They call these "debates"?

Printable Version | [eMail this article!] |

Well, I watched the last two democratic candidate "debates" and I am truly ticked off. The corporate press has continued its magic act of making Dennis Kucinich and Al Sharpton invisible. Both Kucinich and Sharpton had to elbow their way into the "discussion" as it went on and on with Senator Kerry blah blah blah, Senator Edwards blah blah blah. The endless renditions of "Senator Edwards, how to you see yourself as different from Senator Kerry?" To Sharpton, and Kucinich ... "Are you just a vanity candidate?" or "Why are you still campaigning?" To Edwards, "If you lose on Tuesday, are you dropping out?" or "How would you feel about being Vice President?" It is clear that the "press" has picked Kerry and is pushing him for all they are worth. I personally feel that is not their job.

The corporate press is doing its best to shape the next election to a Kerry - Bush campaign. That may well be what happens, but we are not at that point yet. Nobody remaining is out of this race. But there is a larger issue at stake here than just who the Democratic candidate is going to be. That issue is voice and representation in shaping the platform of the Democratic Party. That platform will not only effect the Presidential campaign, but it will shape the direction of policy and legislation put forward by the party.

Kerry and Edwards have different constituencies, but they do not reflect the breadth of the voices. Both Sharpton and Kucinich represent a wider array of voices - politically and demographically. I feel that breadth is important, even crucial, to a fundamental change in the Washington "business as usual." To this end I would like to make a suggestion for the upcoming primaries and caucases. I suggest that folks vote for Sharpton or Kucinich. What those votes do is send delegates to the Democratic Convention who represent a broader picture and reality of the United States. It sends a wider political representation.

Certainly part of the primary process is to select a Presidential candidate, but the other part is the shaping of the platform. The press is pushing Kerry, which (not coincidentally) pushes a particular political voice. I urge you to consider, and encourage others to consider, voting for Kucinich and Sharpton, and even for Edwards. This will broaden the convention and the party platform. If you have a few bucks looking for a home, you might even consider donating them to a campaign. It will help the less affluent candidates ensure that important messages get heard.

I live in Oregon where we have an initiative process for placing citizen backed legislation on the ballott. One of the things I have found interesting in the initiative process is that many people will sign any initiative that they are offered. It is not because they are indiscriminate voters, nor because they can't say no, but because they feel that the public's voice deserves a chance to be heard - even if that is an unpopular voice.

The issue of voice becomes critical as we move through the primary season. Each candidate has his vision. Each candidate reflects certain interests. Do we want the press to select not just the Democratic candidate for President, but the party platform as well. My guess is that most of us do not want that. I am not suggesting that if someone is an ardent Kerry supporter, or Edwards supporter, they should not cast their vote that way. I am suggesting that there are other considerations and urging people to not be swept up by the "back a winner" approach the corporate media is taking. It is bad enough that the press attempts to pick the President (or other elections and votes) before the everyone has had the opportunity to vote. Now they are trying to pick the Democratic ticket (and platform) before even a third of the states have had their say. This is nothing more than an abuse of power in my opinion.

Posted by rowan at February 29, 2004 07:33 PM | TrackBack | Printable Version | [eMail this article!] |