Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Media Freezes out a Threat to Corporate Owners
In 2004 Democrats were determined to pick the presidential nominee who had the best chance of defeating George W. Bush in the general election. That man was the feisty former governor of Vermont, Howard Dean. One could easily imagine him mercilessly flaying Bush in debates before trouncing Yale's least favorite son in November. Primary voters, mistakenly betting that blandness and moderation would be a better sell, chose John Kerry instead.
The party of Hubert Humphrey and Michael Dukakis seems poised to make the same mistake again, whether with Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. Polls show that two-thirds of Americans think the country is ready for a female or black president. But I'm a glass-third-full guy. When a third of the electorate tells you "we're" not ready for a woman or an African-American commander-in-chief, they really mean that they won't vote for one. John Edwards is more likely to beat Romney or McCain than either of his history-making rivals, just by showing up with pale skin and a Y chromosome.
But even aside from electability, Edwards ought to be the Democratic frontrunner. His populist campaign, bashing corporations and free trade deals that have led to a decline in wages, seems perfectly timed for an economy everyone admits is in a recession. (In truth, the current downturn began with the 2000-1 dot-com crash, but whatever.) His platform offers more red meat for the party's liberal base than Clinton or Obama: total withdrawal from Iraq in nine months, Euro-style healthcare, full financial aid for students admitted to public colleges and universities.
A while back I argued for electing Hillary to show girls that the glass ceiling had been smashed, that they could achieve anything. Then she repeated the biggest mistake of her undistinguished political career, voting for a resolution that supported Bush's campaign to start a war with Iran. It brought back memories of Margaret Thatcher, Indira Ghandi and Benazir Bhutto, oppressive rulers who set their nations back. Clinton's gender doesn't guarantee the forward-looking leadership we need after eight years of--it's a bumpersticker cliché, but it happens to be true--our Worst President Ever.
I never warmed to Barack Obama. Like Clinton, his legislative record is dismal--he repeatedly voted to send billion after billion of war dollars to Iraq. His high-flying rhetoric has the dubious distinction of inspiring us to...to...what? His soaring oratory, purchased on the cheap from 26-year-old speechwriters, signifies nothing. Sure, America needs a black president. But it doesn't need one who thinks, as Obama does, that the only thing wrong with our war in Iraq is that we're not wasting lives and taxdollars in Afghanistan instead.
If electing a woman or a black person is more important than what that candidate has done or what they believe, Democrats should draft Condi Rice.
John Edwards isn't just the most electable Democrat--he's the best choice. But the media is starving him of the oxygen campaigns require in order to thrive: coverage. Shortly after placing second in Iowa, the Project for Excellence in Journalism found that John Edwards received a puny seven percent of national media coverage. Clinton and Obama got between four and five times more; their poll numbers were nowhere close to that much higher than Edwards'.
"The media goes to this very engaging story about a legitimate woman candidate and a legitimate candidate with an African-American heritage, and that drives up their fund-raising numbers," Elizabeth Edwards told Time. "Then the media folks say, 'See, that proves we were right to focus on these two candidates'...It's enough to make you tear your hair out."
But there's more to the Edwards story (and non-stories) than reporters dazzled by Clinton and Obama--contenders who, though they don't seem likely to make political history, add a bit of demographic flavor. There is no precedent in memory of the news media freezing out a major presidential candidate to this extent.
The New York Times' own public editor conceded that his paper had shortchanged Edwards. "In Iowa...John Edwards is close behind Clinton in the most recent Des Moines Register poll," Clark Hoyt wrote on November 18, "yet The Times has given him comparatively scant coverage. Clinton and Obama have been profiled twice each on the front page since Labor Day, but Edwards not at all this year. Throughout the paper, The Times has published 47 articles about Clinton since Labor Day, only 18 about Edwards."
"I don't track our coverage by quantity," campaign editor Richard Stevenson responded. "In a qualitative sense, we've covered him pretty thoroughly, and there is more to come."
There wasn't.
Some point to early missteps--the $400 haircut, the big mansion, even his decision to keep running despite his wife's cancer--as causes of Edwards' electoral misfortune. But the truth is obvious. Major media outlets--which are owned by big corporations--hate Edwards.
"Edwards was our pick for the 2004 nomination," editorialized The Des Moines Register. "But this is a different race, with different candidates. We too seldom saw the positive, optimistic campaign we found appealing in 2004. His harsh anti-corporate rhetoric would make it difficult to work with the business community to forge change." What scares the editorial board of the Register is that Edwards doesn't plan to "work with the business community" at all, but to empower government to re-regulate big business.
