The Dem primaries used to be the only time when a bit of nonCorporate Truth could penetrate the censors. Compare the level and amount of discourse from this election to other dem primaries. I am not talking about what is said, but how widely it is distrubuted over the airwaves.

It is sick.

And with that in mind I ask WHERE THE HECK IS THE MEDIA REFORM MOVEMENT?

Maybe they are having an underground and invisible movement to put on another liberal show in the 10pm time slot on PBS Friday nights?

Is that the best focus right now? I think what we need is VISIBILITY: PEOPLE NEED TO KNOW THAT THE CREDIBILITY OF THE MEDIA IS ITSELF THE ISSUE.

I have a sense that this OFF BENDED KNEE strategy might be considered a bit dangerous by certain "left" foundations who might give to "media reform movements" I have trouble understanding how the Media Reform Movement is STILL so invisible, with the airwaves becomong more of a Corporate Sewer System every day.

OFF BENDED KNEE! WHEN WILL WE TAKE THE OFFENSIVE BY MAKING CORPORATE MEDIA CREDIBILITY A VISIBLE ISSUE? >>>>>> "You cannot Nice these People"

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKmockingbird.htm

We have hit a point with Obama winning ten in a row that (hopefully) 10-zip is going to take on a sports metaphor life of its own and get the crowds in the stands (us) up on our feet cheering as though for a prize fighter, or a young Tiger Woods in golf or a magical quarterback like Joe Montana years ago. The press may play minor complaint stories, but with luck those stories will be D.O.A. at best, or even incur the active wrath of the fans. Momentum trumps crap.

The oratorical skills of George, the Anti-Christ, are tough to beat. ;)

Hey, Mr. Lindorff, let's stick to the high road, shall we? Your remark about Hillary, "...and whose husband wants nothing more than a new shot at some eager White House interns..." is REALLY low class.

The Corporate Media is exactly the problem. The Corporation exists only to serve the Corporation. The Public Airwaves were designed to serve the public. Only the former is actually being done. We have lost "our" airwaves, and won't get them back until Americans rise up everywhere, throw those TVs out the window, and pick up a book.
This won't happen! This country turns in cycles. The Republicans start wars, so they can supply their coffers with taxpayer money, (Conservative Nanny State, D. Baker), drain any and all social programs they can, destroy most of our economy, then slink off into the darkness of their gated communities. Democrats are then elected to clean up the crap the elephant left behind, create jobs again, stop the wars the repubs started, and creat a budget surplus that the repbubs can then again raid to their hearts content.
Whenever Government is run by "folks" who hate Government, then you get what we have had these last eight years. If only Clinton had done his job after first getting elected, we wouldn't even be in this situation today, in fact, the Bush family name would have been disgraced by now, whereas even Jeb couldn't get a job running his local township.

Since when has the practice of politics become a sphere of original research? If politicians kept adding footnotes and attributions to their speeches, the resulting speeches would lose their effectiveness.

In politics recognizing and co-opting ideas that lead to good governance is the better approach. It is about benefiting the collective whole rather than recognizing the uniqueness or origin of a single formulation.

wnat ot know who funds and backs all candidates
www.opensecrets.org

The corporate media? You sir are no better with your nastiness about Senator Clinton. You boys are all the same. . .nothing good about any woman running for office comes out of your mouths. The corporate ties all the candidates have is how they finance elections. No money, no campaign, no get elected. The boys made the rules on campaign financing years ago and are not in the mood to make needed changes so now Senator Clinton plays by those rules and you fault her and everyone else? The media wants ratings and profits and that doesn't come by doing investigative journalism; just calling a candidates' daughter "being pimped out" and making nasty, sexist comments about prominent women, then forcing those commentors to "apologize". Get real.

This whole story is a tempest in a teacup...oh wait...can I use that?

The concentration of power and capital at the top is not unique to the military defense contractors or to the government. It is also evident in the power public relations and crisis management agencies hold over public opinion.

The ease with which the American population accepted the invasion of Iraq was the outcome of a concerted effort involving the government, DoD contractors, public relations firms, and the corporate media. These institutions are the instigators and main beneficiaries of a permanent war on terror. The importance of these connections lies in the fact that powerful segments of the Global Dominance Group have the money and resources to articulate their propaganda repeatedly to the American people until those messages become selfevident truths and conventional wisdom.

