Who Decides "Who's Electable?"

It is the world of manufactured reality. No matter how many times one shouts "practical" or "reality" the truth is that the entire framework for discussion is tightly controlled and utterly contrived. People are being propagandized and still unable or unwilling to look behind the curtain.

Consider this one paragraph from The Nation <http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070514/moser >:



One of the striking things you notice, covering a debate like this, is the vast gulf between what the reporters and pundits see and what the people see. I spent most of the debate in the stifling habitat of a media room with the likes of CNN's Jeff Greenberg and Candy Crowley. As the first big question about Iraq was lobbed at the Big Three--Clinton, Obama and Edwards--the mediocracy collectively pounded away at their laptops, taking down every word in a veritable symphony of typing. When the same question then went to Kucinich, the man who intrepidly preached against the war in 2004 when the others would not, all hands rested. All typing ceased. The music stopped. Attention wandered. Who cares that this man was--and is--dead-right on the issue, and that he says it stronger, and in a way far more in tune with the bulk of the people, than any of the others? He is not "viable." He is not big money. He is not worth transcribing.


There are a number of assumptions that may be at work in the discussions about various candidates and "who appears Presidential" and who is or isn't "Presidential material" etc. to which I would take exception:

- That we need "a guy" (or a gal) - an assumption that turns the truth on its head, the truth being that politicians need us, we don't need them.

- That selecting someone now to support for the 2008 campaign is a priority or even a constructive thing to be doing or discussing.

- That the selection of whom to support is a matter of comparing our "ideology" to their's and making a selection as though we were shopping for our favorite consumer item (and spending a lot of time arguing with others about it and defending our choice.)

- That the crisis we are in does not require fresh thinking and fresh approaches to tactical and strategic issues.

- That we should ignore the most chronic Democratic party and liberal interest group problem - confusing tactics and strategy with ideology, so that once we have the "right guy" or the "right position" on an issue, making that "choice" covers all tactical and strategic considerations and all we need to do is cheerlead in unison louder and louder.

- That we need to "be practical" and look at who is "electable."

- That our choices are limited and that we must pick from what is offered to us.

- That the presidential elections are the place to start rather than local organizing and rabble rousing.

- That the sooner we know which personality to align with the better.

- That we need to give ourselves heart and soul to a politician, rather than letting a leader emerge who will give his or her heart and soul to we the people.

- That there is some reason to move toward the "center" or some danger in being "too far left" or appearing "too radical."

- That the popular notions of left-right as fomented in the media mean anything.

- A concern over winning that is divorced from the ideas that winning represents is intellectually empty.

Those are a few things that come to mind.

...Dennis Kucinich and the right has their unelectable Ron Paul. Maybe we could get the Repubs to run their 'unelectable' guy against our 'unelectable' guy and see what happens.

if clinton, obama and edwards know that the pigmedia is playing games with the electorate, and go along, then fukk clinton, obama and edwards....the onus is on them, not Dennis Kucinich, who is thus far, the ONLY electable candidate using the diametric-opposite-of-what-the-pigmedia-says-is-truth, rule

and cover all the candidates equally then to prove the point? I don't understand why they won't let that happen.

now i know there are social issues we don't agree with Ron Paul about, but there are issues the right won't like about DK.

How about we elect them both, and they balance each other out. What a bizarre ticket that would be, but I would be intrigued about the differnce to the US it would make.

I know it won't happen, but an amusing concept.

The GOP WILL utilize the present rigged machinery and advantages any which way but loose.

If the Dems choose to play another type of game altogether, the complete opposite, remember the primary system and entire organization is NOT altogether in the slightest to make such a departure happen. In the real world the system is steamrolling ahead. Even if the people rear up and decide to rebel against the PRIMARY choices as touted(like we did in NY by picking Jesse Jackson over the weaker candidate Dukakis) there is a totally unready for prime time party organization ready to fizzle away to salvaging local races. Jackson, btw, was immediately dispatched by squealing on some offhand comments that offended the Jews. Dean took a little longer. The press does not even expect to have to bury the hatchet in Kucinich.

