Dishonesty, stupidity, immaturity, or something else? And on whose part?

I've seen any number of hostile posts claiming that DK's meager results to date and Dean's sudden defeat were the inevitable results of their unacceptability to the public. Those posters deny completely that the corporate media played any part in those outcomes--or, indeed, that any factors other than Dean's and DK's personal inadequacies played a part.

What's going on here?

Dennis got no public support because the media ignored him, or Dennis was ignored by the media because he got no public support.

Depending on what your agenda is and how much you want to argue, you can carry this one out forever, because there is NO WAY TO PROVE EITHER SIDE.

So yippee, get on yer battlin' outfits, DUers--we'll be having this one until the Earth becomes a frozen lifeless ball in space.

For example, Nagourney really did dismiss DK as 'unelectable' immediately, and has never deviated from that position. That can be proven by examination of the record.

And I don't recall--do you?--any members of the major-league punditocracy giving DK the serious attention his positions, Progressive Caucus leadership, and record (if only the Lazarus part!) would seem to merit.

And then we have the article posted by DesertRose the other day, in which Dean's sudden case of cooties was linked to his saying he'd dissolve the media monopolies. Is that false? It should be easy to disprove, if so.

Hardly anything can ever be proven, but usually there's enough evidence to reach a conclusion, don't you think?

is to assume that the media won't cut down Kerry.

Don't say you weren't warned.

that declaring any one of our candidates "unelectable" is completely counterproductive. It implies something that is absolute, devoid of hope or change. It is simply destructive and I can't imagine how anyone who claims to care about the Democratic party would utter such a pronouncement about one of their own candidates. I have no respect for the people who insisted on repeating that mantra about the less 'mainstream" candidates. It's people like this who have made it so hard for a woman or person of color to advance toward the presidency. They state this absolutist nonsense and condemn candidacies before they even get off they ground.

for shame :puke:

edit: this is why I blame "Democrats" as much as the media.

more sinister or what?

just ignorance. People seldom stop to take a step back and think before they repeat something that is supposedly "conventional wisdom".
Our culture is losing the ability to think critically, even so called liberals. We're all "Sheeple" by degrees it seems.

the term 'cultural malaise' comes to mind. We find both the media and the person on the street repeating the same things.
Chicken or egg? It's hard to tell.

involved)

why the hostility and anger? There is certainly lots of frustration on all our parts. If we could start to get a grip on understanding this, it could be productive. Maybe part of it is that most everyone feels powerless to a degree and the frustration having no productive avenue just spills over in a sort of a blind lashing out. It's a discussion worth having.

Start with the crusade. How is that being covered lately?

I remember when it started, there was a lot of criticism, some of it from the regime itself, of Arabic cable stations because they reported civilian casualties.

Go back before that, when the regime called them all in and "asked" them not to show Osama tapes in their entirety, lest sleeper cells hearing the English translation might decipher the coded messages with instructions for the next attack.

I have heard CNN talkingheads explain that the "unrest" in Iraq is partly due to the Iraqi people getting used to freedom. Saddam handed them everything on a platter, now they have to adjust to democracy, where fewer people will have jobs, but those who do will earn more!

I believe it was CNN who started the practice of closing every report on every story with a sum-up of the regime decree on the subject.

You can read the raw wire copy, and compare it to what you see on the news, and see for yourself what makes it and what doesn't.

Has US corporate media coverage of the candidates been inconsistent with their coverage of everything else?

Are you arguing that the media does play a part, or doesn't? (I certainly think it does, of course!) And where, do you reckon, the hostility is coming from in those who demand we believe that the media is impartial and unimplicated?

You and I might read newspapers from 7 squillion countries every day and know where Uzbekistan is and what's on all the candidates' websites and their voting records and what they said to whom about what and when.

But most people, even most voters, don't. Their knowledge of the news, whether it's about the candidates or the crusades or Kobe and Lacy and Martha comes from little short bursts of time watching the crusadenets.

I don't think it's an accident that every time the regime seizes a country or explodes something a little too obviously there's suddenly new information about Kobe's accuser, or Janet's bosom.

There are voters in states that haven't had primaries yet who never heard of Dean or Kucinich. In fact of the reasons Kerry won Iowa, in my opinion, is simply because people had heard the name, he's been around a while, he's run before.

