Here's your chance to pile on with a Dem 'conspiracy theory' re: 08

[Stinky The Clown]

Some of us still think the game can be played (mostly) fairly. Some of us think the whole damned thng is a big Kabuki dance wherein the outcome is predetermined and we just get to play bit parts for the sake of appearances.

Or said more pointedly - some of us think we will get to choose our 08 candidate while some of us think 'the powers that be' do the choosing for us, no matter how we vote in primaries.

So let's talk about this ......

Do you think the process is (generally) fair and (generally) open?

Or

Do you think the whole thing is rigged and is already a done deal? If this is your choice, who do you think the 08 nominee is? (Not who you **want** it to be, but who you think the powers that be have already chosen.)

[MrBenchley]

1. One wonders why people who think the Democrats are corrupt

would even want to go near a Democratic board, unless they were ratfucking.

[Son Of Spy]

3. Actually one doesn't at all..

As it is part and parcel of being a Democrat in these
halucinogenic times. As Lewis Black says in his book
"why would anyone need to to do drugs now, we're living in an
hallucination!"

[MrBenchley]

4. Actually, with the news about Dog Sex Ricky and the Greens

it makes one wonder anew about deliberate ratfucking....

[Jackpine Radical]

2. I think it's essentially a corrupt process.

It's not possible to figure out who the nominee will because we can't read the minds of the power-brokers. At the moment, Hillary is the place-holder, but that could change. I do think the eventual nominee will be somebody with "safe" opinions on the war & on Israel, if only because they don't want those topics aired during the campaign. Anybody who speaks out against either the official line on the war (which could include a bogus Gary Hart-style "withdrawal plan" BTW) or against Israel's actions will quickly either be taken out or turned into a laughingstock (think Dean Scream).

Therefore the only prediction I'm willing to make is that the eventual Dem nominee will carry the DLC Seal of Approval.

[itzamirakul]

37. I don't think I have to read any further in order to say, "Exactly!"

Exactly what you said!

Unless we can either dismantle, or make transparent, the crookedness of the DLC and the power that they just "took" for themselves to choose our candidates without our having any sayso at our conventions, unless we can take back that power, then the DLC is choosing our candidates with the assistance of the GOP and primed for Democratic loss.

[Sparkly]

5. I think some have advantages over others

both in terms of money, media spin, and alliances with other well-known Democrats.

Of those factors, given a race where Democrats have a realistic (if unequal) amount of money, I think it's the media that wields the most influence.

I don't believe the DNC does as much behind-the-scenes controlling as others seem to think. They may do some (Hackett for example, or perhaps pressuring Lieberman to drop out if he doesn't win the primary) but I don't think they're actually determining the results of our primaries.

[MoonRiver]

6. I think it's probably going to be rigged, unless enough Repubs turn.

In that case the Repuke machine's cover will be blown, as I'm sure many in that party know how they've "won" the last 3 elections.

[Stinky The Clown]

8. I'm not sure I follow ........

.... Are you saying the Repubs will vote in our primaries to choose our nominee?

(Not challenging ... just asking for clarification.)

[MoonRiver]

12. I don't know about them voting in our primaries.

I guess I'm saying that the Repubs have to become so fed up they turn against their party. I've thought this for some time now. If enough of them turn then I don't believe even Diebold can rig it. JMTB.

[Stinky The Clown]

14. Okay ... I now understand and don't disagree, but the thread is ......

.... about the Dem primaries in advance of the 08 generals. You post seems to address the generals.

[MoonRiver]

17. Oops, I misunderstood.

:mybad: :blush:

[Warpy]

7. I know the GOP strategy

They will likely run the incredibly dull and sanctimonious George Allen as a sacrificial lamb. Jebbie will reluctantly take the #2 spot on the ticket, and thus be poised for a run in 2012.

They want a Democrat to win the next one, and it doesn't matter which Democrat. He will be demonized by the good puppy press and blamed for every single one of Stupid's failures. Dumb jerks will obediently howl their protest the way they are told to and he will not be re elected.

This will only work if the Democrats continue to follow the DLC playbook. If we can find a candidate who will break free of party conservatives, we may atually have a chance at getting our party and our country back. If not, expect Jebbie for two terms in 2012.

[Totally Committed]

9. I have come to believe it is "Kabuki Dance" all the way.

I live each day in hope I will be proven wrong, but I am also not holding my breath.

Whether or not we want it, or can win with it, I believe Hillary (more acurately, Billary) has already been "chosen", and we (those who want fairness and an open process) will have to try and defeat her before the primaries or we are stuck with her.

