Clinton and Edwards get their wish: “a more serious ”¦ smaller group” of candidates

Sen. Clinton (D-NY) and John Edwards (former Democratic Party senator from North Carolina) got what they wanted—Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) announced today he was dropping his presidential bid. The corporate media mentions Kucinich’s name now chiefly to draw attention to his competitors for his House seat; no need to let issues like challenging the Iraq occupation, threatening Iran, corporate hegemony, or the ongoing lack of fairness in mass media get in the way of covering a horse race that might rid the media of an agitant.

Now the Progressive Left is free to support their favorite pro-war, anti-universal single-payer health care candidate of their choice without interference from the “not serious” candidates…again…just like they did in 2004. Rather than object about poor choices by organizing for a third party or independent candidate who reflects the values they claim to hold (the values they go on about 3 years out of every 4), they can rationalize their Democratic Party vote by arguing the margins of difference between the remaining Democratic Party candidates. They can tell us how important this election will be, despite how worse the same indicators will be in 4 years as a result of consistently voting the least worst. No need for a grass-roots campaign of birddogging every candidate who voted for the Iraq war and the Iran resolution, no need to hound one’s elected officials to co-sponsor and vote for HR676 (the Conyers-Kucinich single-payer universal health care plan).

And what do you know: the New York Times accurately “projected” back in July 2007 who would be left in the Democratic Party race: Clinton, Edwards, and Obama. It’s a good thing the other Democratic Party contenders with something different to offer weren’t excluded from any of the televised “debates” (high-bandwidth audio, low-bandwidth audio, video—currently unavailable, transcript), or else it would be too obvious that the corporate media is trying to manage the election, rigging the choices to guarantee a corporate-friendly outcome.

2 thoughts on “Clinton and Edwards get their wish: “a more serious ”¦ smaller group” of candidates

  1. Ever heard of Mike Gravel? He’s still running… He’s brilliant… He’s completely censored from the Mass media… You can find him on youtube and… that’s about it.

    If articles like this one don’t even mention his name, it’s pretty sad…

  2. Yes, I’ve heard of him and support some of what he stands for. I’m remiss in not mentioning his name, so I’ll point out that he recently wrote a very nice article in which he says (among other things) that he’ll remain in the race. It’s a shame you don’t post with your real name and email address so people can contact you and discuss Gravel’s stance on the issues of the day. Gravel spoke out (in the few opportunities afforded him by the corporate media “debates”) against the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Paying for universal health care with a sales tax, as Gravel proposes, strikes me initially as not a good idea because I don’t think poor people should pay the same rate as the rich. I’d prefer a means of taxation that charges those who have more to pay more. I’m also not convinced that allowing private health care to compete with the public health care will end up with a public health care that isn’t quickly whittled away after being underfunded and then pointed to as ‘inadequate’. However clearly any health care plan that covers everyone in the country without tying health care to work is a huge step in the right direction, a step the more popular candidates aren’t willing to take.

Comments are closed.