Which Corporate Media Generated Prez Candidate would you support?

[FrenchieCat]

Although we did not ask for it, I can safely say that the corporate media to date has gifted us with 3 major Democratic candidates with a couple of "others" currently in "reserve" that they'll highlight when they are prepared with the intent of fulfilling "Fairness and Balance" in regard to our primary elections.

Question is, who would you vote for in the primaries, if these were your only choice?

[WI_DEM]

1. Hell, if any of the three are nominated I would support them

I didn't know that the corporate media was so concerned with hunger and poverty which are issues that Edwards has been stressing for the past three years.

[FrenchieCat]

2. Media is NOT interested in Poverty and hunger per se.....but

John Edwards is one of the media's choice nevertheless.....

my logic for that conclusion? Considering that the news has been about 24/7 coverage of Iraq, North Korea and Iran for the past three years, the media is not highlighting candidates that might be strong in the areas of Foreign affairs (Kerry, Biden and Clark)....yet John Edwards (like Obama and Hillary) enjoys coverage by all of the major networks and news program in a consistent manner some due to his book about Homes...which had as much to do with the subject of poverty as it does with Foreign Affairs.

Of course, on the Repug side, Foreign affair strength is all that seems to count. Being easy on the eye coming in a distant second. The media pick for the GOP: McCain, Giuliani and Romney. Hagel may propel himself in there somehow. Brownback will be the other other. That's 3 out of 5 strong on National Security.

[chimpymustgo]

48. GAWD...excuses...ALREADY???? Too bad, so sad.

Really...pathetic.

[peace13]

3. Shoul read

former Vice President John Edwards!

[FrenchieCat]

4. You can start you own poll, and use whatever labels you see fit.....

Hillary could be Former First Lady and Obama could be Son of a Sheep Herder. Whatever works for you in your poll, I'll respect! :hi:

[peace13]

5. Didn't mean to ruffle your fur!

[FrenchieCat]

6. Don't worry, you didn't......

I'm just keeping it real! Peace! :hi:

[haypops]

7. no way Edwards or Obama

So I had to go with Hilary. However, I'm not doing any happy dance here.

[DaveinMD]

8. this is such a bs question

We have lots of good candidates, so the media talks about them. That doesn't mean they are corporate media generated candidates.

[FrenchieCat]

10. So the media talks about just three....

and are they the three that you or I chose that they should talk about? Don't think so. Have any of them announced? No. Did Biden, Dodd and Vilsak announce? Yes. Do they get coverage like Clinton, Obama, and Edwards? No. Now why would that be? Cause the media decides, that's why.

I've been watching the media for a long time now, and one thing that I'm not is in denial as to who has the power when it comes to who will get promoted on by the national media, and let's just say it ain't us.

[DaveinMD]

11. the media talks plenty about Biden

Vilsack is not part of the Washington seen and is an extreme longshot. Of course no one talks about him. Dodd hasn't announced. This is just silly.

[FrenchieCat]

19. The media does not talk about Biden except for as an afterthought....

maybe he gets on the media, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about pundits sitting there discussing the '08 Dem horserace.

Dodd has said that he was considering running.
http://www.dems.us/2005/11/chris_dodd_runn.html

The point is that the media decides who gets the coverage.

What is silly is that you would deny me what I think based on my evidence......with nary evidence to the contrary from you.

You don't have to believe me if you don't want to, but at least present an argument that makes sense to counter what I am saying.

[DaveinMD]

21. you have not presented any evidence

and saying you are considering a run doesn't mean you are announced. Half the Senate is considering a run

[wyldwolf]

29. Often on talking head shows, he's called a candidate in '08.

For example:

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about the people you talk to in the country. You've been moving around the country rather briskly. You've met an awful lot of people. You're running for president...

Hardball, November 8, 2006

[FrenchieCat]

30. Yes....but again, not at all in the same way as the other three......

clearly.

[blm]

22. You gotta admit, media likse to kill Dems 2 ways - by DISTORTING them constantly

or by consistently IGNORING them.