"What's really behind the media animus toward Edwards," Jeff Cohen wrote for AlterNet, "is his 'all-out courting of the liberal left-wing base' (ABC News) or his 'looking for some steam from the left' (CNN)."
When the media gets tough, read the overseas press. Kevin Drawbaugh, a reporter for Reuters, knows what's up. "Ask corporate lobbyists which presidential contender is most feared by their clients," he writes for the British wire service, "and the answer is almost always the same--Democrat John Edwards."
Drawbaugh quotes Greg Valliere, chief political strategist at the Stanford Group think tank: "My sense is that Obama would govern as a reasonably pragmatic Democrat...I think Hillary is approachable. She knows where a lot of her funding has come from, to be blunt." Edwards, on the other hand, is "an anti-business populist" and "a trade protectionist" who "would be viewed as a threat to business," he said.
Edwards scares me, too. He's the first candidate I've ever admired. God help me, I actually believe that he'd rein in the corporations whose boundless greed is bleeding the country dry. If a man with integrity and guts became president, what would I do for a living?
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
36 Comments so far
Show AllMaybe the best thing to do is to register as a republican. Then you can vote in the repub primary for Ron Paul. If enough people did this—and sent the major repub candidates to the political graveyard—we might have a real election.
The manipulation, the outright fluffiness of it all, are just too much. And in ignoring what matters, and marginalizing worthy candidates, the media, et al, just push the nation away from solution and deeper into problems.
There is no substance to be found, just junk drifting with the winds.
I agree, someone has to be blind to not see this nomination process and probably the presidential election itself is virtually rigged by the corporations' media.
But how, exactly will Ron Paul help? He will dismantle what's left of our public infrastructure and end all regulation of corporations.
This is a no brainer - Edwards is both the best as far as policy, and most electable candidate, but the corporate powers want to be sure Edwards gets safely Kuciniched.
Ted, you're book the "Silk Road to Ruin: Is Central Asia the New Middle East?" is a great read. There's a bigger reason NOT to vote for Hillary that nobody knows. When Bill Clinton was in his first term (1994), he authorized the governments covert use of thought reading technology on American citizens, that still continues today. If Hillary gets elected, how likely is she to out this illegal action? Then there's this scenario, she wins the Democratic nominiation, and somebody wants her to lose bad enough that they out this technology and her husbands involvement before the election. None of the Republican nominees have the baggage of being that close to Bill Clinton to have responsibility for his administration as she does. She'll be a dead in the water candidate and we will have another Republican President pushing for war.
Our corporate masters FEAR an Edwards presidency.
'NUFF SAID!
EDWARDS '08
Unfortunately it seems that the admirable Mr. Rall is perpetuating the "media freeze-out" of the Democratic candidate who is the greater "threat to corporate owners", Rep. Dennis Kucinich.
Mr. Rall does not even mention Kucinich, not even to pronounce him "unelectable", although Kucinich was campaigning on all the positions for which Rall praises Edwards back in 2004, when Edwards was just as "bland and moderate" -- and unwilling to seriously challenge either corporate rule or the Iraq war -- as John Kerry.
OMG- Ted, did you get paid for this?
What is wrong with America's collective Memory? Edwards is not going to fight the corporate powers- he's just another bought and paid for ho.
Obama, Clinton, and Edwards were all asked, "Will the troops be out of Iraq by 2013?" They all said ~ you never know. But the one candidate (Kucinich), that pledges to bring the troops home in 90 days... he's not allowed in the debate.
How can anyone buy this bull about Edwards fighting the powers when he co-sponsored the Iraq War Resolution. In 2004 when the election was stolen, he followed kerry's lead rolled over and played dead, allowing more slaughter in Iraq. If Edwards were for real, he would have fought the stolen election.
Fool me once... America- wake up before you get fooled again.
ALL of the "Top Tier" Candidates are pro-war. Demand a real Peace Candidate!
Touche, Secular Animist! It is Dennis Kucinich, and not John Edwards, who is the biggest threat. They allowed Edwards to be on the pseudo-debate while they ran to the highest courts to ban Kucinich from being seen or heard. Edwards verbally criticizes corporate control all the while using gobs of it to finance his campaign. No, it's not Edwards they fear. It's KUCINICH.