Behind her...

She has all the $$$$$$$$$$$$,

She has the corporate support,

She has Bill and all the political favors owed him,

She has the media,

She has the Republicans,

Oh, did I mention Bill? A former POTUS out ther stumping for her even now -- before she's even won re-election to her Senate seat.

I don't think, when all the dust settles, we will have had a rat's a** to say about her nomination one way or the other. Just my opinion.

TC

[windbreeze]

20. Totally AGREE, TC...totally.

But...I don't think Allen is going to be their nominee...I do believe it will be Jeb...and we will lose...unless they feel the need for a scapegoat for 4 years...

windbreeze

[Donna Zen]

23. Thanks TC

IIRC, you and I talked during the summer of 04. Yep, I heard that 08 would be Hillary/Richardson. Now, things may have changed about Richardson because he's making some unhappy sounds behind the scenes...but, I don't think the beltway crowd will settle for anything other than Hillary.

I don't ever want to see another thread about "spineless" Dems. because when the time comes we vote for whereever the money points. We simply don't mean what we say. Left-right-left-right-right-right...

[Totally Committed]

24. Hillary is what I'm hearing, too...

from EVERYONE who knows ANYONE who know ANYTHING. And I was right the last time, wasn't I?

I'm discouraged and disheartened, but it does mean I can retire from everything political as soon as she is nominated, and take a vacation. If this all plays out that way, I will throw my hands up, and admit that the game is fixed and I swear... I will stop voting. Period. If I have nothing valid to offer this electoral process, it's time to stop breaking my back for this Party, and get another hobby... like gardening... or crosswprd puzzles... maybe crocheting. But, nothing political again. Not ever.

TC

[Donna Zen]

25. yep

fried to a crisp and done.

[rainy]

10. I always thougth Kerry was chosen by them and not us!

[Totally Committed]

11. Ditto.

And said so at the time.

Disclaimer: Of course I cannot prove it (just a gut feeling) and it is only my opinion.

TC

[blm]

15. Compare what you said about Hillary -

Kerry had NONE of the benefits you claim Hillary gets from those who do the "choosing" so he must have won it DESPITE their efforts, especially the media that ACTIVELY worked to declare his candidacy dead for MONTHS before one vote was even cast.


Your reasons Hillary is "chosen" now:

>>>
Behind her...

She has all the $$$$$$$$$$$$,

She has the corporate support,

She has Bill and all the political favors owed him,

She has the media,

She has the Republicans,

Oh, did I mention Bill? A former POTUS out ther stumping for her even now -- before she's even won re-election to her Senate seat.
>>>>>

[Clark2008]

41. Yes he did.

I mean, Kerry won my state without any presence of foot-on-the-ground soldiers, without any hope of taking the damn state in the general and with very low polling numbers.

I've always thought that one of two things preceded Kerry's winning of my state:

1. The media drove it so home after the Iowa caucus that people just ASSUMED he'd be the winner and voted for him in a sheep-like stupor; or,

2. It was rigged.

When Kerry won (and I liked Kerry just fine. It's just I knew he had no chance in hell of flipping my purple state), there was even an article in the local newspaper the next day conceding that Bush would win this state because Kerry wouldn't have a shot in the dark.

I could have seen a Clark or Edwards win in my state - but Kerry????

[blm]

44. How and why Kerry did win was being ignored in favor of the HYPING of the

Dean scream that was blown into THE event of the primaries, news-wise, as if Dean imploded and that was the story so the media could void answering questions about hw THEY spent so many months ignoring all the other candidates and under-reported their strength on the ground in the early primary states.

Had Kerry's win been covered with journalistic integrity there would be NO posts absurdly claiming the CAUCUS was rigged or that Kerry was "chosen" by the same group who attacked him and abandoned him throughout his decades of service to this country.

[blm]

13. By who? Do you know how caucuses work? Do you know that vets and

firefighters helped get out the vote for Kerry in Iowa?

Did you know that Kerry never accepted corporate pac money for all the years he ran for the senate?

Did you know Kerry submitted the Clean Money, Clean Elections bill for public financing of campaigns?

The corporate crowd was never a fan of Kerry's.

[Totally Committed]

19. I just said it was a gut feeling... did I not?

I went to a lot of care to make sure you and other Kerry supporters knew where I was coming from. I can't help what I feel.

