good work elsewhere so I can't blame him.

[Freddie Stubbs]

16. American just isn't ready for a Croatian-American or a Southerner

;)

[endarkenment]

17. It was never a matter of race or gender to me.

Obama and Clinton were not my first choices because of their centrist corporate-kleptocracy friendly policies. Had they been respectively white and male that would not have made a difference. I don't know if the MSM chose these two to survive the primaries and end up 1 and 2. I do know that the voters made that choice, pushed there or not.

[democrattotheend]

18. So we should limit eligibility for the nomination to white males?

That does not sound very democratic to me. Yes, it is a risk, but it's a risk worth taking, IMO. It's time our nominee looked like our diverse party!

[Red Zelda]

19. Listen! For once!

No one marginalized Kucinich and Edwards. Kucinich got like 50 votes in all the primaries combined! Nobody except a few fanatics here want him. Edwards, meanwhile, got 4 percent in NEVADA. He is a one-term senator nobody. Hell, I supported him, but FEW PEOPLE DID. Wake up, please.

Obama woos the crowds. Hillary, too. Kucinich couldn't draw flies in a barnyard. Edwards gave up and went home. ENOUGH!

[TechBear_Seattle]

25. I have to agree, though it pains me

The media did ignore Kucinich from the start, but that is largely because he has run for the nomination before and never had a strong showing. Edwards at first received a lot of attention, but when primary season started and he did so poorly, he was dropped from the roster of "likely candidates."

Ultimately, the issue was that neither candidate was charismatic enough to hold national attention.

[Orsino]

20. Drooling celebrity worship might have played a part.

Add a touch of MSM-scripted denigration of progressivism, and you've got yourself a corporatist nominee!

[theboss]

21. Because they suck as candidates

As I repeatedly said, I voted for Edwards in the '04 Primaries. But the man did nothing but run for President for 6 years...and has one primary victory (in the state where he was born) to show for it.

That's only one more victory than I have.

[saltpoint]

26. I don't make a move unless Wolf Blitzer greenlights it.

[splat]

28. So they could destroy each other?

[Connie_Corleone]

31. If you're black or a woman, GET BACK!!

If you want a race with just white men, maybe you should run Kucinich/Edwards in the Republican Party.

[Georgie_92]

32. What a stupid thread.

[Mezzo]

34. *WE* did not marginalize them, the media and big money players did.

Both of them are better candidates, imho, than any of the others left.

John Edwards is right. There are two Americas.

It ain't black or white (but there are racists on both sides)

It's rich or poor. fucking period.

[anonymous171]

35. Whoever the candidate is, I hope they dismantle the Corporate Media.

[Tesha]

43. None of the three "chosen ones" have *ANY* Plans to do anything of the sort.

And that's part of why they were "chosen".

Tesha

[BklynChick]

38. Obama and Clinton much better candidates. Put it in perspective.

[crankychatter]

45. I live where cable won't carry MSNBC, CSPAN or even Comedy Central

YOU, have a good point... this post was a wee hour musing intended to sink... who keeps bumping it?

CNN and off prime-time PBS is all a lot of people where I live ever see

People that assert there is no editorial complicity of the corporate media with pushing candidates that are less threatening to the status quo, calling this post "paranoid," are in denial.

And anyone that can't see that in the middle of America, alternatives to traditional candidates are a risk, at a time when Bush is threatening WW3 and Insane McCain may take the Helm of State...

Well, they're not looking either

The Democratic Candidate selection process hasn't come up with a firm winner in a long time

I think Obama may be the one that finally gives us a decisive victory, MHO

Watch the polls change when he gets the nomination... if he gets enough time to campaign

[Occam Bandage]

40. ...because we thought the African-American and the woman were the better candidates?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

42. Knew it when you arrived...gave chance...

*plonk*

[crankychatter]

46. wtf are YOU talkin about?

all the race-gender shit pot stirring on this freeper infested site, makes me sick at heart

you haven't read anything or you're a one liner person

either way your spidey sense is picking up signals from the mother ship

never seen so much disinfo and obfuscation in my life on one site though... spin central

I forgive you, Sherlock, but only because you're shell-shocked

[depakid]

44. The corporate media marginalized Edwards and his message, yet even so

one has to admit that he wasn't the best messenger.

American politics is incredibly shallow- partly due to the dumbing down of the population, a large plurality of whom (on both sides) view "the contest" more like American Idol than they do a competition of substantive ideas and policies.

The bottom line is that most Americans are ripe for the plucking. The corporate media knows that- and acts accordingly.

[crankychatter]

48. I couldn't find another Edwards supporter in Wash.State in 04

So I was a Kucinich delegate...

