Here is a sure cure–in TV/Print media making Kings or Queens–ban all political commercials and make it a punishable crime. This will force media to be nuetral.

Funky cold medina

Well, let’s take it one step further…just eliminate all commercials, political or otherwise, and replace them with PRODUCT PLACEMENT. Nobody watches commercials anymore anyway with TIVO and remote control. Use product placement like in the movie “The Truman Show.” For example, on “Desperate Housewives” Eva Longoria could use Hillary Clinton brand hairspray. On a “Golden Girls” reunion special, Bea Arthur’s elderly boyfriend could use John McCain brand dentures. Or have a telethon to raise money, have a Barack Obamathon. For more views on the presidential campaign go here:
http://jviz.blogspot.com/2008/.....tates.html

This isn’t enough!!! Where can I see a clip of the entire visit?

Olbermann’s the MAN. Edward R. Murrow would be SO proud of this guy.

Public campaign financing is a great idea, BUT………..
The problem with doing elections this way is that everyone who gets in has an equal chance and a level playing field. Corporate Amerika is not going to allow that to happen any time soon. Currently they pick the candidates you get to choose from by systematically eliminating the competition through large corporate donations which gives their candidates leverage and coverage by MSM. Not so coincidentally, corporations also own MSM and use it to control who gets coverage. If they don’t like a candidate it they simply ignore him/her and if that doesn’t work they can smear them too. It is systematic and designed to elect candidates favorable to those who got them elected. They even have control over who gets to debate on their MSM and can exclude anyone who is a threat to their continuing control over this country. Anyone who believes the system is fair and that anyone has a chance to win is deluding themselves.

Everyone thought slavery was an unnecessary reality until enough people stood up and said, “no”. Same with living under a dictatorial monarchy. Same with most societal evils.

There must be a tipping point in consciousness, a sea change in public awareness, a point at which a necessary change becomes “an idea whose time has come”, and that no governmental power can stop.

Once this sea change in public awareness occurs, it is the public which will no longer tolerate the unacceptable. And even the harshest dictator can only rule if they people allow.

We have to get there on this issue or we won’t survive as a nation. We have to make this change, because the current system of bought politicians is keeping us locked into this facist state of endless war for profit supported by politicians beholden to their corporate masters.

I think Obama gets this better than Billary or McBush, he’s the closest one we have right now to even being aware of the inevitablility of this, if we are to survive. But it won’t happen because of any one person, it has to be a groundswell of such magnitude that it is unstoppable. And we are going to have to be as willing as the Founding Fathers and the abolitionists not to settle for anything less than the complete wiping out of this corruption. in our system.

I don’t know why Letterman said at the end, “You know one thing I didn’t realize, you are a LARGE man.” Olberman said, “Uh, thanks?” Such an odd thing to say, but I guess it is funny, not.

The networks and cable systems get access to the PUBLICLY OWNED airwaves only with the promise that they operate in the public interest.
Seems to me that alone is enough to force them into giving free time to qualified candidates. We just need a decent FCC. Not one run by the bastard Powell’s son.
Of course, this is but another aspect of the creeping fascism this country has been subjected to since at least the advent of Saint Ronnie the Reagan.
Its getting really hard to find any humor in what is happening to this country. We need an FDR/TR, not a Harding/Hoover.

Tony from NYC @ 5:

I don’t know why Letterman said at the end, “You know one thing I didn’t realize, you are a LARGE man.” Olberman said, “Uh, thanks?” Such an odd thing to say, but I guess it is funny, not.

He must have an enormous schwanstugger

Free television commercials to candidates would loosen the hold the Democrats and Republicans have on office.

The corporate media, and the washington politicians do not seem very interested in changing this dynamic.

TakeOurCountryBack - The corporate media, and the washington politicians do not seem very interested in changing this dynamic, are the American people interested in changing it either?

we’re just trying to satisfy somebody’s ego when you get right down to it.

I don’t understand this comment. Whose ego?

I used to work for a small newspaper selling display ads. During campaign season I could just about take a vacation because all the candidates were buying lots of large display ads and spending fortunes. They didn’t get contract rates because thier ad run did not last long enough, they paid top price for those ads. We had trouble finding enough news to fill the size paper we were putting out due to all the ads. The paper counted on that additional income per campaign season.

I can’t imagine how much the tv networks make from all the ads the candidates run today.

It is important to note that Olbermann has said that candidates who have received a “minimum amount of support” should receive “free television time.” This, of course, is exactly what did not happen to Ralph Nader in 2000 when the networks and cable executives colluded with the Democrats and the Republicans to make sure that Nader was shut out of the debates in the summer of 2000. The irony is that while Olbermann justifiably points out the injustice of the system, he himself has rarely, if ever, have had Nader on Countdown. Apparently Olbermann is all for the candidates receiving financial and media support as long as that candidate is either a Democrat or a Republican.

The problem with most publicly financed campaigns is they have to be mostly voluntary because the supreme court has ruled that money is speech. They will not restrict any money in the political system because of freedom of speech. If somehow we could get that ruling overturned then we could really make inroads into public financing of elections.

