Pretty big gains for Obama, though. Wasn't he in like the 30s against either Repub a few weeks ago?

The presidential primary for 2008 is starting so early that many Americans are withholding their expressed support for a potential candidate in order to gather and absorb information, I am definitely one of them. I agree with you on the focus placed on the "superstars" of the race on both sides. The media by not running any prominent stories on the other candidates is doing a great disservice to American voters. I want to hear more on Kucinich for president. In the least Kucinich is a man of principal and a leader who prefers to gather information from a variety of sources before deciding to engage this country and her monetary and citizen resources in battle. Hillary states that she based her decision on supporting the war in Iraq based on the information provided to her, this is echoed throughout the Democratic party. Kucinich took the time to gather additional information and not just swallow what was fed to him. Now that sounds like a true leader to me.

Danielle
www.taureandevi.blogspot.com

Its interesting how the numbers the Republicans get against the Dems are so similar, yet I would say almost everyone on the right knows who McCain is, but how many know who Rudy is? What does Billy Joe Bob Bureagard of Opelika, AL, know about Rudy?

Don't other national polls show roughly the opposite results?

Mostly that he looked good and sounded tough on television after 9/11. Don't underestimate the (overwhelmingly positive) exposure he got in the aftermath of the attack.

One more thing to add to the above: the attacks by the right on Edwards as 'fa**ot', 'womanly' and the like prove my point: he is the one they are scared of, and they are trying to tar him early with their base, which is very susceptible to the cult of bogus masculinity.

The mainstream media has been digging up utterly meaningless non-scandals (Edwards' house, Obama's stock, Hillary's 'bad men') but to follow the real culture wars, observe the right wing attack dogs. They are going after Edwards. Interestingly, it doesn't seem to be working.

These numbers show huge trouble for the Democrats. They show that despite Iraq, Katrina, Foley, Libby, gas prices, Bush and Cheney, they have so far failed to brand the Republicans as the party of incomptetence, war, waste, mendacity, and criminality, all of which they most assuredly are.

It's incredible that ANYBODY calling himself Republican is even within shouting distance of a Democratic candidate. The parsing about name recognition means nothing. The word "Republican" next to a candidate's name, after all that's happened, should mean defeat certain. That it does not is the Democrats' own massive failure, and is truly unbelievable.

This entire flaming tire of an administration is the fault not of Bush and Cheney alone, but of the Republican Party en masse, and it should be hung around each and every Republican neck until their brains are charred. They created Bush, they forced him into office after he lost, and they granted his every whim.

But the Dems have taken little advantage. They're incompetent at winning elections. Hopefully, it's not too late for this one.

People WANT to vote Democratic for president; they prefer the generic Dem by almost 20 points. But when you put named candidates in the poll, suddenly it's a horse race. This has little to do with the candidates, but it has to do with the failure of the Dems to BRAND the candidates. McCain? "Oh, he's not so bad." Giuliani? "Wasn't he a hero?"

The very fact that these people call themselves Republican should disqualify them from the office. But the Dems haven't gotten the message across. They may never.

Long Tom, excellent analysis.

While I somewhat disagree, in that it's just way too early to conclude all this now. I do completely agree, though, that there has not been nearly enough "throw-em-an-anvil" behavior from the Dems.

It's my recurring complaint, that Dems for some reason think there is a High Road in politics that's available. Rudy will come out with his 9/11 video a-blastin, and, like Bush, campaign on the dead bodies of 3000 Americans, and Dems will wonder just how he has the nerve to do such a thing.

Dissent Protects Democracy.

The GOP controls the corporate media.

The problem of a "lack of balance" in the media isn't the GOP. It's corporatism, money, profits, ownership. The GOP doesn't control the media -- Wall Street does.

The notion that the media is somehow filled with GOP operatives out to get the Democratic party is way too conspiratorial.

There is no media bias. Only a need to make a profit.