Southerners win general elections... I just wanted us to win... but Seattle wasn't having it

I had a hard time forgiving his war vote back then... but I decided this time he was sincere, and having spent half a year helping on the gulf coast... his message began to resonate with me personally

[wowimthere]

47. First off...Edwards had his day in the sun in 2004. He also backed the IWR

As for Kucinich, I like him but there is no real rationale for why he didn't catch on. Feingold summed Edwards up best though. Opportunist and inconsistent. You can't say you will fight for people then send them into war. You can't say you will fight against poverty then vote for a bankruptcy bill that saddles poor people who can't pay their medical bills with more debt.

[wowimthere]

49. And tell me WHY is the RACE and GENDER of the candidate SO important?

I would hope that people aren't voting for these candidates solely on race and gender. That I can remember, Obama didn't vote for a war at all. He spoke up against it when it wasn't popular.

[wowimthere]

51. How could Edwards be peace and anti-poverty if he...

voted for the IWR and he voted for that horrendous bankruptcy bill? Obama didn't vote for the war. He didn't vote for the bankruptcy bill either. He voted against the first bankruptcy bill that didn't pass but Edwards and Clinton both voted for that bill. How can you claim Edwards was pro peace and anti-poverty. Don't get me wrong I'd rather have both of them as alternatives if Obama weren't running but please get your story straight. Obama is not just a black candidate. He voted and acted his conscience. No dumb war. No dumb bankruptcy bill. Kucinich to his credit actually read the IWR. So if there are any candidates that are pro-peace/anti-poverty candidates, they would be Obama and Kucinich.

[crankychatter]

52. I visualize Dennis at a Teamster Meeting with a Baseball Bat

I don't get how ya'all categorize him as "wimpy" by virtue of his diminutive physical stature

so ya'all were lookin for a Western Hero, eh?

or you think that's what America wants?

I give you Obama, and thus I refute you

I guess the perception I get of Kucinich comes from decades of laboring with REAL people, from cotton fields to aerospace manufacturers, struggling for a living wage

We know who the real warriors are, and they don't all look like Sylvester Stallone

[woolldog]

54. I don't know

if Kucinic had won Iowa maybe he would've had a chance. But he didn't.

Are you suggesting the people of Iowa choose their candidate based on who the MSM favored? I don't find that likely especially given how much time each of the candidates spent there in person and how they all saturated the state. Maybe the black and the woman were simply the best candidates? Shocking idea, I know.

[woolldog]

55. I don't know

if Kucinic had won Iowa maybe he would've had a chance. But he didn't.

Are you suggesting the people of Iowa choose their candidate based on who the MSM favored? I don't find that likely especially given how much time each of the candidates spent there in person and how they all saturated the state. Maybe the black and the woman were simply the best candidates? Shocking idea, I know.

[Seabiscuit]

56. Because a "historical" clash between a black man and a white woman gave Tweety

a boner.

[Beaverhausen]

57. It's all about ratings and advertising dollars

follow the money.

[PoliticalAmazon]

58. "We" didn't marginalized them. The MSM did....

MSM has an incredible amount of control over who becomes president. Americans get political information, especially about elections, almost completely from what they see on TV.

For an interesting read: "The Irony of Democracy." It's an incredible book, and will change how you look at American politics.

[cerebellum]

59. Kucinich and Edwards were favorites here. We did not marginalize them

DU was pro-Kucinich, then pro-Edwards, before turning pro-Obama.
I think we have been consistent.

[bunnies]

61. I guess we should have just stuck with the white men.

Oh how progressive.

[dansolo]

64. Because they were lousy candidates

I'm sorry, but I don't like either one of them. Kucinich is a little too authoritarian for my tastes, and he is completely unelectable. And as for John Edwards, don't get me started. I am astounded that any Kucinich supporter would be willing to disregard the fact that Edwards co-sponsored the IWR, and voted for it, even though he was on the Intelligence Committee. His record in the Senate was very conservative, and suddenly he runs for president, and now he is a populist. I think that both of these men have been pandering to the left. Kucinich is a little more believable, but I find his history of being anti-abortion and supporting of a flag-burning amendment are deal breakers for me. If I were to support a true liberal for president, then he/she must have been a liberal for their entire career, not just when they started to run for president.

[roseBudd]

65. We didn't people voted for Obama & Clinton in the primaries

[Redstone]

66. So that conspiracy-obsessed nutbars could ask questions like this, maybe?

Redstone

[LWolf]

67. Because

Peace and anti-poverty are "nice," but they aren't core Democratic values.

Nothing is a core Democratic value at this point except for electing the gender or race of your choice.

The fact that they are both centrist/corporatist/3rd way/"new" democrats is beside the point.

Democratic voters like to talk about peace, about social and economic justice, but they don't vote the talk.