SecularAnimist hit the nail on the head. Edwards is another "Johnny-come-lately" to the whole anti-corporatist, anti-war, universal health, fair trade position. His votes when he had a chance to do something in the Senate belie his campaign positions of today. Sorry, but you have to judge these people by their records. When Edwards actually had a chance to stand up to the corporate interests, he caved just like Hillary and Obama. Only Kucinich has stood consistently for the progressive platform, against the war, for universal health care, against NAFTA, CAFTA, the WTO. But he is an even bigger threat to the corporatocracy, so he got even less coverage than Edwards. Democracy? Not here.
Reality:
As much as I like Dennis, the only three Democratic Contenders with enough fuel in their tanks to get to the nominating convention are Clinton, Edwards and Obama.
I am still waiting for Clinton and Obama to make some campaign promises. Until they do, I can only surmise that they will feel no obligation to throw even a few crumbs to the 99%, if elected.
At least Edwards has made a few campaign promises, leading me to believe that he will throw at least a few crumbs to the 99% if elected.
Ah, none of the candidates are of any quality... the whole fiasco of the Presidential race is disgusting. A pack of liars, every last one of them. The STUPIDEST thing that we as a species ever did was give "personhood" to corporations. Dumb dumb dumb. That's what allows them to rape the planet, exploit the people and not be held accountable for their actions.
When will the corporatocracy stop the charade and just run a corporation for president? They are persons, after all, aren't they? The corporation could even have a robotic CEO running on Artificial Intelligence so we would not have to worry about sentimentality getting in the way when our president imposed Milton Friedman neoliberalism and privatization on every nook and cranny of the economy. Or the corporation could be even more heartless and ruthless and have Dick Cheney as CEO. Either way, that seems to be the direction we are headed.
PJD writes "But how, exactly will Ron Paul help? He will dismantle what's left of our public infrastructure and end all regulation of corporations. "
Ron Paul will end central banking. That will effectively save the country. That is the most important issue that no one talks about.
Also Ron Paul is as against corporate subsidies as he is against deregulation. And if you actually listen to Paul, he says he will eliminate a few departments that are indeed worthless or do more harm than good, and help transition a libertarian government.
Now I disagree with just about every domestic policy besides elimination of the bank, but it's the most important issue besides ending the empire. Personally I think they'd kill him if he ever had a chance of winning.
Google The Money Masters and check out Corrupt Banking System on youtube (which is shorter and actually entertaining) to really educate yourselves on why the foundations of our system are breaking.
While I've respected Ted Rall in the past, I have to agree that it's ridiculous to say these things about Edwards and totally ignore that they have all happened to Kucinich one hundred times more. I could get behind the Edwards campaign if I thought that he himself believed the words that come out of his mouth, but he's proven time and time again that he says one thing and then does another. Let us remember one of the most telling things he did during this campaign--he conspired with Clinton at an open mike to curtail democracy by trying to eliminate perfectly legitimate candidates from the race. I need a candidate who is for democracy.
Dennis will be at the Convention with delegates. He will win Hawaii (again) and come into the convention with enough delegates to have a seat at the table in the platform committees and a speech in prime time.
I got an e-mail from the Kucinich campaign today. Apparently Big Capital is targeting him in the primary in Cleveland to try and drive him out of the Congress. He needs help with money for running ads to counter the attack ads that Big Capital is funding in his district.
http://kucinich.us/contribute.html
andersdl--"At least Edwards has made a few campaign promises, leading me to believe that he will at least throw a few crumbs to the 99% if elected."--Are you serious? This is a reason to support this phony? A few crumbs?
Has Edwards said a word about impeachment?
The most absurd thing he's said is that he'll eliminate corporate greed. Greed is what corporations are all about! They're probably laughing their asses off at that statement.
Elect Edwards because he's a white male? Isn't that how George W. got in? That's a pretty bad argument - if you only vote for "electability", then what is electable will never change.
We can do the math, and these pols and all their advisors surely can. One third is indeed scary and in fact is pretty conservative. Once you substitute the name "Hillary Clinton" for that anonymous female, that 33% edges closer to 53%. It's a measure of the egotism and narcissism of Clinton and Obama that they would put their ambitions ahead of the goal of a Democratic presidency.
