Editorial: The real change choice

After 9-11, it's now become quite clear that whatever emphasis there was on the al Qaeda apparatus, there was a superior emphasis on removing Saddam Hussein from Iraq. What's interesting about this is the following. It illustrated -- in ways perhaps never before illustrated in our country -- the fragility of our democratic institutiatons. Here is a nation run by a tottering dictator presiding over a diplated army, with troops not willing to fight for him, surrounded by hostile Kurds to the north, hostile Shiites to the south, surrounded by three very powerful countries compared to his military ability: Iran, Turkey and Israel. And had he directed one aggressive threat toward any of them, they would have obliterated his regime. And yet Iraq under Hussein was viewed as a threat to the United States? But what was most troubling was the lack of any deliberative process by the US Congress which was stampeded into this situation, lack of any deliberative or investigative process by the mass media which clicked their heels and loved the graphics that they were given, and without a deliberative attentiveness to the perceived concerns of the American people. Before the invasion of Iraq, we tried to have Bush meet with one or more distinct groups in our country who had knowledge and were concerned about the invasion of Iraq. Thirteen of these groups, with very little press attention, wrote open letters to President Bush in February and early March, asking for a meeting. They included letters signed by the National Council of Churches, former military officers, former intelligence officials, student groups, women's peace advocates, a business group, labor group. I don't know of any other impending hostility that had such an ecumentical coming-together, expressing doubt and opposition to the pending move. None of these letters were answered by the White House. There were no meetings. President Bush, being the messianic militarist that we've come to know so well, was not interested in meeting with anyone who was critical of his proposed Iraq policies. That was a severe scar on our democratic fabric.

That's indpendent presidential candidate Ralph Nader speaking about the Iraq War in May of 2004. Last week, Barack Obama shocked some who suddenly discovered he wasn't as "anti-war" as the hype pretended. Chief among the pretenders is Tom Hayden (who endorsed Barack in January). With Barack declaring that he would "refine" his 'plan' on Iraq based on his upcoming visit, Hayden showed up July 4th online to scold the Mainstream Media for failing to report on Samantha Power's remarks to the BBC. Yeah, we reported on them in real time and called on others to do the same. But, thing is, the MSM wasn't the problem. It was people like Hayden. (See this week's "Letters to An Old Sell Out: Iraq" especially.) Hayden not only falsely accuses of the MSM of his own crimes, he also falsely accuses the Hillary Clinton campaign of ignoring Power's remarks.

While there are many to criticize, the MSM and the Clinton campaign can't be accused. People like Hayden, The Nation, The Progressive, Amy Goodman, John Nichols, Betsy Reed, Katrina vanden Heuvel, Ari Berman and all the usual rejects of Panhandle Media are the ones who failed. They refused to cover it. Even after the interview aired, they were more concerned with 'covering' poor Samantha Power. In terms of resigning from the Barack campaign, in terms of calling Hillary a "monster." They went to that well over and over. They never felt the need to know the facts (especially Davey D who lamented her 'passing' on air in a piece so factually-challenged that he repeatedly called her "Samantha Powers" -- and no one at KPFA bothered to correct him or interject: "What about what she said about Iraq?").

They started out lying for their candidate-of-choice (and started that in 2006, remember Professor Patti Williams lying on KPFA that Barack voted against the resolution and having her meltdown when a caller pointed out that Barack wasn't in the US Senate in 2002). They lied and then they lied some more. And they obscured and left out details that would have told the truth about the non-anti-war Barack. All of them. They attacked Hillary with lies as well. Hayden's July 4th column notes that Barack's never been that anti-war but, back in January, when Bill Clinton made the same point, Tom-Tom blasted him and called it 'lies.'

Who are the liars?

You need to ask yourself that.

You need to ask yourself why outlets you go to for information did not just FAIL YOU, they also tried to CONTROL you. It isn't their damn business who you vote for. That's not their job. Though they gladly enlisted with the Barack campaign, they are supposed to be 'independent' and you didn't see a damn bit of independence.

