Publisher in Iowa asks why the media - and money- are picking our candidates for us?

snips -

Those moments were important - important because our nation needs to find the best possible leader for the future.

Most people - Republicans as well as Democrats - are ready for Bush to go home to Texas. Unlike the end of Ronald Reagan's eight years in the White House, I don't hear anyone wishing George W. Bush could have a third term.

The question is, or at least should be, who's the best person to take his place as the leader of this country and, hopefully, become, once again, the leader of the free world?

If the national media is correct, the Democratic race is down to three people - Hilary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards. Yet, it may be the national media, not the voters, that has made Clinton, Obama and Edwards the top three contenders.

And I'm wondering - why?

Is it because of the national media overwhelmingly focuses on the top three Democrats - Clinton, Obama and Edwards?

Is it because the top two contenders have such a financial advantage?

Or, is it because no other Democrat is qualified?

I am not sure I have the answer, but I, for one, don't think it's because there's a lack of other qualified candidates.

Although post-debate news coverage said that Sen. Joe Biden's "down-to-earth, tell-it-straight style helped him turn out a good performance," and that "Sen. Chris Dodd and Gov. Bill Richardson made sure they were not forgotten in a race," the post-debate coverage continued to focus predominately on the top three contenders.

If the talking media heads are correct, Thursday night belonged to Clinton. Clinton, they all agreed, had stumbled in recent weeks but clearly regained her footing Thursday night by successfully fighting off Obama and Edwards' direct attacks.

In making such an analogy, the national media is continuing its efforts to convince people that only Clinton, Obama or Edwards - mainly Clinton - have a real shot at the Democratic nomination.

And, unfortunately, it appears that Democrats are buying what the national media is selling; and it's hard for me to understand why.

Many people say they want the next president to be truthful and willing to tell it like it is.

Yet, if straight answers are what the American people really want, why is it that Sen. Joe Biden is so low in the polls?

No other candidate on either side of the political fence has been more straightforward with his answers than Joe Biden. And Biden is one of the two most qualified candidates when it comes to foreign policy experience.

Other people say they want the most well-rounded and experienced person to be the next president.

If that's the case, why is it that New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson isn't doing better?

With his impressive and successful track record in world affairs and executive leadership experience as a very successful governor, Richardson is perhaps the most well-rounded and experienced candidate the Democrats have.

Yet, although he's doing better in the polls than Biden, Richardson still can only muster about 12 percent in any poll taken.

It seems to me that both Biden and Richardson could bring far more experience to the oval office than the former First Lady turned senatorm, the Midwest's first term senator or the one term Southern senator. Yet, neither Biden nor Richardson has caught on with the voters. But then, the national media hasn't covered Biden and Richardson nearly as much as they have the other three. Nor do Biden or Richardson have access to the dollars Clinton and Obama have.

Perhaps for the Democrats it really will be about the money and the media coverage. But with two months remaining before the Iowa caucuses take place, it doesn't have to be.

Iowans still have the chance to look at all the candidates and make sound decisions on their own and not allow themselves to be simply led by the media and the money.

Iowans have produced a number of surprises in prior presidential campaigns, and Iowa Republicans may be about to do so again. And, it's not too late for the Democrats to the do the same, if such action is justified. But, the clock is quickly running down.

Democrats and Republicans alike need to send the rest of the nation candidates that will be the best possible leaders for tomorrow, not just the media's favorites.

I'm hoping Iowa Democrats take another hard look at all their choices before January. Who knows, if they do, there just might be another surprise.
http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19032381&BRD=2703&PAG=461&dept_id=555110&rfi=6

Why are a few hundred people in Iowa and New Hampshire picking our candidates for us?

We need to choose our nominees based on more than just ethanol subsidies and home heating oil prices, IMHO.

we pick who we feel would be the best candidate for us. It is not Iowa and New Hampshire's fault that the MSM and sheeple from other states follow our decision (maybe if voters would stick with their candidate of choice rather than switching b/c Iowa or NH voters chose differently the big lemming rush wouldn't happen) x(.