The only channel I have seen much of Kucinich on is World Link TV :)

Is it the lawyers' rule (when neither the facts nor the law are on your side, pound the table), do you think, or something else?

:evilgrin:

There hasn't been a Democratic presidential candidate who has spoken so honestly and openly about issues of social justice since Robert Kennedy.

Kucinich's message is a call for a pardigm shift, a call to replace our destructive worldview of fear, violence and domination with a worldview rooted in hope, cooperation, and commitment to our higher natures.

Human consciousness is ever evolving, old social mores and "conventional wisdom" will always eventually have to make way as human perception expands and refines itself. And always, the power structures that depend upon maintaining and containing one level of consciousness, will mightily resist the initial efforts at breaking free of the accepted norms.

As Gandhi said: "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."

sw

Take the example of health care. All the candidates except Kucinich and the two African-Americans had some variation of "subsidize the insurance companies (directly or indirectly) to continue screwing patients, only broadening the base of patients so that they can screw almost everybody, except for the people who are left out, but whadda ya gonna do?"

The New York Times and other mainstream media had long, detailed articles about the health care proposals of Kerry, Dean, Clark, Edwards, Lieberman, and Gephardt. the articles would either not mention DK, AS, and CMB at all or would end with a sentence saying that those three candidates proposed "socialized medicine" or "a single payer plan" without explaining what that was.

DK's proposal to cut the Pentagon budget by 15% and his revelation that the Pentagon was unable to account for $1.3 trillion over the past twenty years received no mainstream coverage that I was aware of.

Going up against the coddled, overfed insurance companies and the coddled, overfed "defense" establishment threatens the wealthy corporate types who control our media. They're afraid that these ideas might actually make sense if people heard about them, and if I've learned anything in my lifetime, it's that the Big Boys watch out for one another.

In a much broader sense, I've been pondering the example of Galileo and the Church. A perfectly rational and supportable proposition, that the earth revolves around the sun and not vice versa, is perceived as a dire threat to the power structure of his time. Galileo is imprisoned, tortured, and made to recant -- yet the idea of heliocentricity could not ultimately be repressed, and went on to become the new conventional wisdom.

Obviously, Dennis Kucinich is not being persecuted, but he HAS been effectively rendered silent in the larger sphere of mainstream discourse. His ideas for universal health care and decreased militarism are "outside the frame" of acceptable status quo political discourse.

Those in the vanguard of new ideas and new ways of looking at the world are ALWAYS resisted, and subject to ridicule, vilification, and at times outright violence. Witness the insults, mockery and simmering hostility exhibited right here towards those DUers who challenge the pervading framework of perception.

In the end, I believe, all efforts at suppression of change will come to naught. Just as witch burning is no longer considered by society as a whole to be an acceptable practice, our society can also evolve to a new state of consciousness in which militaristic domination and corporate feudalism are considered unacceptable to the human condition.

In the beginning there are only a few who dare to step forward and speak for a new way of living in the world. But the seeds of change do indeed take root in the group mind, and in the end bear fruit.

sw

Love Kucinich.

Hate the corporate media.

They may look cute, but these aliens have been making voters not vote for Kucinich.

I think I heard it on Art Bell. No wait, it was on Democracy Now.

Wait, maybe Democracy Now is a bunch of space aliens!

think it's coming from.

You need to face facts.

Kucinich is a weak candidate.

It's not the media.

It's not the corporate blah-dad-dee-blah.

It's not people being "sheeple" or "being stupid" or "immature".

It's Kucinich. It's his isolationist policies.

Maybe it's his screechy, preachy voice and nerdy appearance. Not that I care, but that is an issue.

And it's the electorate who does not like him. They don't vote for him. He's in last place. Sharpton has more delegates and votes than he does. It's the people in his own state that reject him.

You mention dishonesty in the thread. You are being dishonest with yourself in thinking that Kucinich is anything more than a weak candidate.

Get it?

On edit:

I've run into Kucinich fans along the way during the primaries and have admired their dedication and investment (literally) in their candidate. They were generally much friendlier than another candidate's supporters (who shall remain unnamed here) and willing to engage in discussions about issues.

But now that the voters have made a point about Kucinich, it's time to remember what the final goal is. That's to get rid of Bush.

share the reasons for your hostility? Are you even aware that you're being hostile?