The party, the only competitor WE accept as viable in the present scheme of things is set on a course and strategies that we criticize with more than just cause. The consequences of sacrificing this election in a gamble of pure democratic daring are almost guaranteed. Shamefully we are in the position of the press, sitting on our hands while Kucinich heroically speaks the truth. We make a terrible choice in not rewarding truth. The GOP will not have a choice. If Ron Paul was in danger of winning anything he would be destroyed up to and including being shot. Most of the GOP residual decent folk know this and lay their hopes in the Dems, not their own idealists. GOPers we know would in such a case largely support Edwards for various reasons.

But the WH would prefer not to suffer the message of Kucinich. A lot of work to largely ignore and drown him out as a candidate- but they will as they have McGovern in the past. Most party veterans almost accept this as as a done deal and would enable the outcome, looking to the lifeboats.

The message of Kucinich, as well, is grossly mistreated for the same repulsive reasons. Part of this campaign should be in the resolve this crap has to start ending here- with candidates who will move us to truth and democracy colored and remove systemically unchecked GOP treason, crime and tyranny. We should remember how unfair our "choices" have been programmed and how ugly, underneath the enthusiasm and the smiles and the lawfully decent public servants, still is.

The so called "liberal activists" or new grass roots in the party are also similarly relegated, but so have been the most institutionally "honored" factions like Labor, minorities and women. The problem is not in where we want to go but in the other side squatting on the objective and the accepted means, with rules too readily acceded too, with time simply running out against any revolutionary urge or practicality(like dumping all DRE machines, the simplest of all reasonable physical goals). And time supposedly is running out to impeach ANY of the lawbreakers who will once more rig the system because they must and can.

Even if the Dems once more follow the race and fight the garbage, they are still hopping one-legged in potato sacks while the puffing fat boys of the GOP waddle unrestricted toward the finish line. Regardless of the sacks there are also plenty of goons throwing things and ready to tackle the Dem presidential candidate- with cowardice and known impunity being the limiting factors.

Taking the moral high road on sex ,gave us Shrub in over simplified terms ,a misanthrope failure slides in the back door ,because of the flaws of a Brilliant Manager.

It's not always relevant, and those who think they understand who is electable and who is not are frequently wrong.

I wish we could sit back and decide purely on a candidate's policy's and personal values, but that is absolutely impossible. Mitt Romney, John McCain, and Hillary Clinton immediately come to mind in this cycle as candidates who have redefined themselves partially (in the case of Clinton) or completely (in the case of Romney), and we no long know what they espouse. This kind of tuning is enough to turn me against candidates who engage in such nonsense.

I mean tell me the last time Gibson has been wrong about anything or Limbaugh......

The great unwashed majority of us who bother to vote.

try to put together a political campaign from the grassroots. Or try to get the media to give equal coverage for each candidate. The American political system is rigged, owned and operated. The sooner we recognize that the sooner we can analyze what is asked of us in a cogent and meaningful manner.

if they could honestly vote for someone Russert, Blitzer, Tweety, Fugger et al supported. If they could after all the lies and spin from those hacks, the planet is doomed. From Tweety supported HRC and Obama, it's time to examine them properly.

Gore for President - Kucinich for VP.

Hence candidates whose names few could even remember last election time.

It reminded me of many years ago, in the weeks before the 1980 election. A few of my co-workers were discussing issues of war and peace. One of the rather rigid thinkers expressed admiration for Reagan, and was insulted when I said I found the former governor of California to be a shallow thinker. My co-worker snarled, "Well you like Carter ...." I was not surprised that this fellow thought in such limited terms that he believed that Reagan and Carter defined all the options available to thinking Americans. I say that not as someone advocating 3rd party politics, and as someone who has come to admire Jimmy Carter more and more as time goes on. But I do think that in the democratic primary season -- and especially in a long one -- progressive people should be working very hard to give voice to those who best represent progressive values ..... even if the corporate media attempts to marginalize them.