(Itself lifted from "The Global Dominance Group: 9/11 Pre-Warnings & Election Irregularities in Context" by P. Phillips, B. Thornton and C. Vogler.)

You know what was the greatest tragedy of the Clinton legacy Adele and Rockerbabe?

Feminism became a joke between sleazy Bill using women and Hillary using him to achieve her own ambitions.
Like I said, a joke.

What is really frightening is the total lack of reflection as the US rushes to embrace its new messiah.

Let's see

Clinton's policies caused deaths of 500,000 children - acceptable consequences according to Albright.

Bush's 'killing fields' - Millions of Iraqis dead - for what?

Progress? What will the score be for Iran?

But who's counting?

NOT THE U.S. MEDIA!!!!!!!

Rockerbabe1's comment about how "You boys are all the same. . .nothing good about any woman running for office comes out of your mouths" reveals that shallow, knee-jerk quality I've come to expect from so-called feminists.

I've been on the receiving end of similar "analysis" at least twice before in my life, and both times did little but undermine my confidence in the merits of so-called feminism.

Once, a college girlfriend called me a sexist---because my CD collection ran too "male-heavy." (I thought I liked my favorite bands because of how they sounded and because their lyrics spoke to me, but I was wrong---it was all really about their genitals.)

The other time was in a graduate course on Methodologies in the Study of Comparative Religion. In a less-than-flattering discussion of Mircea Eliade's *The Sacred and the Profane* and his history of involvement with fascism, one of the Woman's Spirituality students denounced our entire conversation as a "patriarchal ploy" to discredit Eliade. Funny, I thought at the time, I didn't know Eliade was a feminist. I think what that student really meant was "I don't agree with you" but because she wasn't capable of articulating that in any meaningful way, she just played the "feminist" trump card---blame it on patriarchy. (This is not to deny that patriarchy is real or that analyzing it and working to transform it is important. Instead, it's just to point out that knee-jerk "feminism" does little to support its own cause.)

So now if I don't like Clinton, regardless of how nuanced my reasoning or how detailed my list of problems with her, for many "feminists" (interestingly, it's usually those whose feminism begins and ends with careerism and abortions) it's just a "patriarchal ploy." The "boys" are picking on another girl, and so on.

Pretty sad reflection on the intellectual state of what passes for feminism, if you ask me.

"By Bill O'Reilly Does Michelle Obama dislike America? That is the subject of this evening's "Talking Points Memo."

At least FOX is focusing on the issues and where the candidates stand...

MSM has been making a killing during these primaries.
The talking heads are hollow inside. These folks are paid huge amounts every year. A robot could spit out the words if typed in by a highschooler.
Once the facts are in, they are in. You can read the election results on several websites, and draw your own conclusion.

Most of us are multitasking, and would rather take the news in the background through radio or tv. Some visuals are always helpful, and so Cialis is getting its day in the sun.

The BBC does a better job of "reporting" - not to say that they are exceptional by any means.

Me low class? You don't think Bill was low-class? And you don't think he's drooling at the possibilities offered to a "roving ambassador"/First Husband?

I think it's pretty hard to stoop when making fun of Bill and Hill.

Thanks Dave, great essay.

Adele, I really don't care about the Clintons' personal life, although I would have a concern about the President's public behavior being affected by the First Husband's not so private misbehavior. Perhaps if the press left it private as was traditional, there would be no need for concern. What I do see in senator Clinton is the inclination to make much of little when nothing else seems to be working, and that is not reassuring in a world leader.

Rockerbabe, it's sexist to say you boys are all the same. They aren't. Let's convict for cause, not for genitalia.

kathyodat

Dave, be fair. I think the roving ambassador is about ego for Bill. He has no lack of opportunity regardless of Hillary's employment. Sexual exploitation is about power. Sexual addiction, as are all addictions, is the inability to stop a behavior in the face of adverse consequences. Bill's a twofer.

kathyodat

The best part about this whoe thing is that the monopoly media is losing viewers as more people spend time on sites like this one. We need to stop sitting passively in front of our television screens and spend more time actively participating on the much more democratic internet.

The internet has the ability to revolutionize the media and political landscape just as we are seeing with campaign finance becoming more democratic with millions of people donating to campaigns through websites. It is changing our campaigns and it will continue to change our society in a more democratic way. We need to keep pushing this online revolution as it will be very difficult for the powers to be to stop the momentum that has already been generated.