[FrenchieCat]

31. Of course I admit it.....cause it is true. Anyone observing can see

that. I don't think it will change, but that doesn't mean that I'm not going to not see what is there. I know you see the same thing as I do, and so do many others. The question is not are they doing it....the question is how do we insert ourselves into a process that was supposed to be ours to begin with? That is the question. :shrug:

[blm]

33. Corpmedia will favor any coverup Democrat over honest ones - keep exposing

why it is important. The more truth that is shared the more it will eventually spread. It's not like we have to make anything up like they do. The facts are out there and they SUPPORT honest, anti-corruption Democrats. Don't waver. You'd be surprised how many silent, lurking supporters find time to PM me thanks for just sticking to the truth about the coverup wing of the party - people know it's there. Some have been fighting it for over 3 decades, long before Kerry even got into office or any of us even heard the name Wes Clark.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

[GreenArrow]

9. Edwards and Clinton are out, right off the bat

I'm not crazy about Obama, but I would consider voting for him.

[DaveinMD]

12. according to you

I really like Edwards as well as Wes Clark. I like Obama too.

[GreenArrow]

23. well, yes, according to me

I didn't intend my opinion as a prognostication. I was just saying that I will vote for niether Clinton or Edwards in either the primaries or the General election, should either of them be nominated, which is looking fairly likely.

I'm not a Clark fan, per se, and I don't think he'll be nominated, but he would probably make a competent and somewhat effective President. Obama, I think, might be better suited to the bottom of the ticket; it sounds superficial, but his name is not one that's likely to resonate positively with Middle America.

I'm still hoping for an unexpected dark horse.

[DaveinMD]

28. you'll vote Republican?

this is the kind of attitude that gave us Bush instead of Gore.

[GreenArrow]

43. did I say I'll vote Republican?

Never have, never will.

But Clinton and Edwards have made political choices. They knew when they made them that those choices might cost them votes. They've lost mine. The party can and must offer better. Just because it offers me a shit sandwich doesn't mean I'm obligated to eat it.

[DaveinMD]

44. Edwards

is a great candidate who will address economic inequality in this country. Hardly a shit sandwhich.

[Renew Deal]

13. 82% support the corpo media candidate.

The non-corporate media candidates are in trouble.

[FrenchieCat]

15. You are correct, and that is the intent.....

as if we didn't know.

[wyldwolf]

26. Why didn't you put Wes Clark in the poll?

I'm certain you don't consider him a "corporate media generated" candidate. Yet, he does consistantly win polls on DU. With him in your mix, the theory you're trying to prove would be shot to hell, right?

[FrenchieCat]

32. I didn't put Wes Clark in the poll because Wes Clark doesn't get

coverage like the other candidates. He, Clark, appears on Fox, but that is the extent of his publicity beyond being listed as a 2nd tier candidate everynow and then. Half of the time, he is not even included in the polling......so no, Clark is not corporate media generated....he is, in fact, the opposite. I actually wonder what they think of him...that as much as they ignore him, he still finds ways to generate some buzz, albeit, not the kind required to demand national attention, thereby gathering Buzz and all that goes along with it. Maybe if he writes a book and goes on a booktour the media will build up to a frenzy and he will be seen on every major talk show there is talking about a subject that doesn't necessarily impact on the topic of the current national conversation that we are involved in .....but I don't think that's exactly how it works. If you write a book and they want you to get publicity that will be their excuse to give it to you. If you write a book and they DON'T want you to get publicity, they will work around you as though you're not really out there. It's quite simple, really...and an awesome power for those who shouldn't have it, to have.

[Tom Rinaldo]

36. To the ever lasting credit of Howard Dean and his supporters

The national media approached the 2004 Presidential Election fully prepared to absolutely ignore Howard Dean's canidacy, he and his supporters made it impossible for them to do so. Some make a strong case that many in the media then attempted to hobble Dean when they could not ignore him, though I know some others don't totally buy that read, but regardless, that is a whole other matter which doesn't even come up as a concern if a candidacy first gets snuffed out from a total lack of media attention.

