The Major Reason Why Democratic Politicians Are So Cautious?

Following the triumphant and inspiring 2006 Congressional elections, most progressive/liberal Democrats were soon disappointed in the performance of our newly elected Democratic Congress. Chief among the disappointments have been the failure to hold the Bush/Cheney administration accountable for their many crimes, the failure to end the Iraq War, and the repeated violations of our Constitution, including the Congressional passage of a new FISA law that all but makes our Fourth Amendment null and void.

These many disappointments have caused many of us to ponder why the Democrats we elected to turn our country around have failed to do what we thought we elected them to do. It seems to me that chief among the reasons for this is a national news media that is unalterably hostile to Democrats and anything that threatens their status quo.

They made a consensual sexual affair the central issue of Bill Clinton’s Presidency. They derailed Al Gore’s presidential candidacy against a vastly inferior candidate through 4,800 repetitions of the phony story that Gore claimed to have invented the internet, as well as numerous other lies about Gore. They finished off Howard Dean’s presidential run through infinite repetition of the so-called “Dean scream”. They dealt John Kerry a fatal blow by running hundreds of articles on completely unfounded and demonstrably false allegations involving his war service record, as if they were legitimate news stories. They marginalized John Edwards, the Democratic Presidential candidate who consistently polled better against the opposition party than any Democratic or Republican candidate in the race, by refusing to cover anything but negative and trivial aspects of his campaign. And they’ve been at work on Barack Obama since he became the presumptive 2008 Democratic nominee, thereby reducing what should be a lead of landslide proportions to a reasonably close race.

By my saying that national press coverage is a major reason – or perhaps THE major reason – for the excessive cautiousness of today’s Democratic politicians, I do not mean to excuse their cautiousness. Indeed, I do not agree that the hostility of the corporate news media should make them that cautious. Yet I think that this is a very important issue to consider and understand.

There are so many examples that could be used to make this point that several books could be written on the subject. I’ll confine this post to a single issue, since it appears to be an important issue in the Presidential campaign: The U.S. “surge” in the Iraq War.


Pummeling Obama for opposing George Bush’s troop “surge”

In his new role as moderator of “Meet the Press” it quickly became apparent that Tom Brokaw intends to ape Tim Russert’s highly partisan efforts to destroy the candidacies of high level Democrats. On the July 27th edition of the show Brokaw adopted the highly debatable proposition that George Bush’s troop “surge” in Iraq has been an unqualified success, and he used right wing talking point to try to make Obama look ridiculous:


Brokaw then played a free ad for the McCain campaign, followed by a video of Obama opposing the surge. Obama explained that there are many possible explanations for reduced violence in Iraq, including some that came into play prior to the surge. He also tried to make the point that the surge is just one small aspect of the Iraq quagmire, and that he had been right and McCain wrong about the much broader and important question of whether to invade Iraq in the first place. But Brokaw just dismissed those points and continued with his pummeling of Obama for opposing the surge by quoting the opinion of an unnamed source from USA Today:



Calling Obama’s qualifications to be President into question

Pushing the right wing talking point that Obama was wrong about the surge was merely Brokaw’s way of setting the stage for making the larger point that Obama is not qualified to be Commander-in-Chief, period. First, the polls:


Brokaw then contemptuously castigated Obama’s priorities by implying that he should have made more trips to Afghanistan:


He then made a bizarre and stupid statement about Obama’s discussion of Pakistan:


My God, what a stupid and gratuitous comment! Obama’s statement was tepid?!! Then, on Obama’s trip to Berlin, Brokaw had this:


What utter bullshit! Obama appeals to the need to work together with our former allies to achieve common goals, and Brokaw cites right wing talking heads criticizing him for that. One might think that after four years of alienating the rest of the world under Bush/Cheney that such talk would be welcomed. Then, after much more of the same, Brokaw hits Obama with this condescending remark.



A more realistic view of the surge

By far the most pertinent contrast to make between McCain and Obama on the Iraq War is not the surge, but rather the fact that Obama opposed it from the beginning, whereas, as McCain himself has said, “Nobody has supported President Bush on Iraq more than I have”. McCain also has said that he wants our troops to stay in Iraq for a hundred or a million years. So, let’s suppose for a minute that the right wing talking point that the surge lowered the death rate of American soldiers in Iraq is correct. So what? What is better, having less American troop deaths or withdrawing our troops from Iraq so that there will be zero American troop deaths? John McCain has never even provided a coherent reason for why we should stay in Iraq after our goal of eliminating their (non-existent) weapons of mass destruction has been achieved achieved. Here is how Vincent Bugliosi puts this whole thing into perspective, in his book, “The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder:


* Wouldn’t it have to be after five years? I mean, … as columnist Rosa Brooks observed: “The process of ‘sectarian cleansing’ is nearing completion: Sunnis have been driven out of Shiite neighborhoods, and Shiites out of Sunni neighborhoods”.