(PS, check out Frontline's News War series. Indispensable for cutting through all this. Plus you get to see Josh's mug.)

Dissent Protects Democracy.

OK, so Fox News isn't "the media." And by "Wall Street," I did not literally mean the personal agendas of people on the floor, I meant the market and the economic environment in which the news media operates -- a need for profits, the deregulation of the industry/ownership, the striking down of Fairness, the movement of news media orgs from profit losers to profit-makers, etc, etc, etc.

As I said, you should watch that Frontline doc, before you continue to insist you're right about everything here.

And between the sweeping statements like "all reporters are Republicans" and "everyone on Wall Street is a Republican," I really don't see the "reason" involved in your argument.

If there is a right wing bias, then, how do you explain how people on the right believe the complete opposite? They watch the news and see a completely left-wing bias. But, your view is correct?

Please, show me how the media is "biased." Again, I'm not talking Fox here, that's obviously biased. But you said "the media," and "the reporters in the WH." I'd like to better understand how all those reporters are all Republicans.

Dissent Protects Democracy.

Let's all keep calling Hillary "calculating" and "ambitious," and we can drive her numbers down even further. And when we're done with her, we can go after Obama for being inexperienced and for his losing stock venture, plus whatever other dumb ass things the media throw our way, and we can drive his numbers in the dumpster as well. Then we can start in on Edwards for being wealthy -- plus, did you hear, he sold his house!!!! -- and the top three Dems will be dead for the general election.
It will be "Mission Accomplished," for the third presidential election in a row.

Whoever said the blogosphere lacked the ability to influence anything?

In times of peace, the wise man prepares for war. -- Horace

The blade itself incites to violence. -- Homer

Or... big money from big corporations control both the GOP and the media.

If Americans are distracted and ignorant enough not to recognize what this bunch has done to the country, they may deserve more of the same.

Yes, pretty much, so.

The big money is from philanthropists and what they have done is organize themselves as a strategic philanthropy movement so that they can influence the sectors of business, politics, and economics  to drive social changes with the goal of advancing the basic tenets of conservatism which are unregulated markets and limited government. 

Money quote:

Today, one hears the phrase "movement conservatism." The right's think tanks and philanthropists alike understand that the enterprise is -- above all -- political. IRS rules for foundations and research institutes don't allow them to be partisan or primarily legislative, but don't mind if they are ideological or politically strategic.

Please, show me how the media is "biased." Again, I'm not talking Fox here, that's obviously biased. But you said "the media," and "the reporters in the WH." I'd like to better understand how all those reporters are all Republicans.

Sure here is another article about media bias and an excerpt: 

The media organizations in charge of vetting our images of war have become fewer and bigger — and the news more uniform and gung ho. Six huge corporations now control the major U.S. media: Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation (FOX, HarperCollins, New York Post, Weekly Standard, TV Guide, DirecTV and 35 TV stations), General Electric (NBC, CNBC, MSNBC, Telemundo, Bravo, Universal Pictures and 28 TV stations), Time Warner (AOL, CNN, Warner Bros., Time and its 130-plus magazines), Disney (ABC, Disney Channel, ESPN, 10 TV and 72 radio stations), Viacom (CBS, MTV, Nickelodeon, Paramount Pictures, Simon & Schuster and 183 U.S. radio stations), and Bertelsmann (Random House and its more than 120 imprints worldwide, and Gruner + Jahr and its more than 110 magazines in 10 countries).  

 snip

 The lack of diversity in ownership helps explain the lack of diversity in the news. When George W. Bush first came to power, the media watchers Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) looked at who appeared on the evening news on ABC, CBS and NBC. Ninety-two percent of all U.S. sources interviewed were white, 85 percent were male, and where party affiliation was identifiable, 75 percent were Republican. In the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, there was even less diversity of opinion on the airwaves. During the critical two weeks before and after Colin Powell's speech to the United Nations where he made his case for war, FAIR found that just three out of 393 sources — fewer than 1 percent — were affiliated with anti-war activism.

