When Anna Marie Cox asked Bernie Sanders about the scrutiny his hair would receive relative to Hillary's, it represented everything that Woodrow Wilson started to erode when he shut down newspapers that were "anti-war", and everything that continued to go wrong when the 1996 Telecommunications Act reduced the media to 6 mega-sources that are owned by the same people who have interests that are the opposite of the working class.
The problem is that it created people that Franklin Roosevelt or John F. Kennedy or Dwight Eisenhower would have looked at, as Sanders did Cox, and simply asked, "are you serious?"
I feel bad for Cox. It's not her fault that someone decided to act with the kind of lack of tolerance for frivolous BS that Sanders showed for the first time in, well, forever.
It's everyone's problem. There are many people who are simply not profound or serious covering Washington politics. The problem is, if you put enough money behind someone, almost anyone can look legitimate.
And that's what the 1996 Act has done. It's made it so that if you're actually serious, instead of merely being backed by cash, saying something outrageous, or throwing crap at a wall and seeing what sticks, you are the one who is spoken of as if you come from another planet.
"You mean this guy doesn't have perfect hair, isn't interested in selling your interests up the river one dollar at a time and wants to talk about the issues of the 80% of people we are not talking to when we broach topics such as the economy?"
"Wow, what a long shot. What a wild card."
Because that's what consolidation of media into the hands of the rich few will always do. It will make the interests of 80% of people seem like "something a far left wacko with a lot of rhetoric talks about."
I'm sick and tired of being treated like I'm stupid. As if "well, free trade is something you needn't worry your little heart about." "The Trans Pacific Partnership and how it might lower your wages?! Can I interest you in something crazy that Mr. Crazy Right Wing Billion Seeker said in Kansas? How about a joke about Trump? What about something funny about Sarah Palin?"
Try this on. Think about wages for the working class, student loan relief, charter schools and what a scam they are and how rich people not paying taxes means your property taxes or fees will be raised to provide the same service...
Watch any morning program on MSNBC and come back and tell me that I AM NOT the serious one.
Is it just crying for the sake of crying? An empty scream in a sea of nothing?
No. Cox's question was a chance to step back and think about how serious the media really is.
It was a chance to use social media for us to begin to be serious, whether the so-called serious people are coming with us at all.
I'm not going to be told who my Presidential candidate is. I'm not going to have people acting like someone is "inevitable," when the same people who act as if they are this unbiased person telling you Hillary is more electable sit there two seconds later telling you why they like Hillary.
I have nothing against Hillary per se, but I do find myself saying she can't be serious.
Because all you have to do to be serious to 80% of us, if we feel we deserve it, is to care about what we care about.
It would be one thing if Sanders was this bumbling stooge... if we were talking about George Wendt and then saying "hey, Norm from Cheers really cares about you." Then, yes, you could talk about how the difference in intelligence is so vast, could Norm be effective and blah blah.
But Sanders is a Senator who is very intelligent, and his record and his real concerns are with us. We've tried the person who runs like he's the sitting version of Franklin Roosevelt and then ends up right of Ronald Reagan and "compromises" with Republicans.
I want the person with a record of actually governing like Roosevelt did. And I'm not one of 6% of people who want that.
Blue Dogs Democrats have had their turn. You can't be a Diet Republican. You can't be charged with looking out for us and then as the conservatives run farther right as fast as they can, play this game where you scream "if you enrich me, I'll chase after you and try to be as conservative as you are."
What is the appeal in supporting someone who is "against my interests, but not THAT against my interests."
Here's the secret Blue Dogs won't tell you. When Democrats lose, do you think they lose to Republicans? No. They don't. People like Obama tell you you can't compare them to the almighty, you have to compare them to the alternative. Another way of saying, "hey, I might be bad, do free trade deals, produce a ton of low wage jobs and sell out time and again, but what do you think he would do to you."
So, do you think that the mildly informed person hears that and votes for the Republican? Maybe. Do you know how we really lose?
When they don't vote at all...
And that's what happens.
It's really time to look at some of these people and decide if they're really serious, or if they're just in a serious looking study with a really serious tie drooling utter nonsense.
There's some "leftist rhetoric" for you.