THE ELITE/CORPORATE-OWNED MEDIA IS INSIDIOUSLY TRICKING DEMOCRATS INTO LOSING THE 2008 PRESIDENTIAL

http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/diarypage.php?did=5715

When it comes to choosing a Democrat candidate to run for President, the Elite/Corporate-owned Media is pushing two unelectable individuals ...Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama...in order to insure the
victory of their own chosen puppet Republican candidate for President in 2008.

The Elite/Corporate/Fascists know that this country will not elect a ‘Woman’ President...and will not elect a ‘Black’ President... and are therefore insidiously propagandizing us by over-publicizing both...
and giving them bully pulpits while burying and therefore silencing people who might be electable if the public knew more about them and where they stand: candidates like Representative Dennis Kucinich and Senator Ron Paul...and to a lesser extent, Senator John Edwards.

Representative Dennis Kucinich and Representative Ron Paul have both have been repeatedly and deliberately excluded from key Presidential Candidate Debates...and, along with Sen. John Edwards, have been
deliberately ignored and denied fair and impartial Media coverage of their stated policies and political stands.

Gov. Bill Richardson has already been eliminated from the race by the Elite/Corporate-owned Media's unfair exclusion of him as a viable candidate...refusing to give him, his policies or his statements fair Media coverage...


Al Feldstein
Retired Editor;MAD Magazine













Al Feldstein on the FBI Experience

http://www.collectmad.com/fbi/data/Al%20Feldstein%20FBI%20Interview.html

Norris: MAD #37, January 1958, has an article titled "MAD's Xmas Games" that featured a game called "Draft Dodger." When the player completed the game he or she was a full-fledged draft dodger. The player needed to write to J. Edgar Hoover for his or her membership card. You had full editorial control of the articles that appeared in MAD; did it ever cross your mind that MAD readers would actually send requests for the membership card to the FBI? And, did you expect a reaction from the FBI?

Feldstein: All through my years as editor of MAD, I was constantly and continuously surprised and amazed at reader reaction to the satirical, humorous, tongue-in-cheek, absolutely outlandish articles we'd run. After all, MAD was admittedly a "Humor" and "Satire" magazine. It was edited with that in mind. People with no sense of humor had no business reading it... because they obviously would never even "get" it! Some readers would take us deadly serious...and chastise us and berate us for whatever we'd just published. Some readers (not necessarily "fans") would go even further...and accuse us of being Un-American, etc. (See further information about these no-humor morons below, in the context of another of your questions!) Some readers would delight in our idiotic approaches and actually try to out-do us with further idiotic actions of their own. Some Hollywood celebrities loved our MAD take-offs of the movies that they'd starred in that they would ask us (even beg us) for the original art so that they could frame it and hang it in their Beverly Hills mansions. And some readers, like an FBI Director with real problems about his public image, would send his Agents to attempt to intimidate us.

But to get to your question: In an article spoofing the idiocies of some of the board games being produced at the time, we created several new ones that jumped from reality into satirical fantasy. One was called "Draft Dodger" and, as part of our point of departure, ended with the winner earning the title of "Official Draft Dodger"...and instructing him to send his name to J. Edgar Hoover for his "Official Draft Dodger Card." I mean, who in heck would ever expect any MAD reader to actually do that?! But obviously, many did...much to the consternation of Mr. J. Edgar Hoover, the Director of the FBI.

When Bill Gaines and I returned from our lunch and learned from John Putnam, our Art Director, that two deadly serious FBI Agents had actually visited our offices and expressed Mr. Hoover's anger and objection to being included in our "Draft Dodger Game", we were appalled and frightened...not about Mr. Hoover's fury!...but because some of our readers might have gotten themselves into trouble by admitting to him that they were Draft Dodgers! After our initial concerns had passed and we learned more about the FBI Agents' visit...and what they had requested us to do...it became clearly apparent that Mr. Hoover was more interested in the use of his name in MAD, and the sullying of his reputation by it, than in any thoughtless reader action... we rolled on the floor, laughing...

He's right you know. And I think Gore knew it too.

They gave him a hell of a time in 2000, while George was thrown soft balls. He was painted as someone you'd have a drink with. Now there is a contradiction of terms.

This smacks of abject paranoia at most and a weak analysis at most. I'm not going to deny that there is a corporate media, but the reason Obama and Clinton are the leading contenders is not merely due to "media bias," nor are they "unelectable" in November. Both would be HIGHLY electable with strong, smart campaigns in this change environment where the country is ready for a turn toward a more progressive direction. Challenging? Yes. "Unelectable?" Not at all. Hillary and Obama entered the race with large followings and many contributors. There were plenty of debates with all of the original candidates. Others didn't gain traction for various reasons, not merely because of media bias. This is a very flawed analysis, and our candidate, no matter who it is, WILL win the general election with the right campaign.