You saw lies and more lies. (And continue as CounterSpin's laughable interview two Fridays ago that was nothing but lies justifying Barack breaking his pledge to use public financing.)

And you saw attacks.

The attacks on Hillary were non-stop. She's suspended her campaign.

Yes, she got more votes. Yes, she won the states that matter. But Panhandle Media was on Barack's side from 2006. Bob Somerby still can't grasp (or say so if he does grasp) that Panhandle Media steered this election. Not The New York Times, not the gas bag cable shows. Big Media latches on to what's bubbling and they latched on the narratives that came to shape in 2006, took hold in 2007 and were still being promoted in 2008 by alleged 'independent' media.

But with Hillary out (maybe she'll get back in), you should be asking some serious questions and chief among them is about Ralph Nader.

Why all the attacks on Ralph?

Hillary had to be distorted and lied about to make her come off as hugely different on Iraq than Barack. Ralph has to be attacked because he is hugely different than Barack on Iraq.

Ralph Nader was opposed to the illegal war before it started. He was publicly opposed. He never waivered. In May of 2004, he's calling it out. Two months later, Barack's telling The New York Times he's not sure how he would have voted if he'd been in the US Senate in 2002. Barack refuses to call the illegal war "illegal" and refuses to call it out. In 2004, you saw the Democratic presidential candidate argue for a 'smarter' Iraq War. That's really all Barack's offering.

Ralph has to be hated and demonized by allegedly 'independent' media because he's a real threat to Mr. Precious, you know, the Christ-child.

Can't continue to claim Barack walks on water and also cover the candidate who actually was and is against the illegal war, the one who would end the illegal war -- no hestiatiions, no hedges -- if he were elected president.

So they ingore Ralph and they attack him. Allegedly 'independent' media does not exist to promote a single candidate. They do not exist to tell you how to vote. They are supposed to inform you. Somehow they've decided that they can skip that and you won't notice.

Last Sunday, Nader was among the guests on ABC's This Week. We noted it in "Ralph Nader, Defending Article II" and Ava and C.I. by themselves noted it in "Ralph Nader on today's This Week (ABC) ." Nader's campaign made the broadcast network and where was Panhandle Media? Ignoring it still.

$2000 was the amount Ralph Nader raised prior to the apperance (Saturday in Connecticut) as

AP reported. Now $2000 from non-lobbyists isn't a big deal. It used to be. But when they have the Big Money Machine that is Barack, Panhandle Media is no longer interested in fair and free elections or in campaign finances. They're only interested in gushing about all the Big Money Barack's raised (while pretending it's from small donors). That is an amazing amoung for a candiadte shut out by All Things Media -- Big and Small.

Ralph's running mate is Matt Gonzalez. The Nader-Gonzalez ticket continued to raise money throughout the week. Team Nader noted Monday saw $12,761.69 donated to the Nader-Gonzalez campaign. July 3rd, the campaign announced: "By the way, in case you didn't notice, on Saturday, we launched our campaign to raise $40,000 in ten days - by July 6.
You did it in six days." They exceeded their own expectations and, once upon a time, Panhandle Media would have treated that like the news it was. Ralph Nader is running for president and he has to fight a Big Media blackout, a Democratic Party that proved in 2004 it would not play fair and ballot access (see: Democratic Party will not play fair). This is the grassroots campaign but Panhandle Media doesn't want to tell you about that.