Protecting McCain on the surge

In stark contrast to the attacks on Obama, in their efforts to protect McCain our corporate news media goes to great lengths to cover up his mistakes. Not only do they not talk about his mistakes, they actually edit them out of interviews in order to hide them from the American people.

In an interview with Katie Couric, when asked to respond to an Obama statement to the effect that the “Anbar awakening” probably had something to do with reduced violence in Iraq, independent of the surge, McCain responded:


However, McCain’s statement on this “matter of history” couldn’t possibly be true because the time line is incorrect:


But no problem. When you’re a Republican who supports the corporate media’s interests you can say almost anything you want about any subject, and you hardly even have to worry about whether or not it’s true. McCain’s gaffe was simply edited out of the interview so that viewers would have no idea that he can’t even keep his story straight. The revised video actually had him answering Couric’s question with words that weren’t clearly mistaken.


The role of the U.S. news media in U.S. political campaigns

It is astounding how little notice is given to the constant attempts by the “liberal media” to sway U.S. elections towards conservative Republican victories. Given how much effort they’ve put into this in recent elections it is amazing that Democrats have been able to even come close to victory.

But it all makes sense when looked at from another angle. The Republicans have one big advantage and the Democrats have another: The Republicans have the corporate media on their side. (They also have all manner of ways to steal votes or suppress Democratic votes, and they generally have much more money than Democrats, but those things aren’t the subject of this post.) On the side of the Democrats is that their policies are much more in tune with what the American people want and need. So, the advantages of Republicans and Democrats tend to neutralize each other, and thus we usually end up with reasonably close elections.

But this situation is intolerable for a democracy. A free and independent press, which provides unbiased accurate information to the people, is crucial to a healthy functioning democracy. When most of the press is under the control of corporate interests, which strive to tilt elections in their favor, democracy becomes nothing but a fig leaf. The result is not only a playing field tilted heavily towards the conservative (Republican) Party, but also that the more progressive (Democratic) Party is intimidated into moving way to the right. The American people suffer for that because the corporate interests are served at the expense of the vast majority of people.


What can the Democratic Party do about this?

Admittedly, the situation is bleak, and it is very difficult to figure how best to address it. Obviously, the corporate media needs to be taken on, including by extensively revising the Telecommunications Act of 1996, so as to enable a much more diverse and competitive news media. But there is no chance of that happening without Democratic control of both Congress and the Presidency.

So, what to do in the meantime? In my opinion Democrats have been far too cautious in their attempts to move to the right in order to placate the news media. If they move so far to the right that the corporate news media finds them acceptable, then we may as well have a one-party nation. But if they move only part way to the right, the corporate media will continue to lambast them and lie about them, in order to elect Republicans.

It is a terrible handicap to have the national news media against you. But what makes it much more of a handicap is that most Americans aren’t aware of the situation. Too many Americans believe that our national news media is reasonably unbiased. When they hear someone like Tom Brokaw (or the late Tim Russert) lecture a candidate with the clear implication that he doesn’t believe him to be presidential material, their opinion is swayed.

It is imperative that the Democratic Party and individual Democratic politicians work aggressively to change that dynamic. They should not worry so much about how the corporate news media will depict them. Instead, they should proceed on the assumption that the corporate news media is against them, and they should vigorously challenge what it says about them. They should not politely play along with the fiction that the corporate news media is composed of real journalists without a partisan agenda. Instead, they should respond to false assertions by the corporate news media as if they were responding to the Republican Party itself – which in fact is the reality of the situation. Democrats will be lambasted and marginalized by the corporate media no matter what they do. Appeasing the corporate media only makes matters worse because it validates them in the eyes of the American people. The American people need to understand that the news they receive is severely tainted. Only by making that happen will Democrats begin to level the playing field and be able to win elections without being intimidated into moving their political agenda way to the right.


A final word about Obama

We cannot expect Barack Obama to do this by himself. If he attempts to do that he will stand out in a way that, I believe, will antagonize the racist, semi-racist, and latent racist elements of our nation, and thereby seriously jeopardize his chances for victory. In this crucial matter, Obama needs the help of the Democratic Party. As for Obama himself, I agree with the recent “open letter” to Obama in The Nation:

We know what has to happen. Lets make them do it

Along with the those who call themselves preacher or spiritual leaders were silenced.