.
.
.
In Canada, there are paper ballots counted by hand and a campaign spending cap. I am so very grateful for this reality.
.
.
.

no kidding pissed off patricia! I remember when I was a kid and used to watch television all the time, the campaign commercials were endless. I am kinda outta the loop now because I am on the Internet now instead of network television…

maybe this will be more of the trend in the future? hopefully this do what the television says is only something that appealed to babyboomers, and the next generations will become less and less reliant on television advertising?

Olberman is not looking at real numbers here. WAR is the problem!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Campaign funding is not the problem. Both parties always pump trillions into the military for killing. LOOK at the NUMBERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

RayC @ 13:

The problem with most publicly financed campaigns is they have to be mostly voluntary because the supreme court has ruled that money is speech. They will not restrict any money in the political system because of freedom of speech….

There is a way around this ‘money as speech’ claim the supreme court has decided, it would have to be equated with the reasons why bribing public officials is illegal.

Tony from NYC @ 5:

I don’t know why Letterman said at the end, “You know one thing I didn’t realize, you are a LARGE man.” Olberman said, “Uh, thanks?” Such an odd thing to say, but I guess it is funny, not.

Maybe he’s talking about Olberman’s soul… There are many commentators out there without souls.

The networks wouldn’t like it? TFB. They use PUBLIC airwaves. The Fed Gov could create a “campaign channel” and use it exclusively for this purpose. Take $5 from every tax return and divide it between the candidates, have every primary on the same day, both D and R and all those in between, and select the top candidates that win the POPULAR vote. Get rid of the drawn out process of the Dem primary and delegates as well. The People should decide who THEY want as a candidate, period.

Thrilling

John McCain has said that he is going to rely on the media to get the message out. The corporate media doesn’t have a problem playing a negative ad against Clinton or Obama. IMHO that is free advertising for the candidate that puts out the ad. The media should be restricted under the campaign finance laws because they are giving that candidate free advertising.

STOP George @ 14:

.
.
.
In Canada, there are paper ballots counted by hand and a campaign spending cap. I am so very grateful for this reality.
.
.
.

Don’t spread it around, or the Corporate owned Media will send their witch hunters out in droves to call you commies, fascists, and compare you ro FRANCE!

Is that who it was? I saw the last few seconds of the interview before it went into commercial and I thought it was Dr Drew.

Ron @ 21:

John McCain has said that he is going to rely on the media to get the message out. The corporate media doesn’t have a problem playing a negative ad against Clinton or Obama. IMHO that is free advertising for the candidate that puts out the ad. The media should be restricted under the campaign finance laws because they are giving that candidate free advertising.

I totally agree. I have already seen the NC 527 ad against Obama three times and each time it was not paid time, but instead a cable news channel showing it for free nationally and talking about it.

Obama has to counter the NC 527 ad. SwiftBoat 2008 has to be stomped on HARD.

Agent_M @ 15:

and the next generations will become less and less reliant on television advertising?

Television and the internet have converged.

They will become over dependent on the machine.

Ron @ 21:

John McCain has said that he is going to rely on the media to get the message out. The corporate media doesn’t have a problem playing a negative ad against Clinton or Obama. IMHO that is free advertising for the candidate that puts out the ad. The media should be restricted under the campaign finance laws because they are giving that candidate free advertising.

The policy was written by neocons, and supported by wolfowitz and rummy and Perle. The reason they are called neocons is that they are newly conservative. ie Clinton didn’t buy their BS but GW did. The republican party has been highjacked by the neocons.

L.A. Confidential @ 26:

Agent_M @ 15:

and the next generations will become less and less reliant on television advertising?

Television and the internet have converged.

They will become over dependent on the machine.

Agent_M @ 17:

RayC @ 13:

The problem with most publicly financed campaigns is they have to be mostly voluntary because the supreme court has ruled that money is speech. They will not restrict any money in the political system because of freedom of speech….

There is a way around this ‘money as speech’ claim the supreme court has decided, it would have to be equated with the reasons why bribing public officials is illegal.</blockquot

Sky Lab will achieve consciousness on December 21, 2012

L.A. Confidential @ 26:

Agent_M @ 15:

and the next generations will become less and less reliant on television advertising?

Television and the internet have converged.

They will become over dependent on the machine.

This isn’t a permanent condition but at some point in this century someone is going to reject the electronic tether-leash and cause a big stir.

How much of the financing problem is due to the fact that the traditional media doesn’t cover politics fairly or in any depth?

The candidates are havng to pay huge sums of money to get their message out, and here we are talking about free television time. If journalists and the media were interested in giving the public a fair discussion and analysis of the candidates positions on important issues, we wouldn’t have this problem. That would be your “free TV time” right there.

We are throwing money at Senators.

If you watched the Senate the last 8 years, they are part of the problem and offered no solutions.

The Senate is corrupt and they all vote for corporate interests.

Hell, in the Gouse the gop are blocking any attempts to lower gas prices. Food riots are breaking out in the world, lost jobs, economy crashing, health care, etc…., they have done nothing.

Never ,ever, trust a politician.

When have they earned our trust?

