In March 2008, as Americans pay homage to the thousands of soldiers and civilians lost in five years of battle we discover that the Administration and the elite allied with earlier Executive Branches are more contemptuous of the citizenry than we ever thought possible.
In a interview with ABC News reporter, Martha Radditz, Vice President Cheney declared the Iraq war a stunning achievement, Arguably, the most powerful Vice President in American history stated, “On the security front, I think there’s a general consensus that we’ve made major progress, that the surge has worked. That’s been a major success.” Perhaps, somewhat startled by the assessment Journalist Radditz observed; “Two-third of Americans say it’s not worth fighting.” The Vice President, Cheney, curtly, replied, “So?”
Martha Radditz, with a notable inflection inquired, “You don’t care what the American people think?”
Dick Cheney content with his current tour of the Middle East offered his retort, “You can’t be blown off course by polls.” Indeed, the people they were elected to represent have never influenced this Administration.
A similar contemptuous statement for the citizens of America was heard from a prominent ally of a former President, Bill Clinton, and his aspirant wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton. Bill Richardson, a man who served as United States Ambassador to the United Nations and Energy Secretary during the Clinton administration, announced his support for Barack Obama, Democratic Presidential hopeful, and the man deemed the Former First Lady’s rival.
After New Mexico Governor, Bill Richardson, a public spokesperson, but still an individual who speaks for himself, as by law, he is allowed to do, offered his endorsement to potential President Barack Obama, James Carville criticized the statesman. Former lead strategist for the Bill Clinton’s Presidential campaign, and animated, ardent consultant for the Hillary Clinton crusade, Carville proclaimed.
“Mr. Richardson’s endorsement came right around the anniversary of the day when Judas sold out for 30 pieces of silver, so I think the timing is appropriate, if ironic.”
The reference to the Holy Week was stark and said much about what those in high places think of people who dare to defy them. Governor Richardson telephoned the New York Senator, and Presidential candidate Clinton the day prior to the formal announcement. He wanted to inform her of his decision. When asked of the tone and tenor, Richardson recalled, “It was cordial, but a little heated.” The scorn Richardson experienced this weeks seems characteristic of what occurs when we the people exert our power. For too long, Americans have not stood up to those who are supposed to represent us. Now, legislators, lawmakers, congresspersons, candidates, Presidents, and pundits think they can tell us what to think, say, and do . . . and we let them.
The Founding Fathers established that in this country, we, the people would be the power. We, the common folk, would be free to elect government officials that we believe would best represent our interests. Bureaucrats would work for the commonweal. In a democracy, such as the United States, the administration represents the average citizen. In this territory, we are a nation of equals. Each individual is able to choose for him or herself who they wish to endorse for President. We, the people need not be loyal to a legacy or a dynasty. Yet, those who serve us may be unaware of the principles they promise to uphold. The President of the United States of America is required to recite.
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
George W. Bush has demonstrated that his skills do not save the original charter from harm. After the President placed his signature on statements that allow he and his cohorts to violate laws on more than 800 Bills, finally, a report called this action into question.
Washington — President Bush’s frequent use of signing statements to assert that he has the power to disobey newly enacted laws is “an integral part” of his “comprehensive strategy to strengthen and expand executive power” at the expense of the legislative branch, according to a report by the non partisan Congressional Research Service.
In a 27-page report written for lawmakers, the research service said the Bush administration is using signing statements as a means to slowly condition Congress into accepting the White House’s broad conception of presidential power, which includes a presidential right to ignore laws he believes are unconstitutional.
Sadly, Americans did nothing. We, the people accept that the President of the United States is powerful. Perhaps, he, or she has absolute power. Certainly, the people have given our Commander-In-Chief privileges beyond those bequeathed by the Constitution. Without active censure and legally enforced constitutional constraints, citizens, and Congress, give the Executive Branch free reign.
We, the people have also provided the Vice President with a free pass. The Vice President was not required to pledge a specific allegiance before he entered into his prominent position. Richard B. Cheney needed only to avow that he would defend the Constitution, now perhaps permanently altered. Indeed, the office of Vice President is no longer recognizable.
The President also asserts that he [Cheney] need not comply with orders intended for the officials within the Executive Branch of the United States government.
Our forefathers did not imagine that the American people would sit silently by as a President transformed his power. The signers of the Constitution made provisions to avoid such an abuse of power. Yet, when the American people prefer apathy, absolute power can corrupt absolutely. Perchance, that is the paradox. What do we do when the people forget they are the power. Government is of, by, and for us.
Apparently, we sit idly by and watch our country crumble. The common folk resign themselves and claim we can do nothing. It is too late. We are too little. It may not be much longer. If life goes on as it has, the people may be but a speck of dust. In Iraq, we see what occurs when American leaders decide what is best for average people in one country or another. What for one official is a “major success” is death and bitter survival for millions more.
In the small world of a Baghdad bureau, monstrous losses
By Liz Sly
March 16, 2008
I asked a close Iraqi colleague, Nadeem Majeed, to write down a list of the people he knows who have died in the five years since the Iraq war began. It took a long time. And as Nadeem tapped away on the computer, unknown to us, another name was being added to the list.?? A friend, Nassir Jassem Akkam, 38, was among the 68 people killed in the recent suicide bombing of a busy shopping street nearby, one of the bloodiest attacks in Baghdad in a while. Akkam had slipped back to Baghdad for a quick visit after fleeing to Syria with his wife and 1-year-old son. When he died, he had in his pocket a ticket to travel the following day.?? Akkam became No. 44 on Nadeem’s list.
Let us reflect on the number of persons we, personally know, friends and family in our lives who have passed in the last few years. How many were brutally killed, slaughtered in the streets, innocent of any crime, yet, assassinated merely because they are citizens. While we honored those we loved, who passed, as humans, people of worth, many of our representatives and their minions barely acknowledged a life was lost. Is this the country you dear reader, want, or is this what our fore fathers intended?.
Perhaps the time is now. Americans, we, the average people must take our country back. Censure is essential. If we do not impeach those who “lead” us with a discernable show of disdain, if we elect elitist who disrespect our decisions, then our fate will be our failure.