I never said anything against Kerry in that post. I never said that the corporate crowd were fans of Kerry. I never said Kerry accepted corporate pac money for any of the years he ran for the senate. I never mentioned the Clean Money, Clean Elections Bill. I never doubted the Iowa Firefighters did GOTV for Kerry (I saw the pics... everyone did). And, please... I've been around elections for almost 46 years now... I do know how a caucus works. It would do you and other Kerryites well to actually READ what's posted before going ballistic. I said nothing against him, but only said what was in MY gut.

You make yourselves no friends by taking out a clever and attacking whenever the last election is questioned or even mentioned. Bottom Line: You will get him a lot more supporters with honey than with vinegar.

Peace to you, blm. Honestly.

TC

[blm]

26. You replied to the wrong post -

Mine to you is above and it specifically addresses YOUR points reHillary.

[Totally Committed]

29. Oops! ........ So I did!

Time to put the old lady glasses on. Sorry 'bout that. But, you see what I'm saying, right?

I really respect you and many others in the Kerry camp. We need to find a way to talk about the last election without getting you all upset. We cannot learn from the mistakes of the past without discussing them.

TC

[blm]

30. And we cannot learn from mistakes if we focus on inaccurate claims....

some of which are even IMPOSSIBLE claims.

[JNelson6563]

16. Iowa and New Hampshire

along with the corporate media choosing our candidate? No, I don't think there's anything remotely right about that.

Julie

[ruggerson]

18. Howard has just finished changing that

Nevada and South Carolina will be in the same time period as IA and NH.

[Donna Zen]

22. How about that cure for "front loading"?

More front loading. There were some designated players at that table, and they made sure that they got what they wanted.

[NCarolinawoman]

21. I absolutely agree with you. It's the combination of the three.

Let's never underestimate who the media annoints. Once the Dem is annointed by the media, (after about two primaries), this same media will go on to annoint a Republican to win in the General Election.

(I still know people who think that Al Gore bragged that he invented the internet, and that Kerry didn't deserve his medals.) Thank you very much MSM and right-wing talk-show nuts.

[Donna Zen]

27. There are people at DU

Who repeat that Clark wore a sweater to appear more "fuzzy," that Clark was once a republican, and that he was dishonorable. (Thanks to General Shelton who smeared a fellow officer on behalf of another candidate who supported the war....that's the creepiest thing ever.)

[blm]

28. Corpmedia: Kerry campaign is Dead in the water, Kerry should drop out...

Could this be why Corpmedia tried to kill off Kerry's campaign throughout 2003?



Kerry Seeks to Reverse FCC's "Wrongheaded Vote"

Commission Decision May Violate Laws Protecting Small Businesses; Kerry to File Resolution of Disapproval

Monday, June 2, 2003

WASHINGTON - Senator John Kerry today announced plans to file a "Resolution of Disapproval" as a means to overturn today's decision by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to raise media ownership caps and loosen various media cross-ownership rules.
Kerry will soon introduce the resolution seeking to reverse this action under the Congressional Review Act and Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act on the grounds that the decision may violate the laws intended to protect America's small businesses and allow them an opportunity to compete.

As Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, Kerry expressed concern that the FCC's decision will hurt localism, reduce diversity, and will allow media monopolies to flourish. This raises significant concerns about the potential negative impacts the decision will have on small businesses and their ability to compete in today's media marketplace.

In a statement released earlier today regarding the FCC's decision, Kerry said:

"Nothing is more important in a democracy than public access to debates and information, which lift up our discourse and give Americans an opportunity to make honest informed choices. Today's wrongheaded vote by the Republican members of the FCC to loosen media ownership rules shows a dangerous indifference to the consolidation of power in the hands of a few large entities rather than promoting diversity and independence at the local level. The FCC should do more than rubber stamp the business plans of narrow economic interests.

"Today's vote is a complete dereliction of duty. The Commissioners are well aware that these rules greatly influence the competitive structure of the industry and protect the public's access to multiple sources of information and media. It is the Commission's responsibility to ensure that the rules serve our national goals of diversity, competition, and localism in media. With today's vote, they shirked that responsibility and have dismissed any serious discussion about the impact of media consolidation on our own democracy."


>>>>>>

[Totally Committed]

35. With all due respect...

and an acknowledgement that your point is well taken... the MSM did try and kill Kerry here...

They did that with EVERY SINGLE DEMOCRAT THAT RAN. They had Bush's back during those primaries, and they made sure ANY NOMINEE that eventually won would be battered and wounded sufficiently upon delivery. I know they tried their damndest to kill Wes Clark's campaign. I was there and saw it with my own eyes. And, tell me the MSM didn't take Dean's "scream" and hit him with it until he bled. Kusinich was the "kook", Moseley-Braun was "the token female", Edwards was "the empty-headed pretty-boy", Sharpton was "the rabble-rousing exaggerator", and so on and so on and so on... EVERY SINGLE DEMOCRAT THAT RAN was subjected to a merciless 24-hour-a-day news-cycle that did nothing but serve Bush.