Then we would stand half a chance.

Fairness Doctrine or something like it, and hold them accountable for corruption just like we do the government. If you knowingly lie and pass it off as news we the people should be able to sue the pants off a tabloid like Faux Noos.

Those like Russert, Brokaw, Matthews, and most of the corporate news media. There's only a fringe element in our country who are followers of Limbaugh and his ilk. But when someone like Brokaw, who holds sway with much of the country, treats a candidate like Brokaw treated Obama, the effect can be severe. Luckily, McCain makes an ass out of himself so frequently that the media can't fully cover for him.

I don't think that we really need to silence them. What we need is our fair share of the public airways. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 needs to be severely reformed or repealed, and Democrats need to drop the pretense that these people are real journalists, rather than prostitutes for their masters.

the lies and conjecture of the Limbaughs, Bill O's, and other lunatics, we begin to stand a chance. (They would fall into the background, like so much AM radio static in a lightning storm. Or Hurricane.) I'm in favor of a media breakup (shake up!) and reinstatement ownership rules to pre-1996 standards, which limits quantity and cross-ownership to sensible levels.

as a good starting point for creating the narratives and messages we will need to recapture the country. I really think that we will need to sidestep the mass media in the coming years, but that this will be increasingly feasible with new technologies. We are becoming our own video news service despite all the efforts of the Establishment to shut us down.

Many of us already bypass the mass media.

But as long as a very large segment of our population continues to use them as their main source of news, they will present a major obstacle to democracy, unless their monopoly is broken up.

that there is a fairly large segment of the media that is going after McCain this time and which is doing so with the same lack of accuracy or fairness as it always does. From Friday August 22nd's Daily Howler

"Robinson couldn’t quite make himself tell the truth—but even he felt required to say that McCain was “just being flippant.” But in Weisman’s prose, a joke becomes a straightforward assertion. And this brings us to a basic rule for those who would understand their press corps: If you want to know who the press corps is hunting, just see which candidate’s jokes they transform into straight assertions.

We know, we know! Some of us are such chimps ourselves that we want to believe that McCain’s wasn’t joking. Olbermann, our side’s uber-chimp, has been flinging this poo this whole week. (Along with so much more. Good God, that man is a chimp!) But at any rate, fairly or not, our longings are being rewarded this week: The press corps has widely acted as if McCain’s joke was a serious statement. It’s as we told you long ago: This is not a campaign in which the press corps will be group-pimping the Republican candidate. And that represents a major change in recent political journalism."

I'm not saying that there is no bias against McCain at all. But overall, his very serious gaffes -- gaffes that would have destroyed Obama's candidacy by themselves -- have been virtually covered up out of existence. All Gore's sighs during his debate, and Reverand Wright, have had way more coverage than McCain's repeated lies (or gaffes if one believes that) about Iran harboring al Qaeda. That is an extremely serious issue, and the fact that he has done it repeatedly after being corrected brings it out of the gaffe and into the lie column. By all rights, that should be the scandal of the year and should destroy his candidacy in and of itself if it got proper attention. And McCain will never be treated like Obama was by Brokaw on a mainstream show like Meet the Press.

The MSM news are a part of the scary fascist cloud hanging over America right now. Stupid yes but brilliantly so! Allowing just barely enough moderately left voices on the air in order to point to as evidence of "fairness". And most times the left voice is outnumbered and shouted down by wingnuts. And if the host is not downright hostile to a left-leaning guest, they seem indifferent to the topic discussed and finding the truth, and are more interested in setting up a he said / she said scenario where they just throw their hands up at the end and make a joke about not knowing who is right.

How about actually doing some journalism and do some research BEFORE the guests come on. Then openly challenge the lying Repukes every time they utter a false or misleading statement. But that would be no good as the left representative would come out 99% in the right each time.

I can understand how people like Murdock select corruptible new talking head stars, and then glean and preen them for the job. So those that actually make it, like Russert, Brokaw, and Couric do whatever they are told to keep their status. That goes double for the whole FAUX News department.

But I always have wondered that there simply must be a large section of the various news staff, who got into journalism for the right reasons and must feel like revolting against the one-sided bastardization of the real story. To me that is one small hope for change. It's easy for me to say and maybe grasping at straws, but I'd like to see some brave public challenges from those lower end news department workers, and in an organized manner.

