A reminder for 2012

[Lydia Leftcoast]

It's too late for this election. No matter who gets the nomination, a lot of Democrats are going to be angry. We have two candidates who arouse strong negative feelings among both Democrats and Independents.

What I'm hearing these days is, "I don't like either one of them, but I'll vote against McCain." Where have we seen that scenario before?

And it's your own fault.

You fell for the media's game.

As early as 2006, the mass media were treating Hillary Clinton's nomination as inevitable. Then Barack Obama came along. Well, this made the contest exciting for the media moguls. A woman versus a black man. Woo-hoo! The pundits could have a field day, encouraging the prejudices that a lot of Americans still hold towards both groups.

I knew the fix was in while listening to the NPR coverage of the New Hampshire primary results. Recall that Edwards came in second in Iowa, doing slightly better than Hillary Clinton. So I sat through the rundown of the Republican candidates, where each candidate's percentage was dutifully listed, winners and losers alike. Then the announcers went to the Democratic race, and suddenly, it was as if Clinton and Obama were the only two people in the race. But there was nothing new about that. Those two were the candidates who got the big write-ups in Time and Newsweek. I ran into lots of people who didn't even know that anyone else was running. In the debates, the media-anointed candidates got most of the face time and most of the questions.

Their shills on DU defended this pattern by saying that only Clinton and Obama were "viable." As defined by whom, since these assertions began before Iowa? As defined by media attention and money raised--in other words, as defined by who was least likely to rock the corporate boat. From the point of view of the Bigwigs, there was the added entertainment of watching Democrats play identity politics. "You're a sexist if you don't vote for Clinton." "You're a racist if you don't vote for Obama."

The non-Clinton, non-Obama candidates were gone before Super Tuesday. When Kucinich dropped out, I switched to Edwards, but he dropped out just before Super Tuesday.

So here's the lesson for 2012: Next time out, seek out information on the candidates who are NOT getting any publicity. Make a deliberate effort to learn about their positions. Pressure the media to cover them. (That's how the Minnesota Kucinich campaign worked in 2004, giving DK his largest percentage anywhere.) Tell your friends about them.

In the meantime, check out some of the wise and cynical films that the British have made about politics. Sure, the system is different, but the manipulation and corruption are the same. I suggest "A Very British Coup," the "House of Cards" trilogy, and the comedy series "Yes, Minister" and "Yes, Prime Minister."

[electropop]

1. I remember the lady on NPR saying Edwards' campaign was "good as over"

after he had just finished AHEAD of Clinton! How freaking transparent can they get?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

2. They are so transparent, and yes, too many people just sit there and

let the media pour garbage into their brains.

Look on any blog. The comments the bloggers receive are as likely as not to echo exactly catch phrases being bandied about by media pundits.

[AllentownJake]

4. This was a two person race

If Edwards had won Iowa it would be Edwards V Clinton right now.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

8. Edwards came in ahead of Clinton in Iowa, which temporarily spoiled the

scenario.

The fact remains that the media treated this as a two-person race before a single vote had been cast. I was talking about that in the fall of 2007.

[AllentownJake]

15. It stinks

but that's the way it was. Hillary had won the Pre-Primary Primary and therefore was given a pass no matter what.

[cali]

20. baloney.

Edwards got a substantial amount of coverage pre-Iowa, and in Iowa MSM coverage is less determinative than in other states. And for the love of reason, Edwards "won" over Clinton by less than 1%- which they rounded off to 1%. That's essentially a tie. Obama won over Edwards by 8%.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States)_presidential_primaries,_2008

[Lydia Leftcoast]

21. So essentially, Clinton and Edwards tied

So why was Clinton "viable" and Edwards not, when they tied?

[AllentownJake]

22. Clinton

Won the Pre-Primary nonsense coverage. The media was looking for who her opponent would be. Media isn't complex enough to cover a 3 person race.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

27. I suspect that your analysis is correct

They wanted a race that they could portray in capital letters and in crayon.

[AllentownJake]

29. Yep

If it is two complicated for the dry erase board they can't cover it.