America is faced with an interesting dilemma; whom might the citizens place in the Oval Office. November 2008 will arrive quickly. January 2009 cannot come soon enough. Many qualified candidates vie for the attention of the people. Among the Democrats, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd, John Edwards, Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich, Bill Richardson, and Barack Obama cross the nation each day. All wish to meet expectant constituents. The aspirants ask for only one favor. “Please give me an equal opportunity.” Presidential hopeful, Congressman Dennis Kucinich might make this request with more fervor and with reason. Kucinich excluded from ABC debate.
Sadly, few in the States will have a chance to see the hopefuls up close and personal. Three-hundred and one million Americans live in this nation. Each has a concern. All are affected by the decisions a President makes, no matter their age, class, race, color, creed, sex, gender preference, or religion. Four years ago, 221,256,931 were of age and could vote. More persons, eighteen or older call this country home now.
Of these adults, some see themselves as Democrats, others Republican. In recent years, most Americans declared they have and are Moving On. Numerous feel no need to be part of the two Party system. They are Independent and proud of it.
Meet a friend of mine. He is a successful lawyer who lives in the suburbs of Philadelphia, has two grown children, and has been a registered Republican for almost his entire adult life.
That is, until now. Increasingly disenchanted with the GOP, but no fan of the Democrats, he is thinking about re-registering as an independent when he completes a move to a new suburban home and has to change his place of voting.
My friend has plenty of company. In this starkly partisan era of Red and Blue America, we may need a third color to describe those who formally call themselves neither Republican nor Democrat. When it comes to registering voters, the two major parties can only look in envy — and dismay — at the swelling ranks of unaffiliated voters.
Since the waning years of the Reagan administration, or basically since the last periodical cicada mating cycle, the number of “other” voters has proliferated. In the 27 states (plus the District of Columbia) that have been registering voters by party since 1987, the Democratic share has plummeted 8 percentage points, declining from an aggregate total of 51 percent to 43 percent. The Republican share has stayed steady at 33 percent. But the proportion of voters who have not identified themselves with either of the major parties has jumped 8 percentage points, from 16 to 24 percent.
What’s impressive about these numbers (at least in the view of political analysts such as me) isn’t the phenomenon itself, but its staying power. Myriad polls over the past two decades have shown that voters, when asked to identify themselves politically, divide about one-third Democratic, one-third Republican and one-third independent. But in terms of registration, most have opted for one major party or the other — perhaps because, in some states, that was the only way they could vote in a party primary. Only recently, have registration figures begun to reflect the poll numbers.
What’s so significant about the rise of the unaffiliated? Well, it’s one thing to tell a pollster that you consider yourself “independent.” No particular consequence arises from that self-identification. But to register as unaffiliated is a stronger statement of preference (or lack of one). Political parties talk about the “base,” and how to energize it. These numbers suggest that the base is eroding, or at least is harder to identify and rely on.
Regardless of this reality, in the twenty-seven states that require a Party affiliation, eight  percent] of those once registered as Democrats now think themselves ruggedly Independent, researchers and the “objective” news media conclude, if they ask Democrats to discuss only Democrats then they have conducted a comprehensive survey. Researchers believe a rational judgment is made when Republicans reply to an inquiry such as, what do you think of the candidates in your Party. It seems only Independents and those outside the mainstream take the actual pulse of the public. When they do, the results are startling, and quite different from conventional “norms.”
Washington, — Democratic Presidential Candidate Dennis Kucinich, who has been the runaway winner in polls of the Party’s progressive, grassroots base in recent weeks, scored another huge win yesterday by capturing almost 77% of the vote in a nationwide poll sponsored by a coalition of Independent voting groups across the country.
Of the more than 80,000 votes cast for Democratic candidates at http://www.independentprimary.com by self-described independent voters, the Ohio Congressman received 61,477, burying second place finisher, former Senator John Edwards, who received only 7,614 votes, or 9.5 percent. . . .
This is the latest in a string of exceptionally strong finishes by Kucinich in national on-line polls. Last month, he topped all other candidates in 47 of 50 states in a poll sponsored by Democracy for America (DFA), in which he received almost 32% of the 150,000-plus votes cast — more than Edwards and Senator Barack Obama combined. In that poll, Kucinich won both Iowa and New Hampshire.
In a survey by the 90,000-member Progressive Democrats of America, Kucinich took 41% of the vote nationwide. And, in a poll conducted by the progressive The Nation magazine, he won with 35% of the vote. Obama came in second with 24%, and Edwards was third with 13%.
The creators of IndependentPrimary.com said their poll was designed to measure the impact of independent-minded voters on the Presidential election and was “part of a movement bringing together ordinary Americans who think that the good of the country is more important than the good of the political parties.”
Nonetheless, Party politics continues to thrive in the television arena. After the Iowa caucus, the first election year “contest” in the United States, and before the first vote was cast in New Hampshire, ABC News hosted another debate. The premise was people would have a chance to hear the candidates, in each Party prior to an actual primary election.
Rather than present all the Presidential hopefuls to an eager public audience, the network decided to restrict the forum. Regardless of the fact that secret ballots nation wide were not yet submitted, ABC declared, it was time to set standards. Certainly, only the supposed “electables” could appear on stage. Thus, the gauntlet was thrown down.
Candidates hoping to be included will need to accomplish any one of three tasks: (a) place in the top four positions in the Iowa caucuses, (b) obtain 5 percent or higher in recent national polls, or (c) obtain 5 percent or higher in recent state polls.
If, as the rules state, a Presidential hopeful must achieve one of these criterion, based on the Progressive polls, it seemed Dennis Kucinich would easily qualify to appear. Yet, he did not. Apparently, ABC News prefers to honor only specific surveys, those not fully representative of the nation as a whole. In an era, when the populace craves change, conventional wisdom rules.
Many muse and malign Iowa as not reflective of the nation, which may or may not be true; yet, they are happy to embrace the polls that offer a far less accurate snapshot of what American voters think. The results in Iowa call the researchers and the media into question. Democrats did not come out in mass for Clinton. The race was not as close as predicted. Nor did Obama come in second. Independents made all the difference in Iowa. Perchance, these unaffiliated voters have loud voices.
Astute analysis reveals what most say is true, the elite, the acceptable thought police control the masses nationwide. People with little opportunity to meet and greet a candidate in person peruse the polls, see numerous advertisements, and possibly read what a few hundred canvassed persons say, and then decide what they will do.