But in the meantime, I love your message that Democrats should treat the news media, at least the hosts that have a known history of pro R and anti D behavior, as Republican whores.

changing the system to break up the monopoly that corporate America has on our airwaves and other news sources (e.g. the Telecommunications Act of 1996). If Obama gets elected President and makes no move on this, that will be very disappointing.

Or secondly, but less likely IMO, is that Democrats just start treating these people as the Republican whores that they are, as you say in your last paragraph.

A third possibility is that the American people develop their own news media to counteract the corporate media. That of course has been done to a large extent. But still, most people receive their news from the corporate media. I'm not sure how to change that dynamic.

Otherwise, as long as corporate America maintains their monopoly and Democrats don't do anything about it, it doesn't seem at all likely that journalists with integrity will be able to do anything about it. Journalists with integrity are generally fired or not allowed into the system in the first place. Keith Olbermann is a rare exception. He not only has integrity, but he is exceptionally talented. I think they're afraid to get rid of him, and anyhow, he helps their ratings quite a bit.

by suggesting that the Democratic leadership is hamstrung by the media.

Don't get me wrong, I agree that the challenge is damn nigh insurmountable due to the fact that most of us Americans depend so heavily on TV and radio news and don't understand the degree to which both have been taken over by corporate interests.

Here's why I have a problem with giving the Dems a pass on their failure to act: We are the majority party in Congress with a President who has the worst approval rating in modern history. Do we Dems not have the smarts and the resources to raise a big enough stink on an ongoing basis by having the type of party unity that the Republicans show on almost every political issue?

Just imagine if THE TALKING POINT OF THE YEAR had been how the media is manipulating the public by providing DISinformation and PROPAGANDA for the Bush Crime Family. Just imagine if all (or even most) Dems stayed on message and brought this up every time they spoke to a public or private gathering, were interviewed, campaigned and especially whenever they took the national stage on TV.

Just imagine if the Senate Majority Leader and the Speaker of the House convened a press conference with every Dem leader standing with them and denounced the Reich-wing media for what it is, giving specific examples and being totally committed to making this the MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE IN AMERICAN POLITICS.

Yes, I know that this approach may have some blowback, but when the American people start getting accurate information they usually make good decisions.

Personally, I think it's a failure of leadership at the national level that has kept us down for so long. Accepting the fascist media and Bush Crime Family as inevitable has become the meme among the Corporate Dem leadership; hence, our current tragic state of affairs where Tom Brokaw shills for the Reich-wing while interviewing the Democratic candidate for President.

Expose the bastards for what they are, FASCIST PROPAGANDISTS. Use leaflets, loudspeakers, mass demonstrations, a general strike, whatever it takes, BUT DO IT.

a serious barrier to their electoral success. I did say in my OP that "I do not mean to excuse their cautiousness".

I agree with you that all those things you are "imagining" should come to pass. The phony "journalists" of our phony corporate media need to be exposed and it's very disappointing to me that our Democratic leaders have been so remiss in exposing them.

And since it has the Dems are forced to play their games or they would not get any media coverage. At best they got the phony useless so called Tv debates sponsered by coal companies and the Dem convention was sponsered by the corporations.

I doubt there is any choice left. We live in a corporate controlled global economy. I don't see it changing anytime soon.

I still feel they picked the candidates well before we knew who they would be. It's fixed and we play the part of choosing between the lesser of two evils.

Good luck american, either we break the system or we live with it. The next election will be even more insane. This is where we have found ourselves.

Don't think for a second that any president has the power to change this now.

Democracy cannot exist without an independent press -- i.e. a press independent of corporate influence.

So, when it comes to a decision between breaking the system or living with it, we must break the system as it now exists.

You can see how few liberal/progressive radio shows there are and they have been trying since 2004 and some even before that . They get one station and lose a few.

The TV is all corporate owned and controlled.

The only way is to not support their sponsers and not many comsumers are willing to do that. We can't even get enough people to do a lousy one day national strike so this is proof of just how few people there are who are willing to fight back.

Instead people put all their efforts and trust and money in politicians and candidates to do it for them yet neither side will stand up for the people.

I have no answers at all, just my view of what I see and hear and know.

and replaced with something that will cease to provide a license for monopoly of communications by corporate America.

It can be done. Slavery was repealed. We passed civil rights laws. Women were given the right to vote. This can be done too.

As they do now and the sponsors are the corporations even if that were done we would still be in their control.

I think it's too late now to ever bring the air waves back to the people. Now that it is a money for greed game.

machinery into motion as no other American can at this point in time. This may seem like a risky and an inopportune time, but as in all great victories against a strong foe, one must strike hard and keep driving until victory is won.