L.A. Confidential @ 29:

L.A. Confidential @ 26:

Agent_M @ 15:

and the next generations will become less and less reliant on television advertising?

Television and the internet have converged.

They will become over dependent on the machine.

This isn’t a permanent condition but at some point in this century someone is going to reject the electronic tether-leash and cause a big stir.

It could also be that in a couple of generations those kids may reject their parents attachment and dependency on “digital” and go back to reading in rebellion and actually become more literate then their gadget addicted parents.

Tony from NYC @ 5:

I don’t know why Letterman said at the end, “You know one thing I didn’t realize, you are a LARGE man.” Olberman said, “Uh, thanks?” Such an odd thing to say, but I guess it is funny, not.

I had a similar thought about Keith when I saw him walk onto the set. He has grown outward, especially in the stomach.

Keith is an enormous man with an enormous brain and an enormous heart that is getting an enormous audience that he deserves. (And there are stories about his enormous schwanstugger as well…lucky girlfriend.)

Saint Augustine @ 33:

Tony from NYC @ 5:

I don’t know why Letterman said at the end, “You know one thing I didn’t realize, you are a LARGE man.” Olberman said, “Uh, thanks?” Such an odd thing to say, but I guess it is funny, not.

I had a similar thought about Keith when I saw him walk onto the set. He has grown outward, especially in the stomach.

He sure scares the hell out of Billo.

Underground Pirate @ 16:

Olberman is not looking at real numbers here. WAR is the problem!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Campaign funding is not the problem. Both parties always pump trillions into the military for killing. LOOK at the NUMBERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Well said. It appears that Clinton and Obama and McCain are trying to outdo each in telling the American public who is the most militaristic among them. Obama, for example, the [alleged] agent of hope and change, wishes to actually INCREASE the military by 100,000, while all three of them, as Underground Pirate notes, seeks to add more money to an already bloated military budget, which candidates such as Nader and Cynthia McKinney are strongly against.

Hey Keith…I love ya man, but take some advice from somebody that knows…lose the weight. You’re starting to look a bit buffoonish.

katie @ 34:

Keith is an enormous man with an enormous brain and an enormous heart that is getting an enormous audience that he deserves. (And there are stories about his enormous schwanstugger as well…lucky girlfriend.)

If only Olbermann also had an enormous tolerance for having on anti-war activists on his program, to counter the appearance of such military “experts” as General Barry McCaffery and Colonel Jack Jacobs, et al, whom Olbermann has had on his program to showcase their views while not allowing an anti-war voice to be seen and heard in rebuttal to what Olbermann’s military “experts” have had to say. So much for the non- military perspective being seen on the corporate airwaves by a quasi liberal like Keith Olbermann.

HDon @ 22:

STOP George @ 14:

.
.
.
In Canada, there are paper ballots counted by hand and a campaign spending cap. I am so very grateful for this reality.
.
.
.

too late, they’ve been doing that for years…

Don’t spread it around, or the Corporate owned Media will send their witch hunters out in droves to call you commies, fascists, and compare you ro FRANCE!

roooth @ 7:

Tony from NYC @ 5:

I don’t know why Letterman said at the end, “You know one thing I didn’t realize, you are a LARGE man.” Olberman said, “Uh, thanks?” Such an odd thing to say, but I guess it is funny, not.

He must have an enormous schwanstugger

“He’s going to be very popular!”

I didn’t see KO being a guest on my satellite guide. He must have been a last minute stand-in. Thanks for the clip.

Erroll @ 12:

It is important to note that Olbermann has said that candidates who have received a “minimum amount of support” should receive “free television time.” This, of course, is exactly what did not happen to Ralph Nader in 2000 when the networks and cable executives colluded with the Democrats and the Republicans to make sure that Nader was shut out of the debates in the summer of 2000. The irony is that while Olbermann justifiably points out the injustice of the system, he himself has rarely, if ever, have had Nader on Countdown. Apparently Olbermann is all for the candidates receiving financial and media support as long as that candidate is either a Democrat or a Republican.

The Reform Party actually qualified for federal matching funds and they didn’t get to go to the debates either. It’s not like either of them had a chance of winning. It’s just when you close political parties out then they lose their ability to have input into the political dialog. It is a very dangerous thing when the political dialog is controlled by a few elitists. That is how the Soviets did their elections. They had democratic elections for their governments; but, all the canidates had to be Communist Party Members. It’s like this in America. We have free democratic elections just like the Soviets; but, all of our canidates have to be from the Democratic or Republican Parties. Does it really matter that you have one party or two parties? When you have only 2 parties; both parties begin talking about the same issues, just on opposite sides. That is why the Soviet Union collapsed. They had serious structural problems with their economy and the politicians didn’t want to talk about them; becuase, they didn’t have smaller political parties that would throw those issues on the table for discussion.

momly @ 10:

we’re just trying to satisfy somebody’s ego when you get right down to it.

I don’t understand this comment. Whose ego?

that would be clinton’s ego….(or were you being sarcastic)

ie, she has already lost, but yet she keeps on yakety-yakking, pretending she can win…..that’s a heck of an ego trip rockstar tour, at the expense of the party definitely, the country maybe