Pew Research Center for the People & the Press survey conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International. Dec. 19-30, 2007. N=556 registered voters nationwide who are Democrats or lean Democratic. MoE ± 5
“I’m going to read you the names of some Democratic presidential candidates. Which one of the following Democratic candidates would be your first choice for president: [see below]?” If unsure: “Just as of today, would you say you lean toward [see below]?” Names rotated
Hillary Clinton 46 percent
Barack Obama 26 percent
John Edwards 14 percent
Dennis Kucinich 3 percent
Bill Richardson 3 percent
Joe Biden 2 percent
Chris Dodd [The name appears with no percentage listed]
Mike Gravel 0 percent
None (vol.) 2 percent
Unsure 4 percent
Days before the main event, the Iowa Caucuses, according to this reputable Pew survey, the Clinton coronation was certain to occur. With Bill by her side, the public expected to hear an acceptance speech from Hillary Clinton on January 3, 2008. ABC News certainly understood this momentum. Before they decided who would appear on their stage they also polled the public. Registered Democrats and those that lean Left, were interviewed, or at least a full thousand plus were asked of their possible vote.
ABC News/Facebook poll. Dec. 16-19, 2007. N=1,142 adults nationwide. Fieldwork by TNS. Results below are among leaned Democrats.
“If the 2008 Democratic presidential primary or caucus in your state were being held today, and the candidates were [see below], for whom would you vote?”
Hillary Clinton 44 percent
Barack Obama 27 percent
John Edwards 11 percent
Dennis Kucinich 3 percent
Joe Biden 2 percent
Bill Richardson 2 percent
Other/None (vol.) 4 percent
Unsure 7 percent
Again, only weeks before the Iowa caucuses, a study states Clinton is the candidate of choice. Yet, clearly she was not. A third place showing is not the ceremonial introduction to her inauguration. Perchance there is much to learn from the Iowa caucuses.
Do the outcomes of the Iowa caucuses offer clues to what will happen in Tuesday’s New Hampshire primary? A look at the “entrance poll” taken Thursday night in the Hawkeye State offered five things to watch for next week:
1. Independents matter.
Independents were a small but powerful force in the caucuses of both parties, and an even higher percentage will vote in New Hampshire.
On the Democratic side, independents made up 20 percent of caucusgoers and contributed heavily to Sen. Barack Obama’s victory margin. . . .
In 2000, the last time both parties held contested primaries in New Hampshire, about four in 10 voters called themselves independents. McCain won the GOP primary that year by prevailing among independents, while Republicans went for George W. Bush.
Unaffiliated voters in New Hampshire can choose to participate in either party’s primary, and the fortunes of Obama and McCain may hinge on which way independents break. Washington Post-ABC News polling last month found that more than six in 10 of the state’s independents planned to vote in the Democratic primary.
America is in ruin. The sub-prime disaster is daunting. Once solid citizens seek relief; homes are in foreclosure. Credit crunches cause banks to bleed; they fear the red fluid may flow. Soldiers die daily abroad. More hemorrhaging. Very few industrial jobs exist in the United States. The dollar is devalued. American children are less well educated. Forty-seven million plus are uninsured. Citizens grasp for straws, even for straw polls. The State of the Union is fragile.
People are in a panic. When we contemplate the future, according to a Harvard Report, the National Leadership Index, more than three quarters of Americans think we are in a leadership crisis. Yet, often, our fellow citizens turn to corporate accounts for accurate information. This may be most true among the Independents.
34% of Independents believe that the press is not politically biased.
Perhaps, that is part of the problem; people have faith in polls. Millions trust flawed data. Fallacies flaunted by the elites that favor the status quo have much influence. We might ask own owns the media? The answer is, it is not the average American. Nevertheless, most Americans rely on the press for fair and accurate reporting. Even those aware of what is, often forget.
In 2004, Bagdikian’s revised and expanded book, The New Media Monopoly, shows that only 5 huge corporations — Time Warner, Disney, Murdoch’s News Corporation, Bertelsmann of Germany, and Viacom (formerly CBS) — now control most of the media industry in the U.S. General Electric’s NBC is a close sixth.
Still, millions presume opinion polls are the perfect gauge, or at least as good as it gets. However, ultimately, people are unpredictable. Yet, every news organization declares they know what will be come election day. The press maintains the people tell them what they think. Might we ask, do the media, and the profiteers who own these broadcast organizations tell the people what to believe?
Prominent among the pollsters is the esteemed Wall Street Journal [now owned by billionaire Hillary Clinton backer Rupert Murdoch] and NBC News, a division of General Electric, and a network that energizes the people. Noteworthy, and also a General Electric company, Newsweek Magazine coupled with prestigious Princeton researchers cannot be discounted.
NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll conducted by the polling organizations of Peter Hart (D) and Bill McInturff (R). Dec. 14-17, 2007. Asked of Democrats, and non-Democrats who said they would vote in a Democratic presidential primary (from a total sample of 1,008 adults nationwide).
“Let me mention some people who might seek the Democratic nomination for president in 2008. If the next Democratic primary for president were being held today, for which one of the following candidates would you vote . . . ?” If unsure: “Well, which way do you lean?”
Dennis Kucinich 4 percent
Unsure 7 percent
Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International. Oct. 31-Nov. 1, 2007. N=433 registered Democrats and leaners nationwide. MoE ± 6.
Dennis Kucinich 4 percent
Unsure 7 percent
If the margin of error pendulum travels in either direction, we must ask, how many more Democrats might vote for Dennis Kucinich. Granted there are those who wish to identify this Presidential hopeful as too extreme or not electable. However, if we assess the assumption of those that claim to speak for the majority we understand the rationale is flawed.
Dennis Kucinich is not viewed favorably by likely voters — 24 percent have a favorable opinion of him, 31 percent have an unfavorable opinion of him, 12 percent are neutral, and 33 percent don’t know enough about him to say. Kucinich’s net favorability rating is -7 percent.
With much help from the media and the moguls who own these resources, many Americans have no idea who Dennis Kucinich is! However, they are intimately familiar with Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and even John Edwards.
Edwards’ supporters say this is not so. “John is being ignored by the media.” Wife Elizabeth spoke of this on Hardball with Chris Matthews. The supportive spouse contends; although John placed second in the race, the focus was on Hillary and Barack. Others picked up on the campaign cry.
Just after the Iowa caucuses, the periodicals were flooded with the premise, Edwards: ‘The People’s Candidate,’ does not receive the attention the other front-runners do. The theory now espoused is, former Senators Edwards’ proposals threaten the corporate tycoons who own the press. If Edwards is elected, there will be true change. Profits will dwindle. Thus, to ensure that the people do not hear Edwards message the media does not cover the candidate.
