Editorial: Make way for the Nervous Nells

Help us out here, our calender shows 2007. Did we forget to flip about 12 months?

Cindy Sheehan just declared her run for Congress last week; however, the "Cindy, Don't Run!" campaign had already started. Tits & Ass producer (who also glorified the military and played the tired card of woman v. woman onscreen) grabbed an afghan, brewed some herbal tea and wanted to have a (public) heart to heart with Cindy. Needed to explain why it was a bad idea for Cindy to run for elected office . . . in a district Tits & Ass can't vote in because she doesn't live in it. Seven who can vote in the district are taking part in the writing of this and we say, "Run, Cindy, Run!"

But when your career goes so stale that you can't even make T&A flicks anymore (the green light long ago turned red), suddenly you're an apparent expert on everything including who should and who shouldn't run.

The calender still says 2007, right?

David Michael Green penned a piece last year that probably seems familiar because it pops up every election cycle. All the 'depth' of the 'commentary' can be found in it's headline: "Forget Third Parties -- It Ain't Gonna Happen: Hijack The Democrats Instead." There are many troubling things about concept.

First, is this or is it not the same David Michael Green who believes Al Gore can be a serious candidate for president in 2008? It is the same and he's got a little fantasy but, "Forget Al Gore -- It Ain't Gonna Happen."

What the hell business of it is David Michael Green's who anyone votes for?

If he's able to make a case for voting for X, by all means do so. But we're not in the mood for 15 months of "Don't vote for third parties."

We're also pretty tired of the "change the system from within" mantra that really hasn't worked. Ask any of the New Left. Most of them couldn't get inside. Those who did usually sold off a great deal and still got spat out. But how they flock to push the message "Stay true blue, Stay Democrat, Stay Free maxipads!" It's really kind of pathetic, especially in the over sixty set that long ago ended their brief elected careers and should really grasp that sucking up until their teeth fall out will not provide them any job offers from the Democratic Party.

That set sold out a great deal but it still wasn't enough to keep the support of the Democratic Party, now was it?

But the New Left kidded themselves that they could take over the Democratic Party and now the Newbie Left (or "Left") wants to push the same tired message.

If you believe in someone by all means vote for them. If you believe in Democrats, vote for them. If you believe in a third party, vote for them. If you believe in Republicans, vote for them. And if you believe in fairies, click your heels three times.

It really is that childish.

Here's some reality. The independent media's refusal to pick up the slack on covering Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel (no Green has yet declared a presidency run) has ensured that it's nearly impossible to pressure the Democrats into anything.

The majority have already enlisted in the Obama campaign. Listening to Uprising on KPFK, we found it sad but hilarious to hear the reply of an African-American scholar when asked what he thought of Glen Ford's radio commentary? He immediately began a response that wasn't based on Obama, it was all about going negative on Hillary Clinton. For those who missed the commentary, it was entitled "Barack Obama's Game: Erase the 'Black Problem'." In one sentence, Ford mentions that Hillary is Obama's twin. That's all the 'scholar' needed to launch his attack on Hillary while ignoring Ford's very accurate criticism of Barack Obama.

Now there was no point in independent media jumping the gun on their coverage. (John Nichols jumped fastest, managing to write about the 2008 presidential election shortly before the 2006 Congressional election took place.) But if you're going to waste everyone's 2007 time on a 2008 race, shouldn't that actually mean your coverage improves?

It hasn't. Hillary Clinton is the Evil Queen. That's all that the coverage has conveyed. Barack Obama's given pass after pass. John Edwards' health care plan (like Clinton's and Obama's) is a joke. Barack Obama is pro-nuclear power plants, pro-predatory lending (check out his record in the Senate), pro-corporations, anti-same-sex marriage, and anti-withdrawl of US troops.

That last point has probably been the greatest failure in the coverage. He's allowed to repeat, over and over, that he was against the illegal war before it started. But no one points out the very obvious fact that, when running for the Senate in 2004, he was also against any US withdrawal.