Three out of almost 400 interviews. And that was on the "respectable" evening news shows of CBS, NBC, ABC and PBS.

Even C-Span (Cable Statelite Public Affairs Network) is dominated by conservative think tanks. C-Span is a nonprofit company created by the cable industry in 1979. Its board of directors is dominated by top cable TV executives, but the company states that the board is not involved in news or editorial policy decisions. (Click here to see who sits on C-Span’s Board of Directors: www.c-span.org/about/company/index.asp?code=BOARD.)

Guests from Conservative Think Tanks Far Outnumber Guests from Progressive Think Tanks

 The choice of representatives from think tanks supports the notion that Washington Journal leans to the right. Progressive think tanks are under-represented. As shown below, 15 guests (48 percent) are from conservative think tanks, 10 (32 percent) from centrist ones, four (13 percent) from progressive think tanks, and two (7 percent) from libertarian ones. 

Name                           Think Tank                                                    Political Orientation 

Robert Bork                 American Enterprise

Institute                                    Conservative

Christopher DeMuth            American

Enterprise Institute                                    Conservative

Peter Wallison              American Enterprise Institute                                    Conservative

Strobe Talbott              Brookings Institution                                        Centrist

Robert Borosage            Campaign for America’s Future              Progressive

Minxin Pei                    Carnegie Endowment for Int’l Peace               Centrist

Ed Crane                      CATO Institute                                                Libertarian

Robert Levy                 CATO Institute                                                Libertarian

Steven Camarota            Center for Immigration Studies             Conservative

Lawrence Gostin  Center for Law and Public Health                Centrist

Andrew Krepinevich            Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assess  Centrist

Daniel Benjamin            Center for Strategic and Int’l Studies             Conservative

Michelle Flournoy            Center for Strategic and Int’l Studies             Conservative

Robert Greenstein            Center on Budget and Policy Priorities            Progressive

Marc Rotenberg            Competitive Enterprise Institute                        Conservative

Fred Smith                   Competitive Enterprise Institute                        Conservative

Lawrence Korb    Council on Foreign Relations                                  Centrist

Lawrence Mishel            Economic Policy Institute                                    Progressive

Myron Lieberman            Economic Policy Institute                                    Progressive

Bill Bennett                   Empower America                                           Conservative

Jacqueline Grapin            European Institute                                            Centrist

Ken Connor                 Family Research Council                         Conservative

Michael Krepon            Henry L. Stimson Center                          Centrist

Paul Bremer                 Heritage Foundation                                        Conservative

Fred Bergsten               Institute for International Economics                    Centrist

Catherine Mann   Institute for International Economics                    Centrist

Terence Taylor            International Institute for Strategic Studies Centrist

Tamar Jacoby               Manhattan Institute                                           Conservative

Dimitri Simes                Nixon Center                                                  Conservative

Lee Hamilton                Woodrow Wilson International Center            Conservative

Dennis Kux                  Woodrow Wilson International Center             Conservative 

To be fair, it’s sometimes hard to distinguish between think tanks and some advocacy groups, and we did not try to categorize the advocacy groups by political orientation. Nor did we do a political analysis of other types of guests on the show—not to mention the topics. So, just because Washington Journal has more guests from conservative think tanks does not mean the show, overall, is conservative. 

But Washington Journal staffers should nonetheless make sure that their selection of think tank representatives is fair. At a minimum, representation from the widely known right-wing think tanks—like the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation—should be matched by representation from progressive think tanks, like the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and Institute for Policy Studies.