But I don't think the Hillary hatred on the right is going to disappear into thin air. Remember 2000? The right has some dirty tricks, and Hillary just gives them more ammo.

Have to disagree on the media issue too. The majority gets their news from mainstream media. MSNBC, CNN, etc. were calling it a two-person race long before it was one. Edwards's second-place win in Iowa was virtually ignored. The two "celebrity" candidates are the focus because they provide easy talking points and an easy story. Widening the frame to include others makes it more difficult to ignore policy issues and substance.

McCain will too. I fear it will work. American's way to0 often vote for change too, without knowing where it will lead.

therefore they obviously have an agenda. Beyond that, like it or not, a vast portion of america will not vote for a woman or an african american. Here is a poll showing the dem canidates vs the republican contenders: http://firedoglake.com/2008/01/14/the-polls-you-wont-hear-much-about/
I understand faith and enthusiasm but politics when it comes down to it is a nasty biz having little to do with that and more to do with biases and media formed impressions. While people on this board might be savvy politically the rest of America is truly stupid.Mccain waxes either of them after the junta is done doing its dirty work.

Then we'll wake up November 5 and find out that McCain or whomever the Republican candidate is, won.

The media will give us some lame story that voters indicated they strongly supported Hillary, but when they entered the voting booth to cast their vote, they developed voter's remorse and suddenly felt like they weren't just quite ready to vote for a woman.

The media are setting us up for just such a scenario. Write it down. That's why they Hillary was always in the spotlight, even after her third-place finish in Iowa. What other third-place finisher gets that kind of attention?

The media declare Clinton the winner in Nevada, but Obama supposedly won more delegates. Isn't that the object of the game--get the most delegates?

The media want a polarizing figure in the election. They want the Republicans to retain the White House. Simple as that.

I think the Republicans feel that they can "win" a close election against a woman or a black man and blame the "close" contest on the American people's lack of readiness for this much of a change. And by win I do mean manipulate the hell out of. To try to "win" a close contest against a southern man with that logic would not fly. They have done every thing to marginalize and quite anyone but obama or hillary. I watch the msm not to get news but to see what they do not show. Now call me paranoid, you may be right, but do you think the 2006 elections should have been so close?

Do you think the Republicans want to give up power without a fight(down and dirty)?

Do you think the republican party and those working for them are above vote tampering?

Do you think the Republicans do not believe it would be easier to win using race and sex as weapons in a media campaign in the general election?

Do you think they are above using race and sex as a tool in the election?

Do you think the MSM is above manipulation by the republican party?

Welcome to my nightmare.

` Really only a handful to superwealthy own our media. We think them fair minded and committed to democracy .Absurd. See the story about the LA Times going thru the third editor since the Chicago Tribune takeover. All quit over ransacking the news staff./ Thinking why they'd want to own almost all our media and not thinking their ownership would exact control over information is what is naive.

The Bushies have been "helping" us choose our candidates, the easiest for them to defeat and befuddle and take advantage of or "work with", for quite some time now.

Now that their mechanisms of propaganda and control have strengthened by orders of magnitude, it becomes more and more obvious. The Media-Industrial Complex now works quite openly, using tried and tested methods of advertising and marketing.

Hillary and Obama are the Bushies' dream slate of potential contenders, and they KNOW that racism and sexism are at relative highs in this era.

It is the ONLY way the Bushies can get close enough to steal an "election" they can't win, and they may not even neede to steal it. Will this mean a "landslide" victory in 2008, i.e. a "narrow victory leavened with all the other Bushie manual and electronic voter disenfranchisement techniques?

I think it will.

!. The magnitude of the dissatisfaction in the republican party

2. the magnitude of the impact on the young that obama has had. The usually inert twenty somethings may be harder to trick than they think. And i am talking mostly about WHITE MIDDLE CLASS BOYS.

3. the magnitude of the very medium we are on. Why do you think they want so hard to monitor it and make illegal our anti-establishment thought.

4. The magnitude of their own inept policies. No party has ever been re-elected into the white house when the economic conditions were in such an incredible down turn.

magnitude indeed

that I have to see it beaten, even set back slightly, with my own eyes to believe it anymore.

We supposedly "won" in 2006, Bushler has a 25-35% approval rating and yet he rules as if his approval is 99%. What is wrong with that picture?

Anyway, let me just say that I hope you are right, but I don't see it as a greater than 5% chance that you are.

I had "Paul Revered" for seven years following the Coup of 2001, and my experience is that Bushie propaganda is subtle and adavnced, works subconsciously like all good advertising, and is incredibly sophisticated and difficult to unpack.