It can be done. We and others like us working together with a strong candidate can force a change in the media's initial 2008 coverage agenda, regardless of whether one claims that agenda is by political design or just a passive reflection of public thinking at a given moment.

[lillilbigone]

34. Not really because

the only 'non-corporate media' choice includes the qualifier: "I'll stay home rather than vote for".... there is no simple 'other' choice in this poll.

[AtomicKitten]

14. I would not call them "corporate media generated."

That would be giving the media too much credit. The media is like junior high school gossip. They like to wag their tongues.

Maybe you are feeling icky because they aren't talking about someone you support? No worries, their attention span is short and they'll get to screwing with your candidate at some point.

[FrenchieCat]

18. I call them that, because that's what they are in my view.....

Hillary never said "I think I'll run for President!". The media started talking her up back in 2003 while we had others actually running! If she runs, IMO, she would have been talked into it for years by the media.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/06/08/hillary/
http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/11-17-2003-47696.asp
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1318.xml?ReleaseID=342
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/7/28/164101.shtml

Obama wasn't going to necessarily run for President until two months ago when he got the big buzz starting with Oprah and ever since. I'm not saying he wasn't a political star prior to that....cause he's speech did that for him at the Dem's national convention. But it was a gentle reasonable buzz.....not the groupie love that we are enduring now.
http://www.adamyoshida.com/2004/11/why-barack-obama-wont-be-president.html
http://www.time.com/time/columnist/klein/article/0,9565,1198859,00.html

John Edwards was given great press starting about 2 weeks prior to Iowa starting with the DesMoines Register's endorsement and he has had the Press' blessing ever since. The '04 race was announced to be between Kerry and Edwards before Iowa based on media coverage the week before Iowa. Edwards received 96% positive Press coverage during primaries, better than any other candidate. On the other hand Clark received too little coverage to even warrant being on the chart after Iowa to measure. See charts. http://www.cmpa.com/pressReleases/NetworksAnointedKerryEdwards.htm

I still don't really know what happened during the Kerry-Edwards campaign, but whatever it was, it was weird. The press stopped talking about Edwards all of the sudden, and one could barely find a story about Edwards beyond the fact that he was Mr. Hope Sunshine. I don't have the inside scoop from the Kerry campaign camp, and I don't want to jump to any unfounded conclusions, but it was all very odd. I'm not going to go with the "rumored" story that Kerry felt threatened to share the stage with Edwards and sent him to small venues to gather local press. That strategy doesn't seem to make sense considering that Kerry picked Edwards as his running mate. I hope someone who actually has the inside dope will surface to provide us with an explanation on that whole bizarre VP run. :shrug:

[AtomicKitten]

52. heh

Just saw this post from you; didn't want you to think I was ignoring it considering all the work you put into it. I still see this as what came first the chicken or the egg kind of thing. In other words, I'm not convinced that the media attention prompted then to consider running. There must be an element of buzz to generate the coverage which in turn generates more buzz, so IMO there was something "there" there. I also don't know what to make of the media reporting of the 2004 VP campaign run. But what this confusion has as the common thread is the media and so perhaps the answer is in the question. The media remains IMO gossipy junior high school girls.

[Bucky]

16. Why call them corporate media generated? Isn't that really just saying they're just more PR savvy?

If Mrs Clinton is getting on the news a lot, it's likely because she's working the right people and whispering in the right ears. That's a pretty smart game she's running. I don't see why we should conclude from that that she's somebody else's puppet. Saying that about Edwards is even more off base--he just shmoozes really well, which is legitimately an important skill when it comes to getting elected.

For that matter, why not portray my candidate--Wesley Clark--as being foisted on the Democratic Party by Fox News? No one else is giving him the kind of exposure he's been getting from Fox. If any candidate can be tagged "Media Generated" from outside the party, it's Wes Clark.

I really don't like loaded questions, even when they flatter my candidate.

[FrenchieCat]

20. I have a different take.....and yes, the question may be loaded,

but so what? I've seen loaded questions everywhere on this board. Polls galore, etc...