Last week, Nader-Gonzalez turned in enough signatures (more than enough) that should mean they're on the ballot in Nevada. Slow and steady, the campaign continues to make inroads. Last week, AP reported that the campaign had already picked up 5% of Hillary Clinton supporters. CNN reported last week that the Nader campaign was polling 6% among voters. That's amazing. They're doing that with no help from the alleged "independent" media. (No, Amy Goodman, having Ralph on the show and forcing him to defend running as opposed to exploring his campaign is not 'support.' It's offensive. We doubt if Barack or John McCain sat down with you for an interview, you'd repeatedly ask them to justify their decision to run for public office.)

throughout. He has not waffled like Saint Barack. Yesterday he spoke at the University of Hawaii-Manou. Craig Gima (Honolulu Star-Bulletin) reports:

In a news conference before the speech, Nader said Hawaii voters are being marginalized by the major candidates.
"When political candidates do not campaign in a state, voter turnout suffers," Nader said, adding that he has campaigned in all 50 states in the last two elections.
Nader said he supports the Akaka Bill and native Hawaiian rights, and said Hawaii should be a model for the rest of the country in renewable energy.
"This is the only place in the world where every form of renewable energy occurs," he said.
Nader also said that if elected he would push for universal health care, an increase in the minimum wage to $10 an hour and the repeal of what he called the anti-union Taft-Hartley Act.

Thursday, Nader did something historic. He campaigned in Hawaii. Not since 1960 has a general election presidential candidate made Hawaii a campaign stop. He's taking it to the people and doing so with no help from Panhandle Media.

You need to be asking why that is?

Does Panhandle Media believe in either democracy or journalism? If so, why the blackout on Ralph? Why the smary remarks?

In 2000, Nader ran for president. Ralph did not cost Al Gore the election. In a democracy, anyone who wants to can run and no candidate covered by big media the way Gore was can be said to have lost votes. He had more than enough coverage to shore up votes. And, thing is, votes don't belong to anyone but the voter. The voter decides who speaks for him or her and awards the vote accordingly.

Ralph Nader is at 6% and needs to get 10% to be included in the presidential debates. That is do-able. With or without Panhandle Media, that is do-able.

No one participating in this voted for Nader in 2000 (Jess would have if he'd been old enough to vote in 2000 and did vote Nader in 2004). So we're looking at 2000 from the outside and what we see, pay attention Panhandle Media, is that Ralph got some attention from independent media (2004 would see the undemocratic "Ralph Don't Run" and hit jobs like the piece Ruth Conniff wrote for The Progressive). Our point?

If Panhandle Media could stop the lies about his campaign and the silences on it, Nader could get that support he had in 2000 as well as a hell of a lot more. He is picking up non-voters, he is picking up young voters, he is picking up Hillary supporters. He is expanding his base. What he is not getting is help with pulling in his 2000 base. All his big supporters in Panhandle Media are silent or dismissive. And they shape opinion.

Any person deciding to run has that right in a democracy and is valid to pursue it. But the 2008 landscape is different than the 2000 one. Many states will likely see a ballot that includes the following presidential choices: Bob Barr, Cynthia McKinney, John McCain, Ralph Nader and Barack Obama. That's a five-way race. We're not supporting the McKinney campaign due to it's announcing they are running for 5% of the vote (which isn't the same thing as running for the presidency); however, we do not underestimate Cynthia's ability (or the Green Party's ability -- she's the likely nominee for the Green Party) to reach or come close to that goal. Barr will get votes. Nationally, it's not a three-way race in 2008, the way it was in 2000. Nader, Barr, McKinney, any independent or third-party candidate has the better chance of winning the presidency in 2008 than was possible in 2000.

As Barack's caved on illegal spying on Americans, on public financing, on the illegal war . . . go down the list. Some are saying, "We'll hold his feet to the fire!" Yeah, Laura Flanders and Tom Hayden were saying that in February. They never did though. An online crowd wants to put donations to Barack into a fund (hopefully not interest bearing because that would bring up FEC problems) and only award it to Barack when he finds his 'spine.' (He hasn't lost his spine. The Barack you're seeing is the real Barack.)

What is that? The equivalent of withholding sex in marriage? You're already tied to him, bound to him, what does it really matter if you set the money aside when he knows you're going to give it to him?

The game being played is "You have no where else to go." In 2008, voters have many places to go. It's about choices.