(A hostile response is one that's based on an asserted power gradient-'shut up and get in line'--rather than reason)

Answer me these simple questions:

1. What place is Kucinich in with the remaining Democrats in terms of votes and delegates?

2. Why did Kucinich do so badly in his home state where he should be fairly well known?

3. What economic repersussions would happen if the US pulled out of NAFTA?

4. Are people who don't vote for Kucinich stupid, "sheeple" or stooges of the corporate media?

---

As for the "you're being hostile" routine, you just need to face facts about Kucinich and his lackluster candidacy.

of the point I made in my basenote that I think people would have to be forgiven if they suspected you and I were in cahoots.

So I think I need to formally disclaim any collusion here: Mr ZZ is doing this entirely on his own and apparently sincerely.

He is ( was) unelectable. When choosing a candidate, the average Democrat and the informed Democrat look at any number of things
(IMO)

They include: Can the candidate raise money or have the potential to raise money?
Do they have good campaigning skills?
What about their family?
Do they have national security creds ( or anti-terror)?
Are they known? (ie name recognition)
Do they have a good speaking voice and look the part?
What do black voters think about the guy?( since they are a super-important part of the base)
How good is the organization that the candidate put together?

I'm sure there are more.....

Anyway if you answer honestly the above, you can see why DK didn't do better and was perceived as un-electable.

that DK is 'unelectable' but not smart enough to see that Dean is too? Why does that seem like a 'just so' answer?

1. Yes, he's raised over a million this quarter in small contributions, and he's run a very thrifty campaign.
2. He's awesome in person.
3. Divorced twice (hardly unusual these days), and his daughter seems like a fine young woman
4. There's more to international relations than militarism, which has gotten us into more trouble than not in the past fifty years. It's time for a different approach.
5. Someone who was rarely mentioned in the media except in passing while the other candidates, including Clark and Dean, got entire Newsweek and Time articles from the very beginning before any votes had been cast--I think he's done well on name recognition considering that the mainstream media have made a point of ignoring him. (The New York Times was especially blatant in this respect.)
6. What does a president look and sound like? Your average guy off the street looks more presidential than Bushboy.
7. I don't know about in general, but he did very well in the majority African-American precincts in Minneapolis.
8. He had to rely on volunteers, so the organization varied from state to state.

for the office of president: Women, Blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans, Asians, Arabs, Muslims, Buddhists, Pagans, Atheists, Short People, etc.

How can the Democratic party be the party "of the people" without moving beyond these supposed givens?

It's not that the media had absolutely no influence on the candidacies of DK and HD. It's that the media merely influences, but does not control, the way people vote. There is a strong contingent of DUers who seem to arguing that the media controls the vote and it seems that this argument is used to distract from the candidates contributions to their own defeat.

Every Dem Presidential candidate in recent times has faced a hostile media, most notably Clinton. Since Clinton and Gore did win in the face of a hostile media, that proves that the media do not control the elections.

IOW, what's needed here is a more balanced view that more accurately reflects the reality that there are a slew of factors that influence elections, and the media is just one of them, albeit an influential one.

as per the old saying, "There's no such thing as bad publicity." An unsavvy one folds. I'm reminded of the way Paul Wellstone took a Republican ad calling him "embarrassingly liberal" and turned it into a running joke. (I wasn't in Minnesota at the time, but my relatives told me about it.)

It's much harder to overcome total lack of publicity, because support STARTS with name recognition.

It's no coincidence that Kucinich did best in Hawaii, where he received publicity for being the only candidate to come to the Islands twice, and in Maine and Minnesota, where grassroots activists badgered the media into covering him and did magnificent and highly creative visibility work.

Kucinich INTENTIONALLY set out to make th UNFATHOMABLE a reality. Imagine, a department of PEACE. The word currently is only used as euphamism in defense manuals for things like a "peacekeeper" missile. His ideas ARE radical and he knows it and in my view that is good.

Look at who is in power now and how RADICAL their ideas were at one time (and thankfully still are to some)The fact that Bush is even slated for a close election PROVES that radical ideas CAN take hold.
Dennis catered to the group that would HAVE that conversation with him..it isn't a broad plurality yet.

Dean ran a bit differently with Kucinich with a different idea...one that wasn't necessarily radical, but one that the party fatheads had given up on..i.e. publicly funded elections.