The biggest part of this problem is the Democrats. Too many of them are well aware of how much money they can rake in by supporting the same corporate pig feeding station the Republicans support. In fact far too many Democrats want to be in office not to reverse the corporate feeding done by the Republicans, but to get in on the payoff for supporting it. You don't see a Democratic campaign to cut back "defense" spending do you? You didn't see Democrats solidly opposing the credit card industry when the bankruptcy bill was passed. You didn't see solid Democratic opposition to the Medicare Part D scandal. And, you don't see solid Democratic support for shifting the tax burden off the middle class and back to corporations and the wealthy.

When your party wants more to become the opposition party then to oppose it, you do have campaigning problems.

Hoppy in Sacramento

I have nothing against FAIR but they are hardly a neutral observer here. They seem to consider the Democratic party as centrist and the Republican party as Conservative. I actually agree with that; but from that perspective you can understand why they think "progressives" are under-represented compared to conservatives.

Some examples from the above list. Strobe Talbott head of the Brookings Institution counts as a centrist, but he is clearly mainstream Democrat. The Woodrow Wilson center is listed as Conservative, but it is part of the Smithsonian Institute.

The Dems have so far been blowing the biggest national political advantage since 1976.

Maybe the media has more to do with it. They have been fawning over Staight Talk Express Maverick John McCain for years, and now Rudy is "America's Mayor." Forget McCain's notorious flip flops and Rudy's egomaniacal and authoritarian personality, the media script seems to already have been written.

The MSM seems to feel comfortable bashing Democrats, able to repeat any charges against them and yet they seem reluctant to
treat the Republicans the same way. Look no farther than the recent 'troops lives wasted in Iraq' dust up. When Obama said it we had 24/7 commentary, all negative. Wasn't Obama pressured into apologizing? When McCain said the exact same thing, it was a media tidbit for a day and it ran in context with Obama's comment.

The "disparity in media representation," may be important, but it is just the visible tip of a much larger problem. The important conversations in the US today are not between right and left. They are between reality-based, common-sense, practicality on the one hand, and irrational conservative ideology on the other. "Progressives" are marginal.

One clear example (among hundreds of others) is the global warming "debate." Conservative "sceptics" have hijacked the important debates here, and those like Al Gore who are simply stating reality, are painted as radicals. I can imagine a truely "progressive" position: The US per-capita production of CO2 is so far out of line with the rest of the world, as to be considered a crime against humanity.

This is an arguable point of view in my opinion, but I have never heard it expressed.

This topic deserves major discussion of it's own, not on this thread.

I've heard them say, and I believe them, that they would LOVE to run against Hillary.

Jan, yes, I've head this babble a number of times too. They seem to be suggesting they will be harder on Hillary than on some other Democrat candidate, say someone like Kerry or Gore. Yes, I'm sure the right will pull their punches if the candidate is Obama, Edwards, or Elmer Fudd :)

While I agree that all candidates will be attacked, I think that the statement that the GOP would LOVE to run against Hillary deserves more analysis than "babble".

Hillary is a centrist, plain and simple. If the GOP runs a more centrist candidate (based on the announced candidates this certainly seems to be what is happening), then the issues become muddled. Suddenly details matter.

Iraq War? It would become the details of competence--and here's where Rudy's reputation about the competence of his response to 0911 (deserved or not) comes into play. It revolves around competence--and Hillary is certainly on record as supporting the war but being emphatic about the incompetence of waging it. The general election would not revolve against a "dumb war" that should never have been waged but it was "okay" to start it but the execution was lousy.

Is this the debate that we, as Democrats, want in the 2008 general election? Iraq War was okay but execution was lousy? I'm not a pacifist and am very uneasy with an anti-war label. But I also oppose the record this country has since World War II of jumping into foreign wars with "police actions" that get escalated or with "full military response" where the war debate is held years after the war begins. Do we want Dems and Reps to go down this road in the future? Or not?

So I will oppose a centrist Democratic candidate on those grounds alone. And I don't think it bodes well in the general election if we have two centrist candidates facing off. IMHO, the real debate is again buried.