While the supposition seems apt, the fact is John Edwards appears prominently in ever poll. He stands solidly on center stage during each debate. Edwards receives equal time and is essentially invested in the status quo. John Edwards does not challenge the conglomerates as Dennis Kucinich does.
John Edwards does not fully separate himself from those who support the standards of today. Goldman Sachs, Citigroup Incorporated, legal firms galore, and Fortress Investment Group all contribute bundles to his campaign.
Two years ago, former senator John Edwards of North Carolina, gearing up for his second run at the Democratic presidential nomination, gave a speech decrying the “two different economies in this country: one for wealthy insiders and then one for everybody else.”
Four months later, he began working for the kind of firm that to many Wall Street critics embodies the economy of wealthy insiders — a hedge fund.
Edwards became a consultant for Fortress Investment Group, a New York-based firm known mainly for its hedge funds, just as the funds were gaining prominence in the financial world — and in the public consciousness, where awe over their outsize returns has mixed with misgivings about a rarefied industry that is, on the whole, run by and for extremely wealthy people and operates largely in secrecy.
Transparency, truthfulness, all the public clamors for is indeed hidden from view. While John Edwards may wish to posture as the people’s candidate and a menace to mainstream media, he is not much of a danger to the elites. Indeed, each poll includes his name. Not all the surveys mention Presidential hopeful Dennis Kucinich.
Former Senator and Vice Presidential aspirant John Edwards was invited to every public debate. An organization never thought to question Edwards’ viability. Edwards has forever been deemed electable. He has more than equal access to the people. Dennis Kucinich, the true candidate of the people does not.
While the Federal Communication Commission [FCC] rules, which govern radio and television licenses, states stations must operate in the public’s interest, we can see they do not. ABC News is our most recent example. This network limits our option to see and hear each of the Presidential hopefuls, even before the first secret ballot is cast. Denying access to all the aspirants, to disallow a participant in a debate seems antithetical to the intent of the FCC regulations. To produce polls to validate and justify obstruction is not to inform the people. Yet, here we are. Inaccurate as these seem to be, the surveys solidify the message the media and magnates wish to express.
American Research Group poll. Dec. 9-12, 2007. N=600 likely Democratic primary and caucus voters nationwide. MoE ± 4.
“If the 2008 Democratic presidential preference primary/caucus were being held today between [see below], for whom would you vote?”
“Next, I’m going to read a list of people who may be running in the Democratic primary for president in the next election. After I read all the names, please tell me which of those candidates you would be most likely to support for the Democratic nomination for president in the year 2008, or if you would support someone else. . . .” Names rotated.
Dennis Kucinich 4 percent
None (vol.)/Unsure 8 percent
Pew Research Center for the People & the Press survey conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International. Oct. 17-23, 2007. N=837 registered voters nationwide who are Democrats or lean Democratic. MoE ± 4.
“I’m going to read you the names of some Democratic presidential candidates. Who would you most like to see nominated as the Democratic Party’s candidate for president in 2008: [see below]?” If unsure: “Is there anyone you are leaning toward as of today?” Names rotated
Dennis Kucinich 4 percent
Unsure 7 percent
We can see again and again, among the Democrats, routinely Dennis Kucinich often ranks one percentage point below the arbitrary requirement. The number of undecided voters is high. Perchance these individuals seek further information. However, with thanks to the restrictions imposed by ABC News, [and other organizations] a discussion panel meant to enlighten the electorate restricts their exposure to a meaningful alternative.
Some of the studies do not even mention the possible President, Dennis Kucinich. Hence, when the results are released they are invalid; yet, offered as truth. The American people are lead to believe as the media decides. The press makes the final pronouncement. They will tell us who delivers the message, when, where, why, and how.
“Suppose the race for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination in 2008 comes down to a choice among Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards. Who would you most like to see nominated: Clinton, Obama, Edwards — or would you rather see someone else nominated?” Names rotated
Clinton 51 percent
Obama 23 percent
Edwards 13 percent
Other/None 7 percent
Unsure 6 percent
Hillary Clinton is the clear winner . . .or was, until the people of Iowa decided otherwise. Since the caucus, all we thought we knew is topsy-turvy, turned on its head, and twisted in the wind, except for the fact that Independents decide. In This Race, Independents Are the Prize. If the Independent voter, which might be any of us, has little or no ability to hear from a candidate, we must ask ourselves, is this America, the land of the free.
If First Amendment rights are not granted to a celebrated Congressman, a Presidential candidate, can we, the people authentically choose who will represent us. In a nation where the news is dictated, manufactured, and manipulated, do the citizens actually know who is or would have been electable? Probably not. None of us has yet had an opportunity to read the polls that address this issue.
Nevertheless, another canvass did appear, although it was well hidden from view. This tally was not prominently presented as the other surveys were. Although, ABC News and Facebook hosted the recent debate jointly, access to this account was concealed. Yet, here it is.
The definitive Facebook figures show that the future President, Dennis Kucinich placed fourth in the tally used to determine what the voters think of the candidates. The virtually invisible Presidential hopeful, Congressman Kucinich received a greater number of votes than Bill Richardson, a contender deemed acceptable by those who supposedly educate the masses. While Richardson did not receive the required 5 percent in this analysis, he did appear on stage. John Edwards total was not much higher than Kucinich’s. Had this slate appeared, Americans might have known what we are supposed to. forget Dennis Kucinich is viable, electable, and purposely excluded from many a national forum.
America, will we continue to let conglomerates control the message and us, or will we finally decide to take our country back?
The Des Moines Register Democratic Debate was an event like no other. Gaffes, gossip, gushing, and gabble were all present and accounted for. Former Senator Mike Gravel was not. Nor was Congressman, and potential President, Dennis Kucinich. Each of these aspirants would have been happy to meet and speak with the people of Iowa, just as they have for months. However, they were intentionally excluded in this more formal forum.
Excuses were made, and easily countered. Nevertheless, evidence to the contrary mattered not to the Des Moines Register. The Editors had spoken and so too would their ultimate first choice for the office of President of the United States speak. Hillary Clinton clones, and future Cabinet appointees would have an opportunity to commune with the local and television audience. America had all it needed on the platform, powerbrokers and their pawns, those the wealthy tell us are prepared to be President.