Obama must be the one who AUTHORIZES setting the machinery into motion. It's his campaign to win or to lose, and if he wants to win he is going to have to take on McCain AND the MSM simultaneously--for all of the reasons you have enumerated above. The Repugs are going into full media blitz right now. Their convention will be the kickoff of their full frontal, flanking and rear assaults on Obama. And they will be relentless until they have driven Obama's poll numbers down close enough to McCain's that they can steal the election again.

The only way to beat them is to use the MEDIA and McCain against themselves. It's already being done but only on a limited--far too limited--scale.

The format is the TV, radio or print ad that shows John McCain making a statement on an issue (pick an issue, any issue, because there are so many to pick from it's like a gift basket from McCain himself). Then, show John McCain saying exactly the opposite of what he originally said, along with the date of his "flip flop". The icing on the cake would be a clear statement of how he voted the opposite of what he said. Again, there are so many choices to select from: veterans benefits, giving tax breaks to the wealthy in a time of war, torture, energy policy, environmental protection, etc. etc. etc.

One key here is that these ads must be hammered into the brains of the American people via repetition. Repetition on the radio waves. Repetition on the TV screen. Repetition in the print media. Relentless. An onslaught of showing the lies and the distortions which, without even saying a word about the MSM will slowly start to light the fires of recognition in the brains of the heretofore uncomprehending masses.

It goes without saying that these ads must have very high production values and must be varied enough in style and content that they do not bore the listener or viewer. With the creativity we have already seen from Obama's staff this should be no problem at all. We will have to leave it up to the "experts" to tell us how often is too often, but these ads must become a part of the fiber of the campaign. If done well, these ads could be like the new "phenomenon", so the viewing/listening/reading public is ripe with anticipation of the next iteration of the message.

Some will say this is negative campaigning. I say it's educating the public about the public record of a public figure. And it must be done in conjunction with the Obama-esque positive, what-I'm -going-to-do-for-America style of advertisement.

The Obama campaign and the Democratic party cannot be timid or wishy-washy about implementing this. if done properly and with the appropriate comments by Our Candidate and other progressive candidates this attack will succeed in beating John McCain, while at the same time enlightening the American voters about the complicity of the MSM in tailoring their coverage to meet the right-wing agenda.

Obama's desire to run a positive campaign may conflict with this style of advertising but it's my opinion that he has no choice.

If he let's the MSM continue to portray itself as fair and impartial, they will drive the nails into the coffin of Obama's presidential ambitions, and put a stake through the heart of our hopes to save this nation from fascism.

The time to do it is now, and it won't be easy, but it could be what wakes people up.

Then, once Obama takes office and we have the new Democratic majority we will have already completed phase one of the re-education of the American public and the reformation of the MSM.


That's what I think.

It is not "negative campaigning" to articulate and criticize the policy positions and inconsistencies of your opponent, as long as it's done honestly. Obama needs to do that, and he also needs the help of the Democratic Party.

On the other hand (this may sound like I'm retracting what I just wrote, but I'm not) Obama has a very fine line to walk. I hate to say this, but if he appears to be too aggressive, as our first major party black nominee, given the residual racism in our country, that could work against him. This will take a tremendous amount of political skill and courage on his part. He has both, but will it be enough to overcome the tremendous forces arrayed against him? I hope to hell it will be.

any Democratic candidate can say those things without incurring the wrath of ALL of the fringe groups, racial or otherwise, and the MSM. It's just part of the burden of being liberal/progressive and always will be in the eyes of those who fear and hate liberalism.

In my opinion, this is the "brand" of the Democratic party, if you will: the FEAR of offending the OFFENSIVE elements of the opposition. There is always a boogeyman on the horizon that strikes fear into the hearts of the timid Democratic leadership and that is why they back down from confrontation. AND THAT IS WHY THEY HAVE LEAD US TO TWO CONSECUTIVE LOSSES IN THE NATIONAL ELECTIONS.

Barack Obama has so much going for him and the people of this country are ready for a change, BUT the Repugs are going to paint him as a radical Black Panther-type Muslim terrorist no matter what he does. And it's going to be done on TV and radio and in the print media just like it has for the last three elections. The ignorant couch potatoes will fall for it hook, line and sinker unless it's countered relentlessly and factually.

The choice is to be BOLD and to LEAD by taking the fight to them, or to be CAUTIOUS and try not to offend the very people who are trying to kill our party and our nation.

I've enjoyed engaging in this conversation but I'm beating a dead horse that's beginning to putrefy, so I'll just agree to disagree with you on this.

I appreciate your thoughtful posts on this and other matters.