The right wing media neither exist, nor were created, in a vaccuum. That they're right wing is as much the Dem's fault as it is the Repubs' cleverness, or their owners' predilections.

Fact is, the MSM fear the Republicans and don't fear the Democrats. Until the Dems do some serious revenge arm-twisting, not to say breaking, among media corporations and among media personalities, they'll continue to get trashed in the struggle for media favoritism by the right wingers.

It's all part of the same problem: the Dems HAVE TO TOUGHEN UP. You think these fascists are just going to waltz off the world stage? This isn't about outwitting them come election time. It's a struggle for power in the richest, strongest nation on Earth. The righties know it's a prize worth any crime required to win it. The Dems don't seem to know this, and they better figure it out soon, or they'll be sitting around again on election night in November 2008 wondering what happened and bitching about Republican tactics.

I do think (honestly) she has a chance. But I think Dems have a much better chance with others.

I wouldn't underestimate the Dem rank and file coming together, behind whoever ends up getting picked. We all have seen and understand the consequences of allowing a Republican to win the White House.

But, no doubt, if she is the nom, then it will be another very, very close election. 

Dissent Protects Democracy.

I think Clinton is the only present candidate who can stand up to the GOP disinformation, and win.

The GOP controls the corporate media because the Dems have allowed them to. 

 The Democratics simply do not have a vast left wing media network like the right does. The right controls the media messages via think tanks, advocacy groups, talk shows and alliances between all those groups, who deliver the exact same GOP message. The left has no comparable media network.

If you click on the link in the prior post about strategic philantrophy..it provides lots of details about the right wing media network that drives the policies and political debate nationally.

"The left has no comparable media network."

Well, why not? Don't we have think tanks, advocacy groups, and even billionaires that agree with Democratic principles?

It's time for an organized and dedicated assault on all things Republican. No holds barred. The mission of the Democratic Party must be to turn the Republicans into a third party, and have the second party be...other Democrats!

It has nothing to do with secret dirt. The Republicans would like to run against Hillary because she's a known quantity-- she has a ceiling at 45% which she is unlikely to break because everyone already has an opinion about her. (Hillary can only win if there's a rightwing spoiler in the race, as her husband had twice.) Where Obama or even Edwards (who should be overexposed by now, except that Kerry kept him in an undisclosed secret location) may only have 20% or 30%, but they still have the possibility of getting to 55%. (As of course do lesser-known quantities such as Richardson, who's certainly no more obscure right now than the governor of Arkansas in 1991.)

The same thing is happening on the Republican side. McCain is in trouble because his 20-30% shows no sign of growth; Giuliani, on the other hand, has evolved (and I think his calm, sober demeanor now is a brilliant response to the previous view of him as imperial and vindictive) and everyone can imagine him getting to 55%.

Frankly, there's NO downside for the Dems in making it tough as hell for Hillary to be the presumptive nominee. You get any dirt out early, you force her to be a better candidate, or she fails and you replace her with a better candidate. Her approach, of locking up all the money and big union/interest group support in advance and stifling the race before it starts, is a recipe for getting Walter Mondale's share of the November vote, not a winner's.

Well, why not? Don't we have think tanks, advocacy groups, and even billionaires that agree with Democratic principles?

Actually we have a few, but not many. The left is no where near as organized nor do we act in a concerted coordinated strategic manner as the right does. The right straited this back in the 70s subsequent to Nixon putting Powell on the Supreme Court. Powell was the one who was the original architect of the VRW.

It was American capitalists who were fearful of liberals controlling the policy issues subsequent to the turbulent 60s  and undermining the goals of unfettered capitalism and corporatism. They were galvanized into action in the early 70s and the control of the media message is where we have evolved to.

 While it is true that liberal operatives, dedicated organizations, and funding sources exist in some numbers, the current right-wing juggernaut of hard cash and sharp edged political power really has no equal in American history.

The Democrats do not have a Grover Norquist.

