Kucinich no-shows, ditto media
Well, Dennis Kucinich had a good excuse for missing the kick-off of his “Peace Train” presidential campaign in San Francisco – the untimely death of his brother, Perry.
The media, however, didn't have an excused absence. Despite the lack of Dennis, over 200 people turned up last Friday night to hear the Nation’s John Nichols, writer Michael Parenti, Code Pink’s Medea Benjamin, Bill Simpich from the Iraq Moratorium, and Kucinich scheduler, Amy Vossbrinck, laud the Ohio congressman and his bid for the White House.
While all of the speakers had interesting points to make, Parenti made the really obvious one that had to be in the backs of all the minds sitting in the audience – that no one’s paying attention to Kucinich’s campaign. “Candidates used to hide how much money they had. Now they brag,” said Parenti, and the more money they have, the more “serious” their candidacies. But, said Parenti, it’s the newscasters that really call the shots. “The media makes these designations. They say these are the leading candidates.”
As he was speaking, I couldn’t help but notice that I seemed to be the only one taking notes. In fact, when I arrived and signed in the only other press outfit listed was Media Alliance. Theory confirmed. Kucinich’s candidacy apparently isn’t “news” in San Francisco.
“What we need more than ever is somebody who can defy this suppression,” Parenti summed. In fact, the “dark horse” question is often the only time the outside candidates do make the news. A spike in polls or a boon in fundraising is what prompts the media to start asking questions about a candidate they were actively ignoring. (see: Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee.) Bill Richardson and Mike Gravel have yet to see their 15 minutes of fame. Kucinich made more headlines recently because his brother died, not because he (and Gravel) are the only candidates that consistently oppose the war and support impeachment for President George W. Bush and his sidekick, Dick.
Speaking of kicking them out of the White House, John Nichols’ fiery presentation about the history of impeachment made me proud to be an American (for about eight minutes), quoting James Madison on why impeachment is sanctioned in the Constitution and how it’s inherently difficult. “Do not fear this moment. It is what we fought for.” He also did a nice summary of the charges: lying to and spying on the American people, torturing and extraordinary rendition, exploitation of office for political gain.
Amy Vossbrinck, who went to work for Kucinich's first campaign after reading one of his speeches, "Stars and Stardust," shared several personal anecdotes that testified to the integrity of her boss, including a story about missing a flight to a campaign event in Oregon where he was supposed to speak with Sean Penn (who's endorsed him.) Kucinich and his wife ended up catching a ride with Penn on his production company's jet, and then sent the company the equivalent fare for three first class seats. "Dennis does what is right, fair, and ethical, even when no one is watching," she said.
digg •
del.icio.us •
sphere •
google
•
Comments (5)
That "Peace train" sounds like a golden oldies hit parade of irrelevant nutcases. You're calling a turnout of 200 people a success? Only to The Guardian.
The Guardian - the only newspaper which calls the 8% showing of its endorsed candidate for mayor a "success."
Posted by Shane | December 27, 2007 10:43 PM
Actually, I never used the word "success" anywhere in my report. In fact, this event seems to be an example of the failure of the mainstream media's relationship with the electoral process.
But now that I think about it, maybe it is a success if 200 people still showed up despite zero media coverage and an absent headliner.
Posted by Amanda![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.sfbg.com/blogs/politics/nav-commenters.gif)
|
December 28, 2007 04:06 PM
He is the ONLY one I will vote for.
He is the only one that is truthful and has integrity.
The other candidates are MORONS!
Posted by Anita | December 28, 2007 07:47 PM
The event, somber as it was, was a success-- because so many people turned out even though it was poorly publicized. And the people who filled the pews were all good folk-- the creme of America's idealistic crop.
The event was eminently newsworthy because Dennis, like Gravel, is a renegade from his party. It remains to be seen if this go-round he will support his party's nominee after promising to support only an antiwar candidate. In 2004, after pulling the left into the Democratic Party's big tent he supported Kerry who promised to use more troops and to conduct the war smarter. Kerry won that election (it was stolen as was the 2000 election), but he could have won by a landslide had he opposed Bush's wars built on lies.
Medea Bejamin's insistence that Kucinich's stands have pulled the other candidates positions to the left was not wholly convincing to me. (Maybe their rhetoric.) Kucinich, despite being a sincere and principled politician, nevertheless pulled left-Democrats to the right. The broad and angry antiwar movement virtually shut down in 2004.
Currently, his candidacy has been almost totally ignored (and unendorsed by Nichols' Nation) because he is already expected to fall in behind the corporate sponsored party nominee later. Kucinich is worth watching if his threat of witholding his endorsement of an antiwar candidate is genuine, which I suspect it is.
The only way we can influence the corrupt corporate parties is to make it clear in no uncertain terms that we are ready to withold our vote and endorsement from them. If they can win our vote without having to earn it, they will always give us the shaft.
That is just what happened last November.
The voters gave their candidates a mandate-- which the winners claim was not big enough. Rather than filibuster, or stop war funding, impeachment stays off the table and Bush gets everything he wants... or almost everything (don't spend your min. wage "increase" all in one place, if you know what I mean).
Keep your eye on the Greens-- they just might make a comeback with Cynthia McKinney running. She was first (and alone!) to bring up impeachment, and she put Rumsfeld on the hot seat about the billions missing from Pentagon accounts. Her trips to "Ground Zero" and New Orleans were not mere photo-ops either.
How would the political landscape change if Kucinich ended up endorsing her?
You could bet a lot more people would start paying attention, and the truer numbers of people who already support him on the issues might be counted and not ignored as they are now.
Posted by Robert B. Livingston | December 29, 2007 02:41 AM
I think I read about this in "big whoop" magazine....dennis kucinich is inherently irrelevant to the proceedings as he is great at making a handful of hippies "feel good" by "saying the right things" but of course has no chance of winning , nor does he care.
once again the Guardian shows how irrelevant it has sunk...totally unable to have any real impact beyond protests and talk. say sayonara to San Francisco, hippies.
Posted by bigwhoop | December 31, 2007 06:31 PM