That's not quite how he presents onstage when he's slamming Edwards and Clinton for not being smart enough to vote against the illegal war. We're still waiting for the candidate who will shoot back by pointing out that to be against the illegal war and against a withdrawl is not just stupid, it's paralyzed.

And that's where Obama is on Iraq. That's why he lined up a Senate record (after entering it in 2005) of pro-war votes. That's why he has yet to present a plan that would withdraw all US troops. And someone who wants credit for being right about the illegal war all along is someone who should have had plenty of time to think about how the US gets out.

If someone's for Obama, they should be able to state his positives, not lie. We're not for him but we're sure he has his positives to some voters. And that's fine, but let's not lie about what his record is, let's not lie about what he's said or agreed to.

Isn't our biggest criticism -- on the center-left, faux left and left -- that the mainstream media won't tell the truth? So what do all the lies popping up in independent media say? (To us, it says a lot of really bad gas bags were too unattractive or too unambitious -- or both -- to get work in the mainstream so they went to work for independent media.)

Now the Green Party (not the only third party) just had their national meeting this year and they still haven't selected a candidate or a list of candidates to run for their nomination. [*See note at end.*] So, with just that one party, it takes extreme self-infatuation to tell voters to forget them and all other third parties this early in the game.

Impeachment, we were told by a Nervous Nell on Democracy Now! last week, might mean the 2008 presidential election became a "jump shot." What is the big fear about a level playing field? What is the big fear about candidates actually having to compete for votes?

How weak do you think your candidate is (whomever he or she is) that they can't win on a level playing field?

You should vote for whomever you want. That includes Barack Obama if he is your choice. But you aren't allowed to lie. Not to lie and be taken seriously. That's exactly the crime carried about the mainstream media in 2000. That independent media decided it was more important to cover a 2008 election in 2007 than an ongoing, illegal war already calls into question their evaluating skills. That they want to 'cover' with one body blow after another to Hillary Clinton while handing over valentines to Barack Obama calls into question their journalistic abilities.

We've got more this edition on the 2008 election than we'd prefer. That's not because we found the YouTube 'debate' delightful. We didn't even watch it until after the nonsense in the press started. If any of the big small outlets had addressed what went down seriously, we wouldn't have had to. But instead it was Koo Koo time at The Nation as only David Corn grasped that you can't write about a flare up without giving readers the basics of what was asked and what was said.

But there was a whole lot that Obama said that a real independent media could have explored. They took a pass. It would be really nice if, as the non-stop horse race coverage continues, alleged journalists could approach their work as if they really were journalists.

That would mean trusting the people. That would mean providing the information they need. But we're seeing a lot of Nervous Nells who can't tell the truth, who won't tell the truth. And yet they want to be considered part of the press. They not only embarrass themselves, they embarrass the candidates they are campaigning for (that kind of press is campaigning for a candidate). They also insult the American people because the real message here is, "We can put one over on you." That's twice as insulting when you grasp how, print or broadcast, they either have their hands out begging for your money or are about to.

---------
*** Added by Dona, C.I. and Ava 7-30-07. Kimberly Wilder (The Wilder Side) advises that there are candidates considering a run for the Green Party presidential nomination and refers to the Peoples President Page. This currently displays "This website is temporarily unavailable, please try again later." She also refers to Politics1. The following are either "announced candidate" "or filed an filed Exploratory Committee" supposedly -- supposedly because the names are supposed to be bold and we can't tell with the red ink whether they are not: Jared Bell, Elaine Brown, Mike "Jingo" Jinngozian, Paul Kangas, Jerry Kann, Kent Msplay, Gail Parker, "Average Joe" Schriner and Kat Swift. In addition, clicking here takes you to a video of the Presidential Candidates Forum held this month. We'll attempt to do some feature on this next Sunday.
Added by Ty: The Green Party website lists the following as candidates thus far: Jared Bell, M. Jingozian, Jesse Johnson, Jerry Kann, Kent Mesplay, Gail Parker and Kat Swift. In addition, they note Sedinam Kinamo Christin Moyawaisifza-Curry as a vice-presidential hopeful.