Every Wednesday at the Washington headquarters of ATR, more than a hundred representatives of major right-wing organizations throng the conference room. Present are White House and Congressional staffers, lobbyists, industry representatives, right-wing think tankers, hard-right editors, and litigators. Attendance is by invitation only. Norquist calls the Wednesday gathering his "Leave Us Alone" coalition, an anti-government line that conceals the real goal of creating a corporate socialist state.

"Here," writes Michael Sherer in Mother Jones magazine,"Strategy is honed. Talking points are refined. Discipline is imposed ... Norquist plays the role of national ward boss, delivering the coalition that has rallied around the president's policy agenda." Norquist consults regularly with the White House, notably Karl Rove and "Scooter" Libby, Vice-President Cheney's chief of staff, and, in turn, channels the worldview of the apparat to them.

Sherer took note of Norquist's view of his populist base: "My ideal citizen [is] the self-employed, home-schooling, IRA-owning guy with a concealed-carry permit -- because he doesn't need the goddamn government for anything." Here's where Norquist's standard-issue buzz-phrases find fertile pasture: "out of sync with America," "card-carrying liberal from Massachusetts," "the extreme elements of his party," "pro-abortion and pro-gay." As the adage goes, control the rhetoric and you control the debate.

Amidst a sea of voters who largely agree with liberal positions on social issues, the apparat has created a great equalizer, its multi-million-dollar propaganda megaphone

But wait and see how long that survives the reprints of Jimmy Breslin's column describing the two(count em) NYS policemen assigned to driving the two women with whom he was sleeping while still married to Donna.

And the radio controller charged with making sure that the two of them wouldn't show up in the Gracie Mansion drive way at the same time.

You can look it up on the web. Just enter Breslin and Guilliani.

BTW I admired Rudy on 9/11 , and particularly his response when asked how many he thought had died :" Too many for us to bear".  That could cause me to overlook a lot  of mistresses  and mysoginism. 

I'm not so sure about the rest of the country.

l

Oh, I think her chances are better than Kucinich's.

cscs

I would say the GOP has not been this divided since the 1960's. Early frontrunner Rudy Giuliani has drawn fire from both moderate and orthodox Republicans. The former takes issue with his extramarital affair and the latter with the fact that he is divorced.

Similarly, Mitt Romney is actually considered too liberal by many in the GOP base.

John McCain's hawkish stances make him an awfully tough sell.

In short, I think the Democrats can win the 2008 election relatively easily so long as they do not nominate Hillary or possibly Obama. Clinton, for one, will unite that fractured base fast and quicker than anything the GOP could do internally.

She would receive about twenty votes in the states south of the Mason/Dixon line.

Exactly. And WHY is there no parallel Democratic meeting? Is it because the right wing has already infiltrated the left and deflects the left from taking effective action? (That would explain Bob Shrum. Who can doubt that he's a right wing "mole?").

There's absolutely nothing wrong, per se, with what Norquist is doing, as you describe it. (I'm sure he's committing many crimes outside of those weekly meetings!) The left has to do it better.

Two election cycles? As an interested but casual observer, it seems to me that much of the right wing tactics date back to the 1980 election and before. Lyn Nofziger, Roger Ailes, and Lee Atwater were the forebears of Karl Rove, and Nixon, Colson, Mitchell were their antecedents.

The precise method of organizing their assault on truth and justice may be a recent development, but the drive to turn Democrats (in the public mind) into either laughable waterheads or scurrilous betrayers began long ago. Their tactics: deceit, vilification, intimidation, and simple-minded brand marketing have been around for a long time.

We agree that it's long overdue for the Dems to develop a coordinated, long-term effort to destroy the Republican Party and turn the word "conservative" into an epithet.

My point is that there's nobody stopping the Dems from doing this. They have plenty of money, foot soldiers, and clout. They need the desire, and they need to recognize that there aren't any Marquis of Queensbury rules in effect.