You said that there's no precedent for how Edwards is being treated, and while I agree, I would add that the media's role in destroying Dean's campaign was not as passive as your words imply. They went after The Good Doctor with one of their patented "too angry, possibly unstable, therefore unelectable" slanders. And the rubes fell for it. The "scream" was just the last nail in the coffin. I think the media, emboldened by their success in stifling Dean, turned it up to "11" for Edwards.
I will write Dennis Kucinich's name in. I want a real, honest person.
DENNIS KUCINICH 2008
I got a chuckle out of Rall's last sentence. He sounds like Diogenes confronting George Washington and setting down his lantern dejectedly.
I could accept any of the Democrats as president, but I just can't help but like John Edwards the most.
Ron Paul is NOT the answer to anything except "How much MORE gov't getting out of the way of your protection do you think you can stand?". He stands for things that will destroy more lives than help anyone except those at the VERY top. And they are already having their way with us.
The libertarian form of gov't has NEVER been shown to help the majority in ANY way. All it does is to reward those with more money than brains, and more avarice than patriotism. It has never been shown to protect the citizen against the greed of big business, and creates much larger differences between the ultra rich and the rest of everyone. Good Lord, don't you see that? It's a sure recipe for even MORE of what we have already had shoved down our throats for the last 27 years. If you want even MORE financial distance between you and those who already have more than they can EVER spend or use, go ahead and vote for Ron Paul. He is SURE to give you more of it. And remove whatever protections you have now, minimal though they may be.
Look, I respect the man's honesty, but he is NOT the answer to anything except "How much further down the toilet can we as a country slide?". His policies leave you at the mercy of the "free market", though there is NO such thing and never has been. If you get what he wants to give you, you will be left to the mercies of those who have no mercy, and no one to stand up for you. And they will win every time, especially since they will own the media, just like they do now, and NO ONE will ever find out about your situation to be outraged, and allow the "free market" to inform them of it. And that is how it is set up to work. You get screwed, period, and they get richer.
You Ron Pauler's need to investigate what his actual policies will lead to, because it's not the utopia you think it will be. Instead, what you need to do is to actually try to build a SOCIETY of cooperation and banding together instead of every man for himself. The republicans have given you a dog eat dog world for 27 years, now, and you think that things will get better if you make that even more severe? Good God, learn the lessons of Ben Franklin. "A country divided amongst itself cannot stand". What do you think he was saying there? Banded together we are far stronger than we are one on one. That is the lesson of every country that ever worked in the history of mankind. When you allow anyone, and especially your "leaders", to separate you, you will collapse. And we are headed that way thanks to the last 27 years of republican division (not that the democrats have been any help, either, but let's put things where they belong).
Sorry if that bothers you Ron Paulers but get real, what you offer is even worse than what Reagan started, and that was based on Alzheimer's thinking. Do you REALLY want that on steroids?
Ted Rall ought to be embarrassed and ashamed. Corporate media has done all it can to marginalize KUCINICH, who is BY FAR the best candidate. If Rall believes he is not electable he should say so, but by writing as if there were only 3 Democrats running he simply joins the collusion, and does not deserve posting on CommonDreams.
Read the brilliant Chris Hedges interview with Dennis Kucinich to understand what a REAL candidate sounds like: www.alternet.org/story/74268/
Why do people keep claiming that Ron Paul is Libertarian or says that he is when he says the opposite? Around or during the recent holiday period, MTP interviewed him (or it was a reaired or -played candidates interview, one-on-one) some (I believe) Saturday night, and he was specifically asked this question. His response was that he's been Republican his entire life, most of it anyway, is Republican now, as he has been since minimally the 1970s, and that he was with the Libertarian Party for only a, one year.
Maybe the problem has something seriously to do with the (also seriously) poor quality of education in the U.S.; again "thanks" to "Uncle Sam (de Schmuckland)".
Edwards is only in the race to fulfill the role of token populist guy, giving the progressive voters the illusion that they might have a chance. It's a bait-and-switch. Kucinich is allowed to debate on TV BEFORE the actual caucuses, but when it's time for the real deal he gets shut down by all the media giants, leaving Edwards, a luke-warm version of himself, hanging around, enthralling people like this Rall guy, while the real players, Clinton and Obama, take over. Kucinich is for real, openly fighting the establishment with everything he's got, out in the open with his heart on his sleeve. Don't forget, he's never voted for the Iraq war - never. But Edwards is a shill, a shill who knows full well what his job is: keep those poor progressives thinking the game isn't rigged. If Edwards was a REAL populist, why in the heck did he approach Hillary, the goddess of war, about trying to shut down Kucinich before the media moguls did? And if Edwards was a REAL threat, like Kucinich is, why wasn't he shut down too? Why did ABC and NBC and CNN let him debate at all, if they're so darned scared of him? The answer is because they're not scared of him. They're just pretending they are. They WANT him in the race. Smoke and mirrors.