Either way..BOTH took what was not coffee table conversation and began nurturing it and hopefully (by way of all of us) these conversations will continue to happen until they are no longer perceived as radical but become perceived as doable and right by a broader swatch of people.

YOu HAVE to start somewhere. Although people attended protests around the world, there has been little ROOM for the word PEACE in electoral thinking.

Dennis has a dream. MLK had a dream...MLK's dream didn't die with him. Dennis's dream doesn't die with his run for the head office.

Are you on the 'it's all their fault' side, then?

And where do you reckon all the 'sit down and shut up it's their fault' hostility is coming from?

In Dean's case, it would be impossible not to ascribe a great deal of responsibility to him. Not only did he benefit from a lot of GOOD press, but he had the funds to do better and made a few remarks and took some actions that LEFT himself WIDE open.

In Kucinich's case, of course he would get ignored as he did...he IS a threat to MUCH more than business as usual..he IS a threat to a war based/oil based economy.

What I AM saying is Kucinich REACHED out the MOST to a group of people LEAST likely to be heard and got in on nearly EVERY debate...that's what I call a START.

As far as hostility...gosh if I knew the source of everyone's hostility,...people would be camped out at my door copiously taking notes ;-)

understand how the machinery of society actually works. A subject such as the relationship between the corporate media & electoral outcome is an excellent illustration of this.

If you ask the average American, "What form of government do we have?", she will tell you "We have a democracy." (Some wise guys might say, "A republic.") But almost no one would answer "a plutocracy" (or oligarchy) - though that's far closer to the truth. If a prominent person said on TV that the US was a plutocracy, not a democracy, it would likely elicit general outrage. Why is this?

It obviously illustrates that culture, indoctrination, education etc are effective in training people, & in doing so in such a way that they're often not consciously aware that their attitudes are largely products of the training.

People on DU, like most Americans, generally accept that the US has a "democracy," & that voter behavior can be interpreted at face value. This belief is an intended result of our training: the population is more easily controlled, if most people accept it. If you suggest to people that they are largely just pawns in a huge marketing/propaganda scheme, they will get indignant - the notion conflicts with their training.

At root, American culture indoctrinates us with the notion that each person's action mainly reflects his own free will. Yet, the truth is that the culture is a huge incredibly influential Brainwashing Machine, constantly setting norms & shaping behavior. Belief in the individual's free will serves the system, so the belief is encouraged. The fact that it's almost entirely untrue doesn't prevent most people from believing it, because belief is determined more by training than by truth.

RIch is right to say that most Americans would react with hostility to the idea that we are a plutocracy. However, if you were to ask those same people if the govt is run by big business and other monied interests, you'd find a lot of agreement out there.

The same goes for the word "propoganda". Many people relate that to Nazi Gernamy, and other repressive regimes, so they reacted negatively to charges that our news is propoganda. But ask them if the news is slanted, and large shares of the population would says yes.

People are aware of how it is here...maybe they don't have it all labeled...minor point anyway...but what can we do about it???

Anything??

I would guess its the few aware people- activists- out there who keep fighting and bringing the awareness of what needs to be looked at from a different perspective and possibly changed....damn...its a tough job...the brainwashing of America has been a very successful program from what I have observed.....

where I wonder does the change really begin...the language? call a spade a spade & let people deal with it? subtly change things til its all accepted fact?

Seems a lot harder to break the chains than forge them ....

Peace
DR

I voted in MO's primary for DK

But by the time Super Tuesday came around even if you supported DK and thought he would be the best man for President. How many did not vote for him because he was toted as "unelectible"? Or that they were ABB and just want Bush out so they went with the perceved "winner"?

I hear DK talk and shake my head sadly. Here is the man that says so much of what I believe, here is a man that says "I am a Liberal" unafraid, here is a man that has continued to do his job in the House while stll campaigning. He has done so much and yet he is criticize not for his ideas but for his looks. I wonder how he would have done if he had the money of another funny looking guy, Perot. People did laugh at him but also many more listened becuse he was able to get his message out.

DK is no more "funny looking" or "funny sounding" than Ross Perot. In fact, when I first saw him in August from about thirty feet away, my initial thought was, "Somebody morphed Ross Perot and Jerry Mathers."

Yet because Ross Perot was able to buy chunks of TV time, he gained credibility, and his message resonated with enough people to deny Poppy Bush a second term.