"I think the two parties are hurting our country," Nader rightly declared of the Democratic and Republican Parties, "and they need more competition. As we see on our website VoteNader.org, you will see the issues we have on the table are majoritarian issues: single-payer health care, do something about the wasteful military budget, labor law reform, consumer protection . . . living wage, etc. . . . The problem is, George, there's too much political bigotry against small parties and candidates. You see it in these huge ballot access laws which we're trying to overcome now with our roadtrippers, very, very costly. We're excluded from the debates. Why do we ration debates? We ought to have staggered debates. You've got Wimbledon, the sixtieth seed gets a chance, you've got the NCAA, the sixtieth team gets a chance. You have a huge roll of wealth on it. We're appealing to the people in this country. . . . We're appealing to the people in this country who want more choices on the ballot and Nader-Gonzalez provides those choices."

A woman whose husband/lover beats her can try 'reasoning' all she wants, it's not going to stop the abuse. She has to leave. He may or may not change then (for those who dream of holding Barack's feet to the fire -- as opposed to the tongue bath they currently give his feet) but he's never changing while you try to reason with him.

What Barack's done in the last three weeks is abusive to Democratic Party members (if not the 'leaders' of the party) and the only way to send a message is to cut off the attention. Panhandle Media, if for no other reason, should have immediately started covering Ralph's campaign. Send the message that the fan club postings passed off as 'journalism' are gone and Barack might have to work for votes. This is the man who complained of being tired and bothered during the primary season. Now he doesn't even have the nomination and he's stabbing the base in the back. So, if for no other reason, Panhandle Media should be all over the Nader campaign right now, offering interviews with Nader and Gonzalez to their audences, probling what a Nader presidency could mean.

But guess what, Nader is a cnadidate for president and as alleged "independent" media, it is your job to cover him.

If you care about the illegal war, Barack should have destroyed your support already. Unless "care about the illegal war" translates to you as "want to prolong the illegal war."

Nader's a real candidate. Start treating him as such. If Panhandle Media would, Nader would already be at 8% just from 2000 supporters returning. The lectures and lies (and the lectures were nothing but lies) ran off a lot of his support. The 6% he is at currently is amazing. This combines 2000 supporters who refuse to be bullied with lies and it combines a new energy and drive that is going into the 2008 campaign.

See the picture?

TCI community members LOVE that picture. There's a reason for that. Ralph's a person. He reads, he enjoys sports, he breathes on the same earth the rest of us do (and is very concerned about that earth). If the 2000 election had a "Nader problem," it was in the refusal of Panhandle Media to drop the template, to expand who Nader was. They love to cast themselves and others as "outsiders." And it speaks effectively to their own tiny base. Too good to mix it up with the average Joes and Joannes! That's not who Nader is and the excitement in 2000 came when people heard him speak for themselves -- not filtered through the Panhandle Media template -- and realizied he was a living, breathing human being -- with a very funny sense of humor -- who was not visiting from a Mount or a cloud.

Ralph Nader is a historic figure, no question. He is also a person. And his 2000 campaign stops introduced the person to the people. Panhandle Media? No, didn't really help with that.

Ralph Nader in 2008 is the grassroots campaign. He is the candidate who needs media attention and support. No one claiming to be an 'independent' journalist can ignore the campaign. Nor can they 'cover' it with snarky insults. Any voters who supported Nader in the past should be climbing on board because 2008 is his best chance. Any who want to see an end to the illegal war should be supporting him, McKinney or Barr because they are the only candidates for peace.

The 'movement' behind Barack was always Panhandle Media and now they're finally starting to tell a little bit of the truth about Barack. They're finally bruised and battered enough that they can question. But none of them is ready to leave yet. What is the breaking point?

Is there one?

Ralph Nader's running for president and his issues are the ones the left is supposed to support. There is no excuse for any outlet to ignore his candidacy. Especially not The Nation with their plethora of blogs on the 2008 campaign and the non-stop electoral campaign 'coverage' they have offered since 2006. (Before the November 2006 mid-terms began, they had already filed their first 2008 presidential election story.)

The way it looks to us is that some people want change but Panhandle Media wants more of the same but wants permission to call that "change."