The days of everything we see and hear coming from five corporations is nearly over. The days of campaigns being financed by only the wealthiest individuals is nearly over. The days of our democracy being in a pitiful state are nearly over.

It is our choice to make because we now have the tools to make it happen. It is just a matter of time before the internet converges with our living room media screens and then the cable monopoly lineups will finally die and democracy will be given a new lease on life.

Thanks Dave,

I'm surprised that Hilary and Monica haven't put a video on youtube.com singing 'Sisters' and wearing Wal-Mart hostess uniforms.!

I am a feminist and I do not like Hillary.

Peace Coup

The internet would be great if left open and free. Unfortunately, right now as we write, CIA Director O'Connell is writing a draft law that would allow the Government to take complete control of the Internet. Anything and everything will be swept up and filtered to "catch" whatever and whomever they desire to label as an 'enemy combatant'.
This is one of the final stages that the 'neocons', "Project for a New American Century" speaks about in that treasonous hegemonic paper. Put this together with the fact that Dubya signed a Presidental Directive on the "continuity of government", which would allow him to suspend the Constitution, the elections, imprison any he labels an enemy combatant, in essence become King George, then what you have is the completion of the neocons dream, American Hegemony over the Globe.

JBPM February 20th, 2008 2:08 pm
-- Boy, does THIS bring back memories --" . . . a less-than-flattering discussion of Mircea Eliade's *The Sacred and the Profane* and his history of involvement with fascism . . . ".

Does anyone have any real knowledge to share on the formation of the "public" airwaves? It's a phrase bounced around a lot, and I'd like it defined historically.

Some assumptions and guesses: the broadcast spectrum (tv & radio) were not crowded in the begining, and needed stations. I imagine a scene of "homesteaders". I might also assume that it was deemed 'public' so that the federal goverment might be the one to issue permits and collect fees. I'd have to go all libertarian on this one and say that real public radio would be under no gov supervision. But what's the FCC to do? and any signal overlap cases would be decided in court, and I'm sick to death of this country being run on court cases.

Didn't this all start with some law or mandate in the broadcasters corporate charters? Or the creation of the FCC? It's on the tip of my tongue.....

And thanks Dave for taking the time to respond to people here, even if it is about Bill Clinton's sex life. Can you please encourage other CD authors to do the same.

Take a tip from Katrina Vanden Heuvel.

I am a 58 year old women. I don't like Hillary Clinton. Not because she is female, or that she stood by her man or that she is running for President or any other group reason.

I don't like her for the same reason's most people don't like someone, it's her.

If a man, African American Man, Republican, Democrate, co-worker or neighbor gave the same speeches, voted the same way, and especially if they voted for the war, and with AIPAC at every turn, I would not like he/she/ or it.

People can dislike somone for other reasons then their being a woman. Get a Life. You want equality, then except the fact that you can be disliked for who you are, not your sex.

What she is doing now that she is no longer winning really makes me like her even less. Her comments about Obama are childish.

When you've been watching a steady downhill trend for the last 30 years or so, it would seem quite bizarre to think "that it can't get any worse." Of course it can.

Next thing we'll know, the only thing they'll want to talk about is the candidates hair. Ooops, we are past that point already and still sliding downhill.

I fought my entire teen and young adult life for the advancement of womens issues, couldn't even wear pants to school when I was young, I forced my High School to become the First female in a Mechanical Drafting course wher I was immediately ignored by an all male class with a male teacher. I was the first female in the late 70's to be hired as an Electronic Tech, I am mechanically inclined and good at understanding reverse logic applicable to elctro-mechanical schematics. As a Vet, guy that is the head of my chapter is one of the greatest Feminists I have known, many Of the Vets I am around likewise. So no not ALL men, but dont kid with a kidder Mr. Lindorf, It is her, always has been always will be, The Boys Club, The guys that work for me I see it daily, I ignore it, I no longer pay it any mind. I fought that fight a long time, F$$K them, it is what it is. I see more women demean and break down the characters of women more and more lately, shameful and sad, for are they not women?. Assassinating their own character and raising daughters to behave likewise, which leads to detrimental harm to their self image ergo Anorexia, cutting, playin dumb or dumbng down when around males, shameful and very, very sad for them.