[Tom Rinaldo]

24. Perhaps the term could instead be "pundit blessed".

There are diverse reasons why some candidates get more media attention than others, as possible 2008 contenders (FOX gives Clark exposure in his role as a commentater, but not directly as a potential presidential candidate). In some cases a large part of it is simply that they have already achieved a high degree of national name recognition and stature for a range of reasons, often well deserved but sometimes maybe not. Still, I think most observers can tell that pundits have clear opinions about who they are prepared to talk up as a potential candidate and who they are not. Whether or not those opinions are soley of their own origin, or whether or not they reflect some larger political or corporate agenda is subject to debate of course. I know what I think about that, but others may not agree I suppose.

Every person has personal opinions, pundits included, but I will cop to the fact that I don't like when personal opinions slide into blatently uneven coverage. Even pundits will admit that they are supposed to acknowledge, to a minimal extent at least, a full range of options before zeroing in on the ones they think are most viable. I don't mean in every piece of work that they do, sometimes they will focus on one individual, and understandably so, but in their cumulative coverage as a whole. So when I see Tom Vilsack and Evan Bayh and Gov Richardson, all get included in a national poll, or an AP story about possible 2008 candidates, but not Wes Clark who always polls higher than them all whenever Clark is included in the list of possibilities, I get more than slightly annoyed, I admit it.

For example I always thought that Mark Warner deserved to be considered as a serious possible 2008 candidate, but pundits for the longest time kept propping him up as the designated non-Hillary even though he alway from day one to the very end kept polling lower than Wes Clark in every National Poll where both men were included. Mark Warner is a talented and impressive politician. He also was pundit blessed.

[rman]

35. If Mrs Clinton is getting on the news a lot,

it is because the owners of the mainstream media like her, because they know she'll do their bidding.

[LeftCoast]

17. Oprah

You can't get any more corporate media than that. :)

[wyldwolf]

25. When did the "corporate media" approach each of them to become candidates?

[FrenchieCat]

37. That must be a rhetorical question, because that's not quite how it works....

It is like the Howard Dean "scream".

It is like the swiftboating of John Kerry during election 2004 and "the Joke" 2006.

It's like a daily fox memo of talking points from the producers to the staff......(do you really think that they are the only one with a memo?)

It's like an avalanche that starts out small and ends up big. Newsweek writes about the "contenders", which in turn is discussed on Hardball (since Newsweek and NBC are partners), the NBC nightly News, and next thing you know, such and such is a guest on Tim Russert and Jay Leno. Time Magazine moves in with another article from a Pundit, which is then discussed by CNN (owned by the same folks), which is followed by an ABC segment on the news (CNN and Disney's ABC are also loose partners) and a Sunday sting on Stenephapolous(sp?) and Oprah. It is an notion which pretty soon becomes conventional wisdom after repeated exposure.

It is like the March to War that was "performed" by the networks and the cable triplets. Done in a clean seamless and Simultaneous loosely coordinated fashion. It is done as part of the daily operation of most of the nationwide media.

And don't forget about the news wire system which will run a story dissiminated everywhere in the U.S. with a rivalring/complimentary story that shows up in the NTY and WAPO!

It is like a fire that starts out insignificantly small but soon ignites and roars past and burns everything in its path in an out of control way. That is our media in 2006.

When they did away with the Fairness Doctrine, there was a reason. When the telecomunications act was signed in 1996, that had an effect.

[Adelante]

27. Any Democrat will get my support

If Wes Clark is excluded, of the three named, my only choice, I would have to say Hillary. I like Obama a lot as a VP, but neither he nor Edwards has the experience to be Prez.

[Codeblue]

38. Maybe Edwards

Otherwise, no way. Hilary? Give me a break. Disgusting. Obama? Too moderate for my liking. Sorry, I'm super left radical nutjob apparently. But moderates...disgusting. Edwards' concern for the poor in this country though is winning my support for these three.

[dchill]

39. I take it that the Corporate Media aren't going to Generate...

Wesley Clark.

[FrenchieCat]

41. Correctomundo.....

He will have to generate his own General self! LOL!