The Register believes “preparedness” must be the primary consideration. Thus, they were ready to dispute any claims that they may be less than equitable. Interestingly, among the arguments, explanations, and assessments the Carolyn Washburn, debate moderator and Editor of the Des Moines Register offers an odd evaluation of the event. The prideful host reflects . . .
I’m pleased to say reaction has not been all one-sided. I’ve received a slew of e-mails from people thanking us for a civil discussion that gave the candidates equal time, on important issues, with smart questions.
Each person permitted to stand on the stage may have spoken for the same number of minutes. Nevertheless, The Register in its infinite wisdom did not give Presidential hopefuls identical access to the television audience. No one cannot deny that even among those who publish in the Register there is some question as to whether all the aspirants were treated alike. Kevin M. Cashman, Grinnell also wonders whether Leaving candidates out of debate compromises democracy Principles our founders established centuries ago may be of no consequence to the Des Mines Register. Electability may be the one subject of import. Perhaps a presumed winner is the only issue of worth. Moderator, Carolyn Washburn made her stance known early on. The Editor explained the rules and the audience gasped.
“We won’t talk a lot about issues like Iraq.”
~ Carolyn Washburn, moderating the presidential debates in Iowa
To not speak of the war that dominates American policy seemed unthinkable. However, this restriction was only one of many constraints. There was much deemed unmentionable in this televised discussion. The names Kucinich and Gravel would not mouthed. Although that, for the candidates on stage, was great. The Big Three had long hoped to narrow the field. For months, each said to the other, I need more time and attention. At this assembly, more than the two men excluded from the debate were labeled taboo topics.
Washburn, the earnest and schoolmarmish editor of the Des Moines Register, stunned the political world when she announced, at the beginning of the Republican debate on Wednesday, that she did not want to talk about Iraq and immigration, at least not in any “concentrated” way. She continued that policy Thursday with the Democrats, asking not a single question about Iraq. The words “terrorist,” “Iran,” “Pakistan” and “al-Qaeda” didn’t get even a single mention.
What did viewers get instead?
“Tell us your New Year’s resolution for 2008,” Washburn proposed. Groans emanated from the media room down the hall. Hillary Clinton said she would exercise more. Barack Obama said he would be a better father. Richardson pledged to lose weight.
Weight was lost. Little of substance was discussed in this silly “debate.” What was touched on; yet never fully explored was the inevitable . Clinton would control the White House, regardless of whether the publication ultimately endorsed Hillary, Barack, or John. Former Governor Bill Richardson, Senators Joseph Biden, and Chris Dodd were never a consideration for more than Cabinet positions. With the latter three on stage the Register could offer a façade of fairness.
Richardson, a former Clinton appointee would walk in lockstep. Dodd also accepts much of the status quo; he is agreeable when Hillary craves a defense. Dodd and Joe Biden are formidable legislatures. They are certainly not Presidential material. They are not cut from the charismatic Clintonian cloth. These gentlemen are well versed in how to closet what is. Neither, in debate, or in deliverance of policy will be the voice of change that must be muffled.
For thirty-five years, or so we are told again and again, Hillary Clinton has trained for this coronation. As critical as the New York Senator might have been of the young Baracks’s youthful essay in which he declared his desire to be President of the United States, the former First Lady always knew, even if Obama had an edge, if Obama were to win, she would still be in the White House. This was confirmed at the Des Moines Register Debate.
While individuals in the media and even some of the candidates complained, the Register Debate offered no revelations, there was at least one enlightening moment. America now knows, there is no reason to quarrel over whether Hillary or Barack ultimately become Commander-In-Chief. Either way Clinton will be in the White House.
[R]eporters . . . sensed a major story when Clinton interrupted one of Obama’s answers with a burst of laughter. When Obama was asked how he would “rely on” so many of former president Bill Clinton’s advisers, his wife cackled, then blurted out, “I want to hear that!”
“Well, Hillary, I’m looking forward to you advising me as well,” Obama replied, and Clinton laughed again.
The question was asked. The quip of an answer was widely appreciated, and reported on the national news. Had Americans reacted with more than quick laughter, they might have cried with disgust. Perhaps, upon hearing the banter, a thoughtful public would have pondered, and then exclaimed, “The more things “change,” the more they stay the same.” We learned regardless of which of the top tier candidates Americans choose, change will only be a word, never said above a whisper. There is little difference. The Clinton experience will cloud the Oval Office if either of these marvelously manipulative candidates is Americas choice.
Years ago, the Former First Lady roamed from room to room at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. As she strolled the hallways, she encountered those who advised her husband and now counsel her opponent, Barack Obama.
Barack Obama does not hide his list of advisers, or at least not completely. A short trek to his website, and Americans can look into the future Obama Oval Office.
For Obama’s presidential bid, Senate staffer Mark Lippert is the critical link between the campaign, the Senate staff and the senator. Lippert has accompanied Obama on the three international trips Obama has taken while in office. Lippert, who has a master’s from Stanford in international policy, has had a hand in every major Obama speech and statement on international affairs and deals with the senator daily.
Lippert, a lieutenant junior grade in the Navy Reserve, came to Obama after working on the Senate Appropriations Committee Foreign Operations Subcommittee for five years and has handled foreign policy and defense issues for the Senate Democratic Policy Committee.
Besides Lippert, the core Obama group consists of three people who worked in President Bill Clinton’s administration: former National Security Adviser Anthony Lake and former senior State Department officials Susan Rice and Gregory Craig. They meet regularly in Washington. Lake was the NSA adviser during Clinton’s first term. Rice was the senior adviser on national security affairs for the Kerry-Edwards campaign in 2004, an assistant secretary of state for African affairs and a special assistant to the president at the National Security Council at the Clinton White House.
Craig — quarterback of Clinton’s impeachment defense team — was director of policy and planning at the State Department under former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. In 2000, Craig was at the center of the fight over Elian Gonzalez, representing the Cuban youth’s father in his custody fight. Craig met Obama in 2003 at a fund-raiser for his Senate bid at the home of Washington powerbroker Vernon Jordan.
The Obama circle widens, depending on the need for expertise.
During the Clinton administration, Jeh Charles Johnson was general counsel for the Department of the Air Force. . .