Tell me, what's the big attraction for Hillary and Obama in Iowa? I mean, what is it that people see in those 2...

and some supporters want to back a 'winner'. In reading the newspaper articles people see one of these two as the person who will lead this country to peace and prosperity. I don't think either one would be bad for the country and would gladly vote for them in the general. (Since I am still undecided I may end up caucusing for one of them January 3rd).

I don't know that I'd call someone who'd divide the Democratic left and center, in all probability lose the South, Florida and Ohio, and who'd be likely to turn two barely blue 2004 states Red a "winner".

They'd better go with Obama if it's between those two. I'd rather have Edwards, to be honest.

Why else would Iowa and New Hampshire so viciously defend their "right" to be first, if not for the power it gives them in selecting the nominee? Because you know that the candidates wouldn't give nearly as much attention to your issues if you *weren't* first (the way they don't give other states "issues" the time of day), and therefore influence the rest of the primaries.

Look, I understand your desire to have your issues addressed. The rest of the states would just like the same thing once in a while. I, for one, would love to have an election cycle that saw the candidates jostling to present the best industrial/manufacturing policy instead of the best ethanol or ...um, whatever NH counts as important.

And even though I'm from Michigan, I don't think it should be Michigan... the travel logistics are a nightmare in winter, and the auto companies would oppose environmental regulations I favor. IMHO, Ohio would be best for a "first." Easy to get around in winter, they have most of the same issues as Michigan does - rural, urban and manufacturing/industrial, so addrssing those issues for Ohio would also address them for Michigan (and (and Indiana, Pennsylvania and Illinois (although Ohio doesn't have the environmental/tourism issues that northern Michigan and parts of Pennsylvania do, which is a concern). And Ohio has lots of small towns too, most of which have diners and town squares that the candidates could visit for the all-important "one on one" retail politics.

You can't claim to be shocked, shocked, I tell you, that the "MSM and sheeple follow your lead" when you fight so hard to have exactly that power.

**editeed for speeling**

**and punctuation**

:mad:

1984?....Bizarro World?.....Through the Looking Glass?.....Down the Rabbit Hole?

A "Publisher" creating a piece of "Media" that questions the Power of the Media in choosing our President.... FAILS to mention the most progressive candidate?!!!!



”Unlike other candidates, I am not funded by those corporate interests.
I owe them no loyalty, and they have no influence over me or my policies.” ---Dennis Kucinich

I am curious what the straight shooter Biden has spoke about impeachment? I know that he was all for going after Saddam after 9/11 and made speech's spreading Bushs propaganda just like the front runner Clinton did. We have to question why those who ignored the lack of evidence, went ahead and spewed propaganda for war instead of standing beside Dennis Kucinich and trying to save thousands of lives by speaking the truth. What was the agenda of those that sounded like Bush and pushed for war? Are they on our team or do they have the wealthy and elite in mind? DU actually makes me feel like we are doomed because of the lack of Kucinich support and the amount of support that goes to those who lied us all into a deadly illegal war and...why?

He said that if bush went after Iran without getting Congressional approval, impeachment would be the answer. Yes, it may be too little, too late, about impeachment BUT apart from Kucinich, he's the only other candidate even mentioning and considering it.

a part of the propaganda and lies that got us there. But hey if he has decided to make a change and is willing to atleast mention the word impeachment, I respect that.

Biden was not "a part" of the propaganda and lies" that got us into iraq. That was Bush's fabrication. He, unfortunantly, was able to sell it to congress. Then, went to war without approval from congress. Go do the research. They were lied to, and so were we. Let's lay the blame where it belongs, on Bush.

other candidates are getting attention, then does the same thing?

to the question of WHY? Why are there only three top Dem Candidates. Even this publisher complaining is part of the answer because he leaves out the very well qualified Dennis Kudinich...because he doesn't have the Corporate Big Money or anyone buzzing about him in the media. He was marked "DOA" from the beginning.