[cali]

35. because Hillary had huge resources- over a hundred SD endorsements

scads of dough. Edwards didn't. Simple as that. He needed to win in Iowa to have a chance. He knew that.

[DJ13]

3. So let me guess

You're a bitter Edwards voter who cant get over the fact he quit, so in your mind that equates to no one else can win in the GE?

Does that about cover it?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

7. No, Edwards was my second choice

I'm just deeply suspicious of anyone who is so highly touted by the corporate media.

[DJ13]

23. I'm just deeply suspicious of anyone who is so highly touted by the corporate media.

Every candidate who is one of two left running will end up at some point being touted by the corporate media.

Edwards would have had his share of being touted had his campaign caught on more in the first few caucuses and primaries.

I think what you need to focus on isnt who the corporate media are touting, but who they are most attacking to see where their support really lies.

The other candidate, the one who escapes most criticism is the one they most want to see win.

At this stage that would be McCain, followed closely by Clinton, as they really havent been touting Obama in the last 8 weeks.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

24. I'm talking about pre-Iowa coverage

Clinton and Obama nearly monopolized the pre-Iowa coverage.

[Texas Hill Country]

5. a further reminder... 12/21/12 the world is to end according to the Mayan Calendar

http://www.december212012.com/

[Butch350]

6. OMG !! Brilliant !!

What a novel idea. Now I can stop choosing my candidates by, "she loves me - she loves me not"!

[Andy823]

9. You are right, the fix was in.

And it was put in place by the party as well as the media. I strongly feel that the party wanted it to be a race between a woman and a black man from day one. They wanted a "history" making primary to go along with a history making nominee. I don't really think they knew that things would get as messy as they are today! The other candidates were put out early to allow Obama and Clinton to dominate the media. Sadly the "issues" suffered when it became a two person race. Edwards stayed in as long as he could in order to keep the "real" issues front and center, but I think he was pretty much forced out in order to make way for "history"!

I just hope that the "history" that is made is not the destruction of the democratic party when things are finally settled, and that we have not cut our own throats once again, and lose to McCain in November!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

13. Leave it to the Democrats to play identity politics when our country

is in the worst crisis it's been in since the Depression. Their geniuses thought it would be cool to gain publicity by running a woman and a black man. All they've done is piss a lot of people off.

[cali]

36. lol. you actually believe there was some powerful cabal of dems

who put up Clinton and Obama? Wow. Clinton's ambition to be President could be seen a decade ago. Obama jumped in because he saw an opening. No secret cabal of dems engineered this. Seriously, get a grip. And I find your characterization of these candidates, more than a trifle disturbing.

[DU9598]

10. Republicans are just as divided

They don't even have a race going on and McCain't only got 60-something percent of the R vote in Pennsylvania. Ron Paul who is not even campaigning - and is so much closer to the D's on Iraq - pulled 200000 votes in the R primary.

I am not concerned that D's will have more trouble coming together, when compared to the R's. Perhaps this election will see a lot of older voters sitting it out while younger voters have a larger say in their future.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

28. I'm afraid that a lot of people will sit this election out, period

which will have an adverse effect on the Congressional and statewide races.

[cali]

37. oh,baloney.

dems have shown up overwhelmingly at the polls during the primaries. The evidence points to the opposite of what you are afraid of. Furthermore, anyone who's familiar with the Congressional races knows that we won't be losing seats this year.

[ramapo]

11. The best candidates were never considered

Biden was ignored. Richardson nearly so. The resumes of either make Obama and Clinton appear like dumb children. Yes much of this campaign has been created by the media as entertainment spectacle. I wouldn't expect anything better in 2012 or later. If we haven't learned by now....

[CBGLuthier]

12. Please

Takes this we will lose shit somewhere else.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

19. I'm not saying "we will lose"

I'm saying that

1) We could have done much better

2) This election should have been a walk, but the fact that the last candidates standing are Clinton and Obama has meant that has meant that the two camps are trying to kneecap each other instead of lambasting McCain.