The only real hope we've got is that Obama is playing a smoke-and-mirrors game of his own, placating the big corporations, all the while planning on pulling an FDR if and when he gets elected. But that's not a big hope, is it?
And now we've all forgotten about what happened to Kucinich because our attention has been diverted to Edwards. It's kind of like how a killdeer (a kind of plover) will feign an injury to its wing while it cries out "killee, killee, killee" and runs and half-flies away from it's nest with one of its wings dragging when a predator approaches, luring the predator from the nest and then flying away at the last minute, saving its eggs. Well, all of us progressives have been effectively lured away from Kucinich, in pursuit of the broken-winged Edwards, and he's going to fly away from us before we can catch (elect) him.
But if all of those writers and media celebrities and so on had endorsed the short and funny-looking Kucinich and stuck with him, instead of being captivated by the tall and good-looking Edwards, he would have been so well-known and so well-liked by almost everyone that he couldn't have been kept out of the game. And we would have had the best fighter for the little guy since FDR on our side.
C'mon! How can anyone think Edwards is real when he tried to pull an ABC/NBC/CNN on the only real and definite progressive out there?: "Hi, Hillary. Want to get together and do something about getting those pesky "less serious" candidates out of our faces? You know, like that Kucinich guy and that Gravel guy?"
Oh, and Edwards has one more function in this game: by staying in the race he will draw enough votes away from Obama to make sure that Hillary wins. And the only possible way the Republicans can retain the Presidency is if Hillary gets the Democratic nod, because she's the ONLY one the Republicans can beat. And the killdeer (Republicans) saves its eggs (the Presidency and general political power), once again: "killee, killee, killee."
Well, I guess Rall had me fooled for a couple of years with his articles against the Iraq War, for that's about all I had read of his writings until very recently. Anyway, and while he may have been right in with respect to the war, he definitely seems to be trying manufacture, pump out propaganda now.
"John Edwards isn't just the most electable Democrat–he's the best choice."
BS; he is likely or surely no worse than Clinton and maybe is a better candidate than Obama, but still ... bs. Kucinich is clearly the best choice among the DP candidates, and his track record speaks a lot more strongly than Edwards' does! Saying Kucinich is the best choice is right, for he's candidate, and his platform and track record arguably or provably are much better than what these other DP candidates have; this actually being easy to prove. Meanwhile, people claiming Edwards is the best choice can't defend their claim.
People doing the latter and not mentioning Kucinich are correctly viewable as just a bunch more propagandists aiming to try to deny real democracy its place for the nation, while only pretending to be pro-democracy.
Among others with articles recently posted at CD, Stephen Zunes has done a much better job of presenting his analysis on the DP candidates and without excluding any. Or maybe he excluded Mike Gravel, but while it wouldn't matter; if Kucinich doesn't have a chance of being nominated, then neither will Gravel, and Kucinich has little but still more voter support than Gravel does.
Propaganda is okay if and when it's honest, truthful, and tells us important information, or repeats important warnings, whatever; but that's not what Rall's article represents, and who gets to judge this, if not the readers with real ability to both read [and] to clearly understand what they read!.
It's clearly enough of the manipulative kind of propaganda.
Or maybe I'm mistaken in thinking to recall (vaguely) that Zune included mention of Kucinich, and in positive, favourable enough terms; while Kucinich just doesn't stand a chance of being nominated. Of course he doesn't; it's also not The People who decide who's elected, either.
As much as I love Dennis Kucinich and his wife, Elizabeth, and their progressive views, you can stick a fork in him, because he is DONE. He should withdraw from the campaign and tell his supporters to vote EDWARDS in the rest of the primaries.
While I disagree with what the media did to him, he was instrumental in setting himself up for it. Dennis is no fool, although sometimes I think he has no common sense, and he knows how the system works, and how the game is played.
Dennis killed his own chances by not competing in Iowa. He did not do the ground work, hell, he didn't even have an office in the state! He gave the media an excuse to exclude him, and they jumped on it. You can't play catch-up in this game, especially if you have a message they don't want aired and debated.
