> US political commentators have speculated that Mr Kerry has
> enjoyed the support of the media community in an effort to
> head off the challenge of Howard Dean, who has fallen back
> in the race despite being the frontrunner before the primaries
> began. Mr Dean made statements last year about wanting to
> break up media conglomerates.
Maybe I don't understand something here, but shouldn't these media magnates be able to wield much more influence on the nominating process by just bending their coverage in one way or another