3) Nobody thought we'd lose in 2004, either.

[cali]

38. I did. And a shitload of you thought we'd lose in 2006

it's merely your OPINION that it should have been a walk. Not a fact. And Obama has not, by any stretch of the imagination, been trying to kneecap Clinton.

[Milo_Bloom]

14. Kucinich and Gravel were the only REAL progressive options.

but they weren't viable. Obama became the only real choice.

Clinton, Biden, Edwards and Dodd were all war voters.

Richardson didn't have the presence.

In short, Gore didn't run and it is a shame, but we did the best with what we had to deal with.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

17. Kucinich and Gravel weren't viable because the Powers that Be said so

The corporate PACs would never contribute to them. The media would never cover them except to ridicule them.

[Milo_Bloom]

30. That has been debunked before.

The media REACTS to the people.

Dean was marginalized in 2003 UNTIL he raised serious amounts of cash with no help from the media, then they paid attention to him.

And don't even try the "they destroyed him", because THEY didn't. His third place finish in Iowa and spending all of his money was his own doing after taking the bait from Gephardt. His campaign was dead BEFORE the scream ever happened.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

32. I'm speaking from personal experience here

If you truly believe that the mass media are objective and only give people what they want, then I have some magic pyramids that sharpen razor blades to sell you.

I worked on the Kucinich campaign in 2004. He was ignored and/or ridiculed by the mass media from the outset, but he did best in states where grassroots campaigners FORCED the mass media to cover him. He got 17% in Minnesota, including 27% in the Twin Cities. In Hawaii, where he received coverage for being the only candidate to visit, he got 13%. Now these are far from wins. but they are miles above the 3% he got in places where there was no strong grassroots campaign.

I watched the New York Times coverage daily. They published the daily schedules of all the candidates except Kucinich, but including Sharpton and Mosely-Braun. They ran detailed articles on the positions of all the candidates, including Lieberman and Gephardt, but except Kucinich, Sharpton, and Mosely-Braun.

Then when I got to my neighborhood caucus here in Minnesota, the local Democratic establishment tried to tell us who to vote for. They actually got up and said that any vote for anyone except Kerry was wasted. I got up and said that the caucus was our only chance to express our true opinion and that we should vote for whoever we wanted. Kerry got slightly more than 50% in my caucus, with both Edwards and Kucinich making strong showings. A few people voted for Dean and Clark, even though both were out of the race, but that was fine with me, since they were expressing their real opinion.

I tell you, working on that campaign destroyed my illusions forever.

[Milo_Bloom]

34. Don't confuse the media with the establishment.

I didn't say they were OBJECTIVE... they aren't.

However, the reality is that if a candidate can catch on, they can get coverage and you proved that statement. "but he did best in states where grassroots campaigners FORCED the mass media to cover him."

Bascially, where there was interest, he got coverage. Less interest, less coverage.

Howard Dean didn't get any serious coverage until he raised 7 million dollars in one quarter online. He got that money not because he had media coverage, but because he caught on. Why did people take him more seriously than Kucinich? I don't know for sure. Maybe it was the pro-life thing with Kuc.. maybe something else, but he didn't get wide appeal and that is why he didn't get the coverage.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

41. Really? I recall Dean being all over the media in the summer of 2003

:shrug:

[Milo_Bloom]

46. Which is exactly my point.

He wasn't in the media at all UNTIL he raised an unprecedented amount of money one quarter and then the media was all over him.

Prior to that he was the weird VT gov who legalized civil unions.

[cali]

16. what nonsense. it's virtually impossible to make these kinds of predictions

BTW, I didn't fall for the media's game, dear. I don't do the MSM. No TV no talk radio, no Newsweak or Time. You remind me of all those DUers who over the past couple of years have confidentlly predicted that bushco was going to attack Iran momentarily.