I.e. The Bushies have a multi-bilion dollar Orwellian semantics redefinition industry which boils down a hundred falsehoods into a single statement...a slongan, if you will. In order to debunk this devilishly constructed semantic bomb, you need to recite facts and reason, which is slower and more "boring" to people. In our ADD society people's eyes glaze over before you can fiinish the second sentence, thus the meme inoculated and the debunking bounces off the mental armor created by the onnoculation. People respond to short declaratives and slogans, and it has never been more true than it is today.

Of course that is a generalization andthere are given exceptions, but the truth of that holds true. We have allowed the Bushies to take control of our National Conversation and MSM, with the ultimate aim of controlling the National Consciousness, and this they have done a remarkable job at. The time for effective resistance is ended, at least on a rhetorical level, for the Bushies have been repeating their bullshit without directed resistance from the Democrats and MSM that it's all "conventional wisdom now".

As a result, our National Consciousness is "Alice in Wonderland" freaky, and our society now nearl;y as malleable as the 1930s Germans when the Nazis first mentally shocked them.

In any case, Sam, I hope that all of this is my own mirage, and that you are correct.

As long as corporations own the machines that count the votes, the USA will have a corporatist president.

They cannot afford another FDR or Kennedy in the White House.

only white penises need apply although I do agree the coverage of the candidates has been extremely lop-sided

Discouraging women and African-Americans is NOT what this is about, and it is a misrepresentation to say that people who think it's doing what the Bushies want if the Democratic Party nominates Clinton or Obama.

The facts also happens to be that Edwards, even if all tree were white guys, women or all African-Americans, would STILL betthe only one of those three who is even talking directly about taking aim at the status quo.

But the fact of modern life in the Empire is that we are now approaching, it terms of social mores, almost a pre-60s mindset from the Bushies which thus has seeped into our National Psyche. More than seeped, gushed...piped in in industrial quantities by the most sophisticated propaganda machine in human history.

So, while no machine could be "way-backed" for the moment to re-allow lynchings and beatings and all the rest, still millions of African-American votes are stolen and "spoiled" and blocked each year, both manually by methods performed in open daylight (such as Voter ID Law), and the suspected electronic flipping and disenfranchisement votes, which gets worse every year it is not confronted and the vote remains privatized. And nobody seems to give a shit beyond our little corner ofthe blogosphere.

Even Obama's fine anti-election tampering law, since unable to get put into law or even getting close. Senate Judiciary won't even schedule the thing for debate!

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-453

My point is this, I could go through a half-dozen more strategic reasons why people believe this to be true, not to mention that this is just one racist country with the racism seething beneath the surface biut now given release by "non-racial" Bushie brutality dorected at the poor.

In either case, no one is trying to say women or African-Americans or atheists or Jews or any person meeting Constituional requirements should be President. But rightnow our Republic is now perilously and irreversibly on it's way to being an Empire and we have maybe one or two more shots electorally to change that course and restore th Republic.

We need to WIN, and that is even with millions upon millions of disenfrachised African-American votes and Voter ID suppresssing millions more poor and minority voters, not to mention the dozen other intimidation/suppression techniques the Bushies use and have used now for seven years and more.

To stop these things, expose them to the light of day and fight them, we need to WIN in 2008, and win big enough the Bushies can't steal it. Only Edwards can do that, IMO, primarily because he is the only one of the Big Three talking about substantive change and beating back the corporate power that is crushing the middle class.

But this also dovetails with the strategy that, at this crucial time when victory not just victory but needing a substantive victory, we dare not try "a first" in our history which would only pass by a small enough margin to be stolen, and thus, even if we "won" like in 2000, we will still lose.

The "Powers that Be" will make sure that all of their bases are covered.

A Democrat may well be allowed to win this election (it happened in '92) but it will be one who has been vetted and approved by the corporate media--and who can be controlled. Along with cleaning up the mess left by the Bush administration, and doing a course correction on the economy (recession is not good for the old stock portfolio), this Democrat will be expected to do something that will benefit big business. In Bill Clinton's case it was NAFTA. My guess is that this time it will be a form of health care reform which takes the burden of insuring workers off of the corporations, thus increasing profits, but which insures big profits to the insurance companies--needless to say, for a candidate to utter the word "single payer" means he or she is a dead man walking.

Sorry, forgot to take my optomism pills this morning.

Hillary and Obama are the corporate picked front runners because neither is electable.
America is still too racist and misogynistic.

to just about anyone who has more than just a passing interest in politics and the future of our country. I'm afraid that ol' Al is right, since most people aren't as interested as we are and they get their news from the MSM. The media's deliberate attempts to make Kucinich, Dodd, Richardson and to some extent Edwards "invisible" is so blatant.