![]() |
|
||
|
The Electability CanardPosted on Dec 11, 2007Ari Berman takes a look at the Democrats’ premiere non-issue as the campaign in Iowa draws closer to a conclusion: electability. He concludes that, their propaganda aside, all of the top candidates have positives and negatives that cancel each other out, but that probably doesn’t even matter. As Bill Clinton himself said: “This electability thing is a canard.”
Advertisement Previous item: Ex-CIA Agent: White House Authorized Torture Next item: Romney Gets National Review's Vote Elsewhere: . CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig. Add Your Comment
|
A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
Copyright © 2009 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved. |
By ElkoJohn, December 12, 2007 at 1:36 pm #
Electability translates into the candiates of the big-money oligarchy—vote Dennis Kucinich or Ron Paul so you go on record as protesting the oligarchy.
Report thisBy RdV, December 12, 2007 at 9:43 am #
Even though the major media focus is on the Clinton machine controlling the connections and the Obama celebrity act—it is Edwards who, according to the polls, beats EVERY Republican candidate by the widest margin.
Edwards is the candidate most entitled to claim the mantle of “electibility” and he is generally ignored because his populism doesn’t appeal to the corporate handlers.
Edwards is the dark horse.
Report thisBy Enemy of State, December 11, 2007 at 11:38 pm #
The rightwing stinktanks have had roughly 15years to associate bad emotions with Hillary Clinton. Lots of people don’t like her, but don’t have a clue why. Constant rightwing attacks have made an emotional connection in the brains of many voters. Obama hasn’t been on their radar screens as long, so they haven’t been able to do their dirty work against him nearly as long. Add in the danger of being painted as racist if their anti-Obama smears are not carefully crafted, and I think you can see that he won’t have as many implanted negatives.
Of course, if we could somehow educate the average voter as to the extent of the psychological manipulation of their brains that has been done they would rebel against the R’s -but that is simply not going to happen.
Report thisBy martin weiss, December 11, 2007 at 10:59 pm #
The mainstream media have chosen the candidates the Republicans prefer to run against.
Who could fault them for choosing an African-Asian- American and a woman?
They don’t want to run against Edwards, and they won’t even mention Kucinich.
They want to run against someone whose electability is in question.
Report thisSo, no. I gotta disagree.
Electability is in direct negative relationship to media coverage. These guys show their hand by who they don’t mention.
But, for Democrats faced with US Attorneys in many states willing to call stolen elections in favor of Republicans, winning is everything. Therefore electability is a factor in this election as in no prior contest. Electability may not be everything, but only assassination could change the outcome. Look for an airplane crash.
The Bush-military cabal will stop at nothing. Even a Democrat in the Whitehouse may not be enough.
By Douglas Chalmers, December 11, 2007 at 9:43 pm #
It would not only be nicer but far more successful if the Democrats’ candidates stopped attacking each other and united in a single effort to win the presidency. Or do they want to be defeated (“canard” = duck = Dukakis = 2008 if they are not more careful, uhh)?!?!
Report this