Here's some fucking facts- not that you'll be able to deal with them. Whatever the media did or didn't do, Obama and his team put together a viable strategy to win the nomination- and come good or bad MSM coverage, they followed it. Edwards virtually tied with Clinton in Iowa. He beat her by less than 1% and Obama beat Edwards by 7 or 8%- I forget which. Edwards put all his eggs in the Iowa basket, and he lost. He spent a good part of 3 years campaigning in a retail politics state; he had plenty of money and 527 support and he still lost. Those are facts. The media concluded that Edwards stood little chance after Iowa, because Edwards himself made it a must win by his focus on it. And Edwards got plenty of time in the debates.

As for Dennis Kucinich, as much respect as I have for him, he never was and never will be a viable candidate, and he ran a terrible campaign.

Keep rewriting history. It still won't change the facts.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

18. I agree that Kucinich ran a terrible campaign in 2008

It was so badly run that nobody even called on the 2004 volunteers till just before Iowa.

And if you sincerely support whom you support after careful research more power to you.

Most voters just go with their media-generated impressions, which is why we had eight years of Reagan and twelve years of the Bush family.

[Seabiscuit]

25. Sadly, the country as a whole got what it deserves for its wilfull ignorance and the Tweetys of the

media are smugly patting themselves on the back and cynically laughing all the way to the bank.

This country went down the toilet in 1980 when it elected Reagan, and it's been in the sewer ever since.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

26. 'Fraid you're right

I may have mentioned it elsewhere, but it's been discouraging over the years to hear people mouth statements taken straight from the MSM pundits. It's as if they take the MSM pronouncements that "feel right" to them and make them into personal mantras without giving it much thought.

Look at the responses to blogs: You'll get page after page of nearly identical responses, or two or three sets of responses that differ from one another but are remarkably similar within each group. Goebbels was a piker compared to some of the PR hacks around today.

[Orsino]

31. You're hearing "I don't like either of them"? Really?

Both candidates are incredibly popular, and have been for a long while now.

I've got issues with both of 'em myself, but I seem to be in the minority. For all our cries of "change," Americans seem to be afraid of anyone who can be painted as even a little outside the mainstream.

So we end up with two conservatives.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

33. Yes, I am hearing that

But I live in Minnesota, where we're accustomed to a higher quality of politician (at least on the Democratic side).

[cali]

39. I'm not hearing that in Vermont, and man, I'll take our quality

of politician over over yours, anyday. Vermont was strongly for Obama as early as last summer. We're certainly as progressive as any state in the Union. We're almost certainly the only state where an independent socialist could be elected to the U.S. Senate.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

40. We'll see who's right in a few months

Sure, there was a lot of disgust with Bush that led to the Congressional victories in 2006, but what have the Dems done with that? Mostly rolled over. It's true that they don't have enough votes to override a veto or pass their own legislation, but they have enough votes to BLOCK Bush's initiatives, something they haven't been doing nearly enough of.

We'll see if their "keep your powder dry" approach works. You sort of wonder what they're keeping it dry FOR, as if torture and illegal wars aren't enough.

[cali]

42. Actually, there's more disgust with bush now

and no they don't have enough votes to block jackshit in the Senate, and that's where so much legislation has died. It's 50-50 in the Senate when you consider Joe Lieberman on ANY matter about the war or FP. They've attempted to do away with torture, end the war, restore Habeas, and they just don't have the votes in the Senate.

And look, in VA, Warner is up 25 points over his lame opponent. Same thing for Tom Udall in NM. Shaheen is well ahead of Sununu in NH. Whoever the nominee is, the odds are hugely in favor of those three. I'd also put money on Mark Udall. And an enormous number of repuke reps from areas that were close last time, have declined to seek re-election. In Illinois, last month a dem was elected to replace Hastert in a repuke district. We're going to pick up at least 3 Senate seats and at least 8 House seats. And that's if things go poorly for the dems.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

43. Let's hope you're right and that the people who are elected are spineful

for a change.

If the Dems hadn't caved for Reagan, we wouldn't be in a lot of this mess.

[cali]

44. yeah, on that we agree. we need more spines in Congress. n/t

[BlueIris]

45. What hurts me the most is that it didn't have to go down like this.

At all.

Great post, Lydia.