The Obama foreign policy team deals with counterterrorism, democracy development and the inter-related matters of energy and the environment, global health, homeland security and nuclear nonproliferation, among other issues. There’s also a cadre of former Clinton officials who are very involved with the Obama campaign who for now want to stay below the radar screen.
Interestingly, Barack Obama could have obscured this substantial connection to the Clinton White House, for originally, this report was published in the Chicago Sun Times. Prominent Journalist Lynn Sweet offered this glimpse into the crystal ball months ago. However, rather than hide the snapshot into another Clintonian strategy, Barack Obama proudly beams. The Clinton advisory staff is on his side. Now, we know Hillary will be among them if perchance she is not the President.
When Barack Obama offered Hillary Clinton what some thought a slight, many took delight. Absorbed in laughter, few pondered the profundity. A vote for the lead gal or the guy is one in the same. The truth is, if the Senator from Illinois becomes President of the United States, we may still have the two Clintons in the White House Along with all their counsel.
Numerous Progressives tout, John Edwards is different and he is, in that he is not a woman, nor is he an African American. A white American male is certainly a novel concept, or so the former Senator Edwards wishes it was. Beyond this classic characteristic, well . . .
I shouldn’t have to say this – what matters is what the candidates stand for and to whom they’ll be beholden if elected. My problem is the three don’t look so far apart to me – certainly not enough to justify demonizing one and canonizing another, as my left-wing correspondent does.
The differences seem more like branding: the strong, experienced woman; the black (but not too black) inspirer of hope; the hands-on economic populist crusader. Or if you prefer, the evil pro-corporate phony and everyone else. No sooner had Clinton announced her health care plan, for example, than my colleague John Nichols denounced it as a gift to the insurance industry. Fair enough, but this is the same health care plan that Elizabeth Edwards said with some annoyance was copied from the one her husband – the man who cares about poor people – had put forward months before.
Obama’s plan is similar. Likewise, on the same day that my colleague Laura Flanders wrote that an Obama campaign rally in New York City was buzzing with progressive energy, I read in The New York Times about his attempt to woo McCain voters in New Hampshire. Both these things can be true – but isn’t being all things to all people a bit, well, Clintonian?
How real are the differences among the top three? Let’s take a look. All three candidates want to disengage troops from Iraq while maintaining some kind of military handle on the place. If getting all the troops out ASAP is your top priority, vote for Richardson, Kucinich or Gravel. All of the top three are largely uncritical of Israel (Clinton, in fact, voiced support for a Palestinian state in 1998 and was creamed for it). Clinton probably is a shade more hawkish than the others, but all three buy the trope of the “war on terror” – in August, Obama even said he would strike Pakistan if that’s what it took to capture Osama bin Laden. Maybe that was a slip or a mini-pander to 9/11 voters (well, not so mini if you’re a Pakistani). He has since made more peaceful noises and followed Edwards in supporting the global abolition of nuclear weapons (a position originally put forward by Ronald Reagan, and now by Henry Kissinger, Sam Nunn and George Shultz, so let’s not get carried away).
On domestic policy, the three have similar boilerplatish positions on education and immigration; all three are pro-choice without qualifications. Hurray! But, although nearly three in ten Americans are poor or near-poor, only Edwards has made a campaign issue out of social and economic inequality. Only Edwards seems to grasp the significance of our widening class divisions. Obama, indeed, has suggested he’ll reduce taxes on “the middle class,” which may be code for “expect no big government initiatives.”
How tied in are the top three with corporations and Wall Street? Hillary Clinton is notoriously unapologetic about receiving large donations from wealthy interests. But Obama has received a lot of corporate and Wall Street money too – in fact, he’s received more money from hedge funds than Clinton. Edwards has refused to accept donations from lobbyists (Obama soon followed his example), but this could be merely a nice piece of branding: there are plenty of ways for the interest groups’ lobbyists to put favors in the favor bank besides writing a check to the candidate.
As we scan a list of the top contributors to John Edwards campaign, we understand the significance of this statement. Goldman Sachs, Citigroup Incorporated, Deutsche Bank, appear prominently among a list of law firms. Of course, we might say this is the nature of politics. If candidate is to be effective, he, or she must communicate their message broadly. Commercials and print correspondence are costly. A treasure chest filled with riches is required. Cash might be nice; it is more difficult to trace. Paper trails give evidence to what any Presidential aspirant may wish to avoid, the truth.
At the end of the 3rd Quarter, the Edwards campaign listed $4,500 in contributions from seven registered lobbyists, according to Federal Election Commission reports. The campaign returned one of these contributions in early November, a spokeswoman said, and the refund will be reflected in year-end filings. When Capital Eye alerted the campaign to the other donations that would appear to violate Edwards’s policy, the representative said the campaign had missed those contributions and would return them promptly.
The Obama campaign had collected nearly $34,500 from 29 registered lobbyists by the end of the campaign’s first nine months of fundraising, according to FEC reports. The Obama campaign did not respond to several requests to review those records.
Obama and Edwards also refuse money from political action committees controlled by corporations and other interests, but they and every other presidential candidate accept money from employees of corporations and other interests that employ lobbyists. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, 14 of Obama’s top 20 contributors employed lobbyists this year, spending a total of $16.2 million to influence the federal government in the first six months of 2007.
Of Edwards’s top 20 contributors, only seven have employed lobbyists this year, spending a total of $6.3 million. But the plaintiff attorneys who dominate the list of Edwards’s top donors are well represented in Washington by the influential American Association for Justice (formerly the Association of Trial Lawyers of America), which has spent at least $3 million on lobbying this year alone. As for Clinton, all but four of her top 20 contributors have employed lobbyists this year.
Hence, it is easy to understand why the Des Moines Register acted as they did. Congressman Dennis Kucinich and former Senator Mike Gravel would offer unwelcome nuance to a stage full of affluent agents for the status quo. Those that think policy as usual is preferable have no reason to rattle the profiteers that sponsor the standards. Perchance, the periodical’s own endorsement, offered shortly after the Iowa Debate explains what we all knew.
The job requires a president who not only understands the [insert . . . minimal and on paper only] changes needed to move the country forward but also possesses the discipline and skill to navigate the reality of the resistant Washington power structure to get things done.
That candidate is New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Indeed, for the staff of this Iowa periodical Clinton is the perfect Presidential hopeful. She speaks eloquently of transformation and has already altered the face of Clinton. Bill becomes Hill. More importantly, Hillary Clinton, the first presumed electable, formidable female aspirant, is deftly able to follow the map laid out before her. After all, she is, and has long been a audacious part of the White House landscape. With Hillary Clinton in the Oval Office, we will have Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards, all rolled into one.
Question: What could be more glorious? Answer: For me, sheer bliss would be Dennis Kucinich, as President of the United States of America. I am not alone in my belief. One need only acknowledge that in numerous polls the truest candidate of change leads all others Democrats. Dennis Kucinich is the people’s pick for President. The aspirant is the one person funded and followed by common folk. Imagine; if the periodicals, pundits, and the politicos who grab the floor would give the people a choice. I do dream; I trust the thought is not absurd. Achieving a Kucinich Presidency is possible.
“Only he who attempts the absurd is capable of achieving the impossible.”
~ Miguel de Unamuno [Spanish Philosopher and Writer]
Sources, Sponsors, Secrets, and Special Interests . . .
On December 1, 2007 the American public and Democratic candidates had a rare opportunity to truly listen to the common folks. Presidential hopefuls were able to see and experience the pain that people of lesser means feel each and every day. The Campaign for Community Values hosted a forum. This organization opened the floor to each and every candidate for more than a moment.
Common citizens shared sorrowful stories. Real people informed the conversation. Americans were reminded that no one of us can pull ourselves up by bootstraps we are unable to afford. Tale after tale revealed a mentor, a member of the family, an association founded on the principle of community assistance helped many individuals to succeed. Triumphant individuals from dire circumstances appeared on stage with the Presidential hopefuls and shared real life sagas. The audience heard of nightmares and dreams that came true. After the narratives, Presidential aspirants were asked what they might do once in office so that no one would experience what these persons had.
There were no flashy videos, no comedy, and the moderator did not force herself into the fray. Democratic candidates stood face-to-face with the those who experienced crisis in their personal lives. Frequently, the prestigious politician, and the, all too often, invisible immigrant, poor person, child, and elderly citizen held hands. Tears flowed and sincerity followed.
The Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement debate was unlike what the general public often sees. The assembly was not aired on one of the mainstream media outlets. Only C-SPAN covered this campaign milestone. Perchance, that made the difference.
Today, Conglomerates, Candidates, and Correspondents kill campaigns. The public is helpless to change what occurs and has been for oh, so very long. Common folks flounder in a sea of information and believe they have the real scoop. However, deep inside the people know, they have little if any access to authentic information. Ordinary people cannot make their voice heard. In recent decades the media is the message. Political contenders control the communication, as do the companies that fund the discussions. The race to the Oval Office, or any political cubicle, is bought and paid for. The people purchase only the wares offered to them, and not much is made available.
Consider some of the conglomerates that characteristically subsidize the media programs. You may also wish to assess the assets that the candidates receive from these same sponsors, regardless of their political affiliation. Then contemplate the carefully choreographed debate question and answer format. Search for authenticity.
If you find it, please tell me where. Bill Moyers, of Public Broadcasting Services would also like to know if you discover a genuine give and take amongst the candidates. The founder of a nonpartisan organization Open Debates, and Author, George Farah might counter the notion that the debates are truly spontaneous or real. Yes, there was a time when Presidential hopefuls spoke at length, in depth and detail. They exchanged opinions, and carefully reflected on the issues aloud. However, that was eons ago.
When Carter squared off with Reagan, sixty percent of American TV households were watching. But over the past quarter century, there’s been a big change. During Gore versus Bush four years ago, less than thirty percent of TV households tuned in . . .
Farah: The American people want to hear and see popular candidates discuss the important issues in an unscripted manner. That’s what’s at stake. Whether or not we’re gonna have the right to witness an important conversation.
Moyers: And why aren’t we getting that kind of discussion between the candidates now?
Farah: Because the Commission on Presidential Debates secretly submits to the Republican and the Democratic candidates and allows these candidates to sanitize the debate format, excludes popular voices, avoid discussing critical issues.
. . . The Commission on Presidential Debates, although it claims to be a nonpartisan organization, was created by the Republican and Democratic parties for the Republican and Democratic parties. By design, it was established to submit and conceal the wishes and demands of the Democratic/Republican nominees.
Moyers: The result, he says, is an event tightly controlled by the candidates, a glorified press conference with rules rigged to serve the candidates, not the public. . . .
. . . Do you think the people watching knew that the rules had been written by the two parties?
Farah: Oh, of course not. They had no idea. They thought the Commission on Presidential Debates, whose name sounds like a government commission, it sounds like a lovely agency that was commissioned or chartered by Congress. They thought this: organizations had decided that these rules best served the public interest. They had no idea that behind closed doors leading negotiators hand-picked by the candidates were determining that the candidates could not even ask themselves questions.
Moyers: The Commission is in fact a private corporation, founded by the then chairmen of the Republican and Democratic national parties. They’re still running the show.
Farah: Every four years, the Commission on Presidential Debate publishes candidate selection criteria and proposes debate formats in order to comply with federal election law.
But questions concerning debate format and debate schedule are ultimately resolved behind closed doors between negotiators for the Republican and Democratic nominees.
Moyers: That wasn’t the case in the beginning. The first televised presidential debates, between Kennedy and Nixon in 1960, were sponsored by the networks.
Now even the networks have questionable mores. News departments are more concerned with profits than information. Reporters do not investigate. There is no rhyme or reason for examination. You may recall, Broadcaster Sam Donaldson wrote of the change in his book, “Hold On Mister President.” Under Ronald Reagan, all was staged. Journalists were kept safely at bay and the White House dictated the news of the day. Perhaps, the Reagan White House predicted what George H. W. Bush did not. Real people, reporters, rural, and urban dwellers might pose a question that belies the “illusion of truth.”
Dear reader, you may recall in days of old, televised town hall meetings were broadcast nationally. During one of these assemblies the former President Bush was flustered when asked if he might relate to the plight of the average American citizen.
Audience Question: How has the national debt personally affected each of your lives? And if it hasn’t, how can you honestly find a cure for the economic problems of the common people if you have no experience in what’s ailing them?
Bush: I think the national debt affects everybody.
Audience Question: You personally.
Bush: Obviously it has a lot to do with interest rates.
Simpson: She’s saying, “you personally.”
Audience Question: You, on a personal basis, how has it affected you?
Simpson: Has it affected you personally?
Farah: The President was very flustered with the question. He didn’t know how to handle it. What do you mean affect me?
Audience Question: What I’m saying is…
Bush: I’m not sure I get… Help me with the question and I’ll try to answer it.
Farah: Well, this revealed much to the public that he had a very difficult time relating to everyday working people and how they are affected possibly by the budget deficit. And it’s precisely because of that that the candidates decided afterwards for the next two election cycles and in this election cycle to manipulate and sanitize the town hall format.
Moyers: The candidates got their way.
Lehrer: The audience participants are bound by the following rule. They shall not ask follow-up questions or otherwise participate in the extended discussion. And the questioner’s microphone will be turned off after he or she completes asking the question.
Moyers: What’s more, town hall questions would have to be submitted in advance.
Farah: They had every member in the town hall audience write their questions on index cards and give them to Jim Lehrer.
He would point to the individual and have him ask the question. The consequence, of course, was no matter how good a person Jim Lehrer is, he’s still asking all the questions.
The audience members are just there as props. He’s still picking the ones to be asked. So it shows the sanitization of the town hall format, showed the evolution of how the candidates are increasingly controlling whatever they can control to avoid mistakes.
Controlling all aspects of the campaign is of utmost importance to the candidates. Long before a Presidential aspirant is the Party nominee, with the help of the media and powerful sponsors they ensure their win. This explains why money matters. Candidates are not electable if they propose policies that are doable and coveted. An effective campaign has the green necessary to sell the person that will profit those that already have economic power.
In 1996, members of the press remarked, political conventions were made for television theatrics. The drama was gone. Every aspect of the assembly was pre-planned and arranged with precision. Powerful Party players picked the delegates. For the candidates, the conference was a coronation. There was no real deliberation. Political conventions were just as the campaigns, calculated.
Weeks ago, we witnessed what was billed as a Democratic Debate. The forum in New Hampshire was one of many profitable programs that allow the public to hear the Presidential hopefuls speak. Scripted questions are presented and supposedly spontaneous responses are offered. However, in this recent debate, just as all that preceded it, there was no real discussion. Interaction was frowned upon and ended by a host almost as quickly as it started. Hype, hard sell, the handlers, and the handled filled the air with folly. Few of the Presidential aspirants were afforded an opportunity to speak. Nor do most seem to want to engage in meaningful discussion or debate.
Oh, the chosen ones, so anointed by the media, or the persuaded masses, were granted time. These front-runners often had more time to answer a question than the approved and allotted minutes the “rules” provided for a response. However, the little guy, the unelectable one, who articulates what the general public feels and experiences had only five minutes and thirty-seven seconds, in a two-hour broadcast to share his vision for America. Might we wonder why . . .
Americans give their lowest marks to leaders in the press. Americans are particularly dissatisfied with press coverage of the 2008 presidential campaign.”
When asked if election coverage was politically biased, 40% believed it was too liberal; 21% too conservative; and 30% found it neutral. Nine percent of those responding were not sure.
Key among the findings:
64% of those polled do not trust press coverage of the presidential campaign.
88% believe that campaign coverage focuses on trivial issues.
84% believe that media coverage has too much influence on American voting choices.
92% say it is important that the news media provide information on candidates’ specific policy plans, but 61% say the media does not provide enough coverage of policy plans.??
89% say it is important to hear about candidates’ personal values and ethics, but 43% say there is not enough coverage of personal values and ethics.
Instead, those surveyed claimed they were getting “exactly the type of campaign coverage that they want the least,” the report found. ??Seventy percent of those polled said coverage of negative ads was not important and 65% said the media provided too much coverage of them; 67% say that coverage of “gotcha” moments – candidates’ embarrassing incidents and mistakes – was not important and 68% say there was too much coverage of those moments.
Even when the possible Presidential nominees are not engaged in trickery or deception, during election season the media is. On a Cable News Network program, titled Campaign Killers, host Campbell Brown, wife to former Advisor to the George W. Bush Presidential Envoy in Iraq, Dan Senor spoke of the insurgency. The reference did not address those we commonly think of as terrorists. The lovely Miss Brown purposely indicted MoveOn.org, a Progressive organization.
During the November 28 CNN special Campaign Killers: Why Do Negative Ads Work?, CNN anchor Campbell Brown said: “General David Petraeus made his reputation taking on insurgents in Iraq. But when he came to Capitol Hill in September, he was confronted by American insurgents, a liberal anti-war group called MoveOn.org.”
Brown also asserted that a MoveOn.org advertisement headlined “General Petraeus or General Betray Us?” “became a huge news story because it questioned the loyalty of a wartime commander, implying he was a traitor.” In asserting that the content of the advertisement generated news coverage, Brown did not point out the claim by many commentators that the ad “became a huge news story” because Republicans preferred to talk about it rather than Petraeus’ testimony before Congress about the situation in Iraq.
In 2007, it is difficult to discern the media from the message. Lobbyists linger in the halls of every debate. Special interest groups and individuals with a well-known agenda marry those that report to the masses. No wonder the American people lack confidence in campaign coverage; accounts are obviously skewed.
As the broadcast of Campaign Killers continues, viewers realize Campbell Brown consistently makes mention of what she perceives as the wily practices of the ‘money machine’ MoveOn.org. Hence, we might acknowledge, perceptions of the infamous Liberal bias are not valid. This supposed slant is not evident in the press today. Nor has it been for quite some time. At least, we may note Miss Brown does not lean towards the Left.
The transcript of for this documentary might reveal Brown is not in favor of grassroots Progressive actions. We cannot know with certainty. One can only presume. However, if we note the number of times this Journalist links MoveOn.org to money, we can assume there is reason to postulate. Might Brown’s personal perspective influence her reports.
It seems, in 2007 journalism is as the political process, a muddle. In the twentieth first century the old adage is truer than it was. “Politics makes for strange bedfellows.” Correspondents sleep with those they report on and we, the people are without an objective blanket. Campaigns are but a high stakes rigged game. Once more, in 2008, the public will cast a ballot for the elite’s handpicked electable winner, not for the one best able to address the issues, domestic and foreign.
In this election season, as candidates speak of change, we must accept there will be none. As long as we buy what the Conglomerates, Candidates, and Correspondents sell, only the face in the White House will differ. The status quo will live on in the Oval Office and the lives of the American people.
References, Resources, Campaigns, Contributors, and Correspondents . . .