But if anyone can do it.....of course with the help of the netroots that support him....he can, and it can be done. "What the mind shall conceive, we can achieve!" is my motto from way back when. Worked with getting my daughter into Harvard....so we shall see about getting a President Clark into the Wes Wing! :patriot:

[Tom Rinaldo]

40. FWIW I went with the grab bag bench

I have very mixed feelings about Richardson from what I know, and I know that I don't know enough about him, but between him plus the great unknown potential mystery candidates, I went that way given these choices right now. I also could have voted for any of them are better than the Republicans, though Hagel is the sanest in the GOP when it comes to foreign policy.

[citizen snips]

42. The corporate media does not create candidates.

they focus on the candidates who are polling well.

[FrenchieCat]

49. And you have a right to that theory......but again, I don't see it that way

Those who poll well do so for a reason. You say it is their "likeability", I say it is the Buzz.

So I guess the question is......is it really that they are loved, or most times just "Known" and mentioned enough times not to fall out of the minds of those polled?

Is Obama polling high because he's well liked for the fact that he won a senate seat and gave a wonderful speech back in July of 2004? NO. Obama is polling well because he is gaining name recognition from the bizillion mentions that he gets everyday starting about mid October. I have his book. It's a good book, but it ain't what propelled him to the top of every Pundit's tongue along with the name Hillary. Is it his good looks, his intelligence, or his stance on the policies. Well certainly some can be attributed to that....however, it wouldn't matter what he had to offer if no one knew who he was.....and now, folks know.

And what about Hillary? Is she well liked or is it more importantly because she's well known that she polls real well? Did Hillary do anything great and special while she was in the White House for 8 years or in her last 6 years as a Senator? But was the fact that she was in the White House for 8 years married to the President make her well known? I think that we can safely say so.

The buzz created by the media, IMO, is what generates good polling numbers for contenders. The more a name is mentioned, the better the person polls. Why do I think that? Because I see McCain, Giuliani, Obama, Edwards and Hillary all getting quite a bit of Buzz, and therefore their numbers are high. Evan Bayh does not poll well. Is it really because he's not likeable or loved? I don't think so....because he is not known well enough to be loved or hated by most poll takers. I think Bayh polls low because many outside of Indiana who are not political junkies and therefore don't know who in the fuck he is! If he gets some free publicity via pundits to generate Buzz for the next month with losta of pundit love (positive coverage), you will see his numbers rise very quickly. It's really simple as that. It is a self perpetuating circle that is determined first and foremost on who's gonna get the publicity buzz. The polls follow, and the money comes after that....coz no one wants to jump and/or invest on a losing bandwagon.

So this is why as far as I'm concerned, the selective buzz choices is the horse, and polls are the cart. The money gets put into the cart as time progresses. That's how I see it working, IMO.

[last_texas_dem]

54. I agree

"Corporate media generated" apparently means "well-known, prominent Democrats who do well in 2008 Presidential polls."

[LWolf]

45. lol

I've made my position as clear-cut as I possibly can.

[tinfoil tiaras]

46. Edwards for President and Obama for Vice President nt.

[chimpymustgo]

47. Hell yeah, unless Gore runs. What a SNARKY, STUPID poll. nt

nt

[FrenchieCat]

50. I don't see it as snarky at all. I made my case within the thread.....

and I believe that I made it well....dispersed throughout the thread in my responses.

You can have an opposing opinion and you are welcome to it. However, to call my poll snarky with your snarky comment makes you no less snarky than your judgement of my poll.

My point? If you want to disagree, go ahead and debate the issue....cause your chosen snarky remark does not a resemble a debate what-so-ever.

[election_2004]

51. I would support Edwards or Obama

But NOT Hillary...that's exactly how the MSM whores want it to go. That way, they can enable the GOP to orchestrate a "resurgence" just in time for the 2010 midterms, with President Hillary as their bogeywoman.

[Catchawave]

53. Media Generated ?

Maybe it's because they've been busy doing worthwhile things that the media's interested in ?