Compare the wall to wall media coverage of Nader's candidacy...

[Smarmie Doofus]

... with the virtual MSM blackout of Kucinich candidacy.

Consider the fact that Nader is piggybacking ( or hoping to do so) on Kucinich themes.

It doesn't quite make sense. Is it a case of Nader serving the interest of the GOP/MSM? Would Kucinich have played a silmilar role if he had seriously contended for the DEM nomination with the help of saturation coverage by corporate media?

Why do they like Ralph and, apparently, not Dennis?

[tekisui]

1. Nader is funded by rich pukes.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

2. EXACTLY. Thank you.

:kick:

[Selatius]

3. Corporate shareholders who own CNN, FOX, NBC, ABC, CBS, etc. want the Dems to lose.

Of course they're going to filibuster everything else with Nader coverage. They're afraid empowered Dems in Congress will reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine or worse, enforce anti-trust laws and break up their media monopolies.

OK, that's a bit of an overgeneralization, since there are liberal shareholders, but the point is there are many corporate interests that want to keep Dems out of power.

[Smarmie Doofus]

10. That makes sense. But where do they hatch these plots?

Or is it just a given... i.e. flows naturally from the way they look at the world?

One would think they'd be talking about this openly in RW journals and other forums.

[Selatius]

27. I like to say that greed is a predictable creature.

I'm a left winger, but I've been around long enough to know that there will always be people who seek to jealously protect their profit margins even at the expense of everyone else. It doesn't take overt collaboration to pull it off, merely common views in terms of the pursuit of greater profit.

[Occam Bandage]

4. Because Nader already cost the Democrats one Presidential election.

That alone makes him more "newsworthy" than Kucinich. Nader, too, is very well funded by Republicans; I'm sure they're encouraging coverage of his candidacy.

[Kurovski]

7. I'm not sure of anything anymore, but...

the Supreme Court cost the Dems that election, as the consortium recount showed Gore winning Florida statewide. the SC stopped the counting of Florida's votes.

But Nader is now officially a self-absorbed crackpot of dubious intent. He's one wealthy bastard himself. He can afford this hobby of his.

[Occam Bandage]

8. Both were necessary. If either had not happened Gore would have won.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

15. Nader/shithead went negative, said Gore = Bush n/t

[Smarmie Doofus]

12. True, but he did poll 90,000 votes in Fla., if memory serves.

Stands to reason that if Gore got a plurality of, say, thirty thousand of those, the election would have been unstealable.

Or at least much *harder* to steal.

[Kurovski]

26. It was all a big batch of crap stew.

Nader was the turnip.

[Smarmie Doofus]

11. I don't doubt that Nader is funded by RW elements, but....

... is there actually evidence of this anywhere? I.e. a smoking gun, so to speak?

Do they fund him covertly?

[Occam Bandage]

16. Yes, there is.

http://www.commondreams.org/news2004/1027-06.htm

[Smarmie Doofus]

21. Thanks. nt

[tekisui]

5. Let's also see if they invent rules to lock him out of debates.

[Warren Stupidity]

6. And Edwards

As he picked up the progressive supporters of Kucinch and started to gain some momentum in Iowa the media went into total blackout mode. Edwards who?

[Smarmie Doofus]

13. Truly. I backed Edwards also. But Kucinich is a better comparison, imo. nt

[Warren Stupidity]

18. Consider that Edwards came in second in Iowa

and promptly disappeared from the media, which proceeded to focus on their frame up of a Clinton-Obama showdown in NH as if Edwards did not exist and had not come in second. Edwards had a serious ground campaign in NH and got absolutely zero media coverage. I am still stunned.

[saltpoint]

9. Nader has no chance to win and can be manhandled by the media as a

novelty variable which can only substract from Democrats and strengthen McCain's numbers.

Mike Gravel, who is genuinely liberal unlike Nader, has had zero coverage for months. By degrees, Edwards, Kucinich, Biden, Dodd, and Richardson were served the same No Coverage service by the MSM.

But darling Ralph strolls in and they stop the presses.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

14. Salon article : The Dark Side of Ralph Nader

Green and Libs can thank Nader for being blocked from ballot access in some states.

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2004/07/01/nader_jacobs/index4.html

[AndyTiedye]

17. Because Nader is Running a 3rd-Party SPOILER Campaign AGAINST THE DEMOCRATS

Every day in every way, the Repiglickin media will do everything they can to elect more Repiggies.

A spoiler campaign puts the squeeze on us from both directions.

What is worse, a 3-way race is much easier to STEAL. They could not have STOLEN the 2000 election without Nader in the race.

[Smarmie Doofus]

20. Yes, but: I'm wondering if it could actually backfire on them

>>>A spoiler campaign puts the squeeze on us from both directions.>>>

Nader pitching to the purest of the pure on the left and attacking Obama as too corporate/timid/incrementalist/sellout, might enable Obama to compete for the so called "middle ground" against the alleged centrist McCain.

[BadgerKid]

19. Nader serves GOP/MSM interest

:thumbsup:
I thought as much just a few hours ago.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4741417&mesg_id=4741933

[Smarmie Doofus]

23. You're ahead of your time, BK.

Unfortunately, so am I, I'm afraid.

[mculator]

22. Because now he may be the only left choice besides Obama.

[deadmessengers]

24. They love Ralph because he has a track record of getting repugs elected.

Bottom line, what's good for Ralph is good for their right-wing corporate sponsors.

[dajoki]

25. I think you can throw Edwards into that mix n/t

[Lilith Velkor]

28. No wonder DUers are going apeshit

The TV is telling them to, just like it told them to love Barack Obama and hate Hillary Clinton.

I wish more people would turn the fucking thing off.