And, the Democratic Party, being what it is, allowed it, and took it as a matter of course rather than objecting at the top of its lungs. The only time a Democrat got any real ink in a newspaper or any actual quote used on television was Lieberman, when he was skinning a fellow candidate alive in his cynical attempt to be the nominee... and the lower he sank, the dirtier he got, and the media covered every second. They even went so far as to allow him to claim a "second-place finish" after finishing last.

EVERY DEMOCRAT WAS ILL-SERVED by the MSM in the last election. We all know it. Kerry was... they ALL were (except, as I said, Lieberman).

The MSM is complicit with this governement in every war, every death, every abomination, because we all know what a different country this would be today if a Democrat was in that White House.

TC

[blm]

36. As I have said many times - NO Democrat has been fairly treated by media

since the 92 election.

I have also long said that Dean's scream was hyped beyond recognition because the newsmedia was using it to cover up for themselves and prevent the obvious questions of WHY had they over-reported Dean's support on the ground in Iowa and under-reported Kerry and Edwards' support there?

With all due respect, exposing the newsmedia's role in all of this is something I work towards nearly every day of my life since about 1997.

[Totally Committed]

39. Thanks, blm.... I realize that. I do.

I just wanted that on the record.

I do agree with you that they did everything they could to cut Kerry off at the knees. I just wish he hadn't listened to his advisors (or whomever told him not to fight back), and came out, guns blazing, until the MSM had no choice but to cover it. I wish he'd gotten down into the mud and slugged it out. That's all.

TC

[blm]

42. The problem is that what he did do wasn't covered, and let's say he went

further and got as deep into the filth as they did - wouldn't the media reaction be pretty much the same or worse than what they did to Dan Rather? And Dan Rather HAD access to the media being a huge part of it at the time.

BushInc was ALLOWED to go filthy dirty by the MEDIA who would portray GOPs as "just trying to get the truth out" - what Democrat has ever received that same treatment in the last decade?

Had the appropriate amount of media attention been given to the counterattacks, none of this would be a matter of discussion today.

But then, Kerry DID win by a good margin despite all the media obstacles except one - the one that blocked the exposure of the election fraud tactics employed by BushInc who ended up in control of 80% of all the electronic voting machines.

[Totally Committed]

43. I totally agree with you on this:

BushInc was ALLOWED to go filthy dirty by the MEDIA who would portray GOPs as "just trying to get the truth out" - what Democrat has ever received that same treatment in the last decade?

We need to note this and fight accordingly in the future, is what I'm saying. We need to fight as long, as hard, and as loud as is necessary without giving second thought to good manners.

TC

[blm]

45. Not a matter of good manners - Is there any explanation in the world for

why no media gave coverage of Kerry's speech to the Firefighters Convention or even bothered to REPORT it when he countered the swifts AND BushInc for enabling them?

In a post 9-11 America, the firefighters should have been a KEY GROUP to report on, and their endorsement of Kerry should have been HUGE news along with Kerry's attack of the swifts in that speech.

Yes, Kerry is a civil man, but he was way tougher than most realize because, in their effort to protect Bush, the newsmedia chose to mute or ignore completely his public attacks.

[AtomicKitten]

31. I just don't see it.

And all my sources agree it's not a done deal, far from it. Dean is working hard to change the primary process. Give him a chance.

On the perceived assumption that HRC will be the nominee, I just don't understand this paranoia and at the same time unyielding, abject hatred of Hillary - both of which BTW feed into and perpetuate the other.

I think Democrats do themselves a great disservice by buying into the STOP HILLARY notion because from what I've come to believe according to my sources, it is generated by the GOP. Yep, that's right, the GOP. And I see people here at DU that only operate out of hatred for her, beyond reason, beyond truth. That's crazy shit and something that makes me really suspicious.

But it feeds into the already established and entrenched anti-HRC mantra here at DU. I won't vote for her in the primary because I won't vote for anyone that voted yes on the IWR, but I will work my ass off for whomever gets the nod. There are some people who frame every issue in the context of the candidate they support. But our world and its problems require a broader view than that right now.

Please feel free to flame me or just ignore me as the stock DU response. I'm sick and tired of people who choose up sides according to matching opinions or whom they support. If we can't accept each other as being thinking people who give a damn about our world, then we haven't matured further than junior high school.