Damn, I wish their edit feature actually functioned, as I addressed Mr Lindork, should read " it is herE", not her, looks idiotic.wher s/b wherE
s/b playinG and dumbIng, which makes me appear quite DUMB I should think, pardon.

LINDORF, not dork, man enough until I hire a proofreader

Of course, to be serious it is very deliberate that they don't want to do any reporting on the real issues Americans face, nor on who's backing both of these corporate sponsered candidates.

Any talk about real issues would quickly lead to the real concerns of most Americans. And as Prof. Choamsky has been pointing out for quite some time now, those are rather well known.

Any talk about real issues would lead to talk about needing to get out of Iraq ASAP.

Any talk about real issues would lead to talk about how our good jobs are all being shipped overseas.

Any talk about real issues would lead to talk about how most Americans are scared of having any real health issues because even if you aren't one of the 50,000,000 with no health insurance you're still likely to find that your coverage is limited.

Basically, any talk about real issues might lead to discussions and a platform that would harm corporate profits. And since the media is now wholly owned subsidiaries of these same corporations and derive almost all their income from selling advertising to these same corporations, they certainly don't want to go there.

What we need to learn, and what we need to quickly try to educate most Americans about, is that the candidates you see on TV are almost certainly not the ones you should be voting for. The candidates promoted by corporate media and that have the corporate money to buy lots of ad time are almost certainly going to put corporate interests ahead of your interests once in office.

The candidates we need to support are the ones who can't afford ads and who get ignored or smeared by the corporate media. That's what we need to teach people in this country.

If supporting a woman for President was all that mattered, then you should be just as happy with say Condi Rice as with Hillary Clinton.

If supporting a black for President was all that mattered, then you should be just as happy with Clarence Thomas as with Barrack Obama.

Obviously, its positions and where they stand on the issues that count.

To me, one of the many things that makes me want to run far, far away from the Hillary campaign is this constant message that her and her supporters put out that women should vote for her just because she's a woman. That's such an obvious snow-job that it makes be very suspicious of any candidate that would put it forward. Its clearly the tactic of a campaign that didn't want to talk about her and Bill selling out the nation and the rest of us to any corporation that was willing to contribute to them the last time they were in power.

Of course, their only remaining competition within the Evilcrat party is the candidate who just chants mantras about 'hope' and 'change' without saying anything about what they'll really do. Another obvious snow job.

So, its competing con-persons trying for the Evilcrat nomination. Apparently so they can make sure we keep troops in Iraq, we never get single-payer health care, our jobs keep going overseas and corporate profits stay healthy. Its looking like either will do a fine job of representing the cause of slightly-lessor evil in the next election.

Great commentary on the state of today's media by this producer who was just fired by CNN for having his own (liberal) blog:
http://tinyurl.com/2jqmou

Thanks COMarc, good points and I agree. If we started suporting candidates who REFUSE to take part in the legalized bribery that corrupts the so-called "Two-Party System," we'd be creating the change we wish to see.

By the way, for those who don't know, NO Green Party candidates EVER take PAC or corporate money! Cynthia McKinney, the OTHER woman runing in the presidential primary elections, doesn't. Neither does independent candidate Cindy Sheehan in her run to replace "Off the Table" Pelosi in the House of Representatives. These are candidates who actually represent progressive ideas and policies, and they deserve the support of the progressive community.

www.runcynthiarun.org
www.gp.org
www.cindyforcongress.org

Hillary has lost. Once she stooped to the plagiarism charges... Even if she manages to pull off a Super Delegate Coup, she's still lost. Right now, we need a leader with the country solidly behind him/her. Hillary, for all her good qualities, can never offer that.

We need a leader, not a politician.

maggie50 wrote,

"I don't like [Clinton] for the same reason's most people don't like someone, it's her."

I have similar feelings about Clinton but I allow my perception to be tempered the feminist critique that I'm getting all of my information about her from a patriarchal media system - this includes the alternative media, which is in some cases working to disentangle itself from patriarchy. Still, within this system liberal women have two available stereotypes: bitch or whore. Guess which one Clinton's been put in?

BTW, for those of you who haven't heard, feminism has had a third wave: scholarship and activism that critically builds on Gloria Steinam et al. It's been tremendously helpful for me, a white middle class hetero male.

I don't know why you people continue to get upset about the MSM!

Surely you know by now that the MSM's prime function is to prop up the capitalist system and right-wing governments.

Forget about them bringing you news based on facts and on balanced reporting. Just watch Faux News and drink your beer!

www.dangerouscreation.com

The whole election process takes too long. All of the lies and campaigning can certainly be accomplished in less than a year.
Resources are dwindling and still more will be wasted on one thief or the other.

MSM is inaccurate and useless. Corporate Media is better. But I suggest:

Murdoch Media (not Registered) (tm not applied for) - no rights reserved. Any reproduction, account, or other use of this phrase is expressly hibited.

Personalize the enemy. Use the phrase without any fear of lawsuit or claim of plagiarism from locust. Please don't mention me at all. I'm shy.

I don't like Hillary because she's a war monger, but I agree with AdeletheCzech that the remark about Bill chasing after interns wasn't exactly the high road. But does anyone really care about that? After all, there are many other things that Bill did that were far worse than having an affair, such as the sanctions on Iraq, which killed so many children.

But the attacks on Obama for his "plagiarism" is heartening, if you ask me. The reason why is if there were something worse for his opponents to go after, they would find it and use it. But they haven't, which means they must be pretty darned desperate to use something as silly as that.

COMarc: "Of course, to be serious it is very deliberate that they don't want to do any reporting on the real issues Americans face, nor on who's backing both of these corporate sponsered candidates."

David Lindorf: "Thank you, Fourth Estate, for making us a well-informed citizenry."

Taken together, The above quotes frame our modern American politics. Sadly, most Americans don't even follow politics. What to Do?

Go to your friends' houses and talk to them. Focus on only one issue. One they sympathisize with. But do it mildly, progressively on many repeated visits. Bring beer or wine if they drink, snacks for sure. Be pleasant.

Don't argue with family members. Ask them what they think about one current issue. LISTEN to their response. DON'T ARGUE. Wait and remember. Repeat discussion later. Build on any differences you find.

Do the same for friends and co-workers. Consensus will not be built in a day. Sadly, it may take months, years or even a generation.

DO NOT DESPAIR! We will prevail, not by argument, violence, nor superior tactics, but by persistence, righteousness, and will.

There is no other way.

Vote for whomever you wish, but ALWAYS work for a positive change in your own sphere.

So why is no one commmenting on the fact that Bill O'Reilly thinks Michelle Obama should be "lynched" if she has been ashamed of America?:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200802200001

Not that it's a particularly meaningful term to an African-American...

Hollywood mogul Peter F. Paul will begin seeking sworn testimony from all three Clintons – Bill, Hillary and Chelsea – along with top Democratic Party leaders and A-list celebrities, including Barbra Streisand, John Travolta, Brad Pitt and Cher.

SO WHERE'S THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA COVERAGE ON THIS ONE??!?!

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56868

Rockerbabe, et al -

H. Clinton is getting the same scrutiny in the same way as any of the male candidates got. It's not about her vagina. Get over it.

So why is no one commmenting on the fact that Bill O'Reilly thinks Michelle Obama should be "lynched" if she has been ashamed of America?:

Because billo is a stark raving mad nut case & everybody here knows it. Just a showcase for uglyness & insanity that is the neocons calling card of whom he is a mouthpiece/puppet.

Bill O'Reilly is a right-wing nut and it is clear where his allegiances are.

Unedited video of Michelle Obama's speech in Wisconsin

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x95673

Of course, there are more important things for the U.S. corporate media to focus on. It goes without saying.

These story scripts (especially concerning electoral horse races) are the same that were written about 52 mergers and acquisitions ago. I think it was Joe Biden who ripped off a British politician that was the last plagiarism target in the mainstream media's sights.

Dave Lindorff mentions the war as more important. That's true, but his analysis falters after that. He fails to mention that Obama voted to fund the wars - a very big omission. In effect, Obama's the same on the war as Clinton. Face it, Dave, and stop lying to yourself.

I guess you could say it was "courageous" for Obama to speak out against the war before its execution. However, I think it just proves that there were no consequences for Democrats to do the same at that time. In fact, it was pretty clear at that time that Iraq lacked the means to hit even its neighbors with whatever.

So, no real courage there.

Dave, chill on the Obama enthusiasm, dude. He's a war supporter. Remember how we used to write columns urging the impeachment of GW Bush for war crimes? Will you also consider the same crimes for those members of Congress - like Clinton and Obama - who voted to fund those war crimes?

dave lindroff, thank you for the info about the ghost writer, i agree that focusing on a few phrases in a speech as a news topic, is crazy considering politicians constantly cross reference each other. old hat.

skeezyks February 20th, 2008 9:16 p

excellent point about communication, approaching people who share different opinions.

there are many out there who embrace a single news source. i agree with the comments referring to chomsky above. but it isn't the msm, exclusively, that's responsible. the news is what it is as readers using critical thinking skills it's our responsibility to discern truth based on our own judgment. personally i haven't made tv a part of my life for 20 years, but i often listen to the first hour of washington journal (on cspan), comments from repubs dems and indep's (todays question will tx/oh determine the dem candidate?). are the people who comment at washington journal phd's or prestiged writers and columnists whose words grace these pages (sometimes, usually not in the first hour) ? no. is it entertaining ? yes. this afternoon i listened to 15 minutes of rush limbaugh deconstruct obama's speech and share his ordained wisdom about how mccain can win the general (hint obama's a liberal and rush is a propogandist). i also listened to a one hour interview b/w bob mcchesney and naomi wolf about parallels b/w nazi germany and the US. the tactics fascists employ, and the trajectory of events that lead to and follow fascist govt's throughout history in timely ways. her impression, fascists tend to use the volatility of elections (especially the month leading up to the event) to create fear and a traumatic event (911/assassination) to delay elections and install a more hitleresque gooonsquad (private contractors), one were more accustomed to visualizing (long black coat, pistol, taser).

it's true the internet does enable people to gravitate to ideas and writers that embrace their ideology (is that a cult, or a group of informed citizens, or what the press originally was in our country?). 20% of americans are functionally illiterate, many receive their news from only one or two sources. also it doesn't matter if people have objective news sources (orwellian? no, objective..) if they can't read between the lines (as chomsky is par excellent). before you bring those cupcakes down the hall to your neighbors to talk about climate change or kurdish independence in turkey, iran and iraq (an issue sorely underrepresented in the press as kosovo receives so much attention, of course darfur?). try to spend an afternoon listening with them to their mediums (video games, cable tv, a million distractions) with out comment. i've found dem now is a site repubs i've met actually returned to.

obama still has to jump over the super delegates hoop. i think clinton is toast and unless she does very well in texas i don't think she'll float after 3/4/8. obama is laying the ground work for the general. one contested point among many will be true campaign finance reform. what a great way to demonstrate a commitment to change, both candidates accepting limits on fund raising.

it would be ironic if the author of mccain-feingold wouldn't except a challenge to limit campaign financing, it wouldn't necessarily be federally financed elections, it would be a step in the right direction. if mccain declined, his position would be a legitimate target in the general.

obama suggested campaign limits in this mornings usa today.

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/02/opposing-view-3.html

"In 2007, shortly after I became a candidate for president, I asked the Federal Election Commission to clear any regulatory obstacles to a publicly funded general election in 2008 with real spending limits. The commission did that. But this cannot happen without the agreement of the parties' eventual nominees. As I have said, I will aggressively pursue such an agreement if I am my party's nominee.

I do not expect that a workable, effective agreement will be reached overnight. The campaign-finance laws are complex, and filled with loopholes that can render meaningless any agreement that is not solidly constructed.

As USA TODAY has critically observed, outside groups have come to spend tens of millions of dollars "independently," while the candidates they favor with these ads "wink and nod" at this activity. There is an even greater risk of this runaway, sham independent spending now that the Supreme Court has wrongly opened the door to more of it in a recent decision.

I propose a meaningful agreement in good faith that results in real spending limits. The candidates will have to commit to discouraging cheating by their supporters; to refusing fundraising help to outside groups; and to limiting their own parties to legal forms of involvement. And the agreement may have to address the amounts that Senator McCain, the presumptive nominee of his party, will spend for the general election while the Democratic primary contest continues." - b obama.

it's unlikely mccain would accept this offer. however it could neutralize one of mccain's strengths (mccain-feingold), this neutralized topic could focus the discussion in the general towards the war, and mccain's aggressive iraq strategy.