Edwards lived in Iowa for damn-near two years to get a second place finish there, and that is the only reason that he is allowed to stay in the debates today. Just face it you guys, DENNIS IS DONE! He cooked himself.
I think Martin Luther King III, Ralph Nader, Michael Moore, Jackson Brown, John Melencamp, Bonnie Raitt and a host of others, are a pretty good testament to the character and sincerity of John Edwards.
For God's sake, quit flogging the dead Kucinich horse, it ain't gettin' back up. Line up behind John Edwards before it is too late, or you can expect the continuation of the status quo and more business as usual!
Vote EDWARDS '08 for a WORLD OF CHANGE!
I've never heard Edwards' attorney career described, although it's suggested he sued corporations on behalf of the little guy. Now, Ralph Nader we all know about his record on behalf of the public. There's a real corporate crime crusader!
Ted Rall forgets the war support of Edwards in his enthusiasm for him. I'm not sure why. Go by the record, Ted.
I agree with others that Kucinich was consistent on the issues that matter, and he actually took on a power company as mayor of Cincinati (and lost politically, but won for the people). Kucinich has a record of taking on corporations that I know about and admire.
Anybody know what Edwards did in that respect? Details?
Kucinich is too immature to be President. He had his supporters vote for Obama in Iowa who is clearly more conservative than Edwards.He has a personal issue with Edwards. Edwards is for real as he has spent 20 years fighting corporations in the courtroom to get redress for his clients who were harmed by thier products. Check his website for all the details which he has had there for over a year. Clinton and Obama have been stealing ideas from him from the beginning.
I agree that Kucinich has been, like Howard Dean, media-assassinated---and I'm still going to write him in on every vote. I have no other way to tell these fashion-plate frauds that to me at least the truth still matters. Edwards? He has his big donors too; hasn't said a word about impeaching this country's biggest criminals since Nixon; and who really thinks Amerika is going to vote in a way that even talks hostile to business? If a Dimocrap wins it will be a blank vote "for change," period. And because none of "the beauty contest winners" have really said ANYthing specific (unlike Kucinich), it will add up to what is already obvious: the same shit, different president. Drunks in denial keep having worse and worse disasters till they "get it." That's where we izz and where we're going...PS For Chrissake, "MEDIA" is a PLURAL word! "Media Freeze Out a Threat...."
I was going to vote for Kucinich, but I think he made an unforgivable mistake. Before Iowa he called Obama a "second choice".
How many CD readers would describe Obama as a "second choice"? People are talking about 'writing in' Kucinich's name, and maybe I would too if Kucinich actually believed in himself as much as his supporters. He should realize that he is "the only choice"... but he doesn't. He's a politician like the rest of them, sucking up to Obama because he thinks Obama will win.
Edwards says the right things lately. He sued a bunch of health-insurance companies back when he was younger. And he can't be called a "woodland creature" by Stephen Colbert.
Edwards isn't *that* bad... I'll probably vote for him just because I do get the sense the corporate media hates him. And I hate the corporate media so much, I'd vote Ron Paul (who I disagree with on almost everything) over Obama in a general election just to piss them off.
Edwards was a tort lawyer bringing product liability type cases against corporations that made faulty products or otherwise screwed people. He also left the Senate in 2004 and started a think tank to fight poverty.
I was skeptical of him before, but he has spent alot of his life fighting corporations on behalf of regular working people. The economy and fighting corporations are both important to me. He also has pledged to bring the troops home.
Edwards 2008
"Ted Rall ought to be embarrassed and ashamed. Corporate media has done all it can to marginalize KUCINICH, who is BY FAR the best candidate."
Why did Kucinich endorse Edwards in the 2004 Iowa caucuses? And Barack Obama this time? He's never given a plausible explanation for why he seems to always favor the third most progressive candidate in the race. Doesn't that give you pause? Isn't that reason enugh not to take him seriously? Where progressive bona fides is concerned, I think there's a lot less to Dennis than meets the eye.
The problem is the media and they should be taken to task. An alternative media is a good first step but fundamental change needs to be made in media ownership or those intrusted with our right to know need to broaden the discussion.
It's official, Kucinich is out of the race! He says that he is not endorsing anyone, but he needs to endorse Edwards, and he needs to do it NOW, while it can still make a difference!
If you were a Kucinich supporter, tell him to endorse Edwards NOW!
EDWARDS '08
We can go Edwards, or we can go backwards. Edwards in 2008.
redjeff, I like your slogan.