Re-elect Gore in 2008.

[blm]

49. I agree with that sentiment - people should relax and let the 10 debates

run their course and let the people decide.

[AtomicKitten]

50. I have faith in Dean reforming the primary process.

I couldn't agree more with your message ... let the people decide.

[Greyhound]

32. Totally rigged, but too early for the coming anointment.

If they pick the candidates and winner this far in advance it leaves too many variables and circumstances beyond their control. I think there is already a short list or lists, but the final decision won't be made until '07.

I also believe that the Democratic candidate will win the Presidency in '08 order to take the fall for the consequences of this cabal's crime spree.

[Awsi Dooger]

33. I think it's not rigged, but I wish it were

I would allow an astute all-powerful party chief to designate the nominee. Case closed.

That's if we want to win more elections. Strange criteria, I concede.

Sorry, but I don't trust the handicapping of a large group. That's how you wind up with John Kerry as most electable. I'd always take my chances on one person who specializes in the area, above a crap shoot in more or less random states.

Admittedly, how that czar is identified and how long he serves is an open question. It's not going to happen so I don't have to provide the answers.

[GreenArrow]

34. I think it is rigged

it's not completely foolproof (yet), but it's rigged.

Hillary is a just running out front to draw fire. She won't run. Mark Warner will be your candidate. (Edwards maybe)

We'll find out soon enough, but one thing you can take to the bank is that the candidate will be a centrist, status quo corporatist.

[itzamirakul]

40. Sunday, guests on Stephanopoulis' show were discussing the

possibility of Obama. Said he has the right connections and the charisma.

Also, IMO, he would be the perfect Democrat to have to shoulder the blame for the failed Bush policies as they overwhelm the nation because he seems to be a "humble" quiet-natured man. Rememb er his behavior when McCain tried to start a fight with him? (I forget what it was about.)

Edit: typo

[GreenArrow]

46. Obama might be an acceptable choice for VP

but the Democrats really need to put someone with some executive experience at the top of the ticket.

[itzamirakul]

48. Yeah, I've heard others say the vp slot would be good for Obama

but Sunday this group of rw pundits were choosing our candidates again and they were really pushing Obama for the top slot.

IMO, he could do it very well but methinks he may be DLC-tainted and anything related to the LC stinks like two-week-old fish. For my money, he would have to completely divorce himself from the DLC nd then he would definitely lose anyway, but at least he would be clean of that frickin' rw-Democratic group.

[AZBlue]

51. I think they were pushing for Obama b/c they know he couldn't win

Don't get me wrong - I really like him. I could maybe see him as VP this time, but I'd rather he just stayed where he was for 4 or 8 years, got some real experience behind him, and then gave it a really good run - because I think he could make it. And would be great! But, this time out, no way - he's too green. And, they (RWs) would really use that against him - if they are already pushing for him, I bet they've already got the anti-Obama posters ready to go!

[KKKarl is an idiot]

38. ..

HRC seems to be the front runner. But I think most Democrats are hoping for a nod from Al Gore. He has not been tainted by the last 6 years of Bush politics. So he has a clean record in that.

[LoZoccolo]

47. I think "Kabuki dance" theories show a lack of responsibility...

...which doesn't surprise me coming from people who spend as much time on the Internet as they do.

[LincolnMcGrath]

53. How many posts have you had within the last 24 hours? Lets count!

[FrenchieCat]

52. There are variables that are not controlled.....

but in the end, the Corporate media "influences" the voting masses to vote the way the Corporate media would like them to vote....

The Corporate media does this by showcasing and highlighting what they want to for each candidate.

Example....If they think that an Edwards would be the easiest to defeat in the GE, and they have decided that a Republican is who they want...they will promote Edwards during the primaries (never talk about his co-sponsorship of the IWR, never highlight that it took three years for Edwards to decide to say "sorry" on his vote, always make him the fighter for the "lil' man" no matter if he doesn't say much anything different from other Democrats, always show lotsa pics of him without him talking, and never, never highlight the fact that he really didn't bring Kerry any more votes by being on the ticket in '04). If they are successful, and they get Edwards as the primary candidate, they will (if that is what is decided) to turn on him during the GE...mentioning all that they didn't mention during the primary....including his lack of experience on National Defense...and lo and behold....comes October 31, a Bin Laden tape...and Edwards as the Democratic Candidate loses.

It's really pretty simple for the media to run the show. Afterall more uninformed Corporate News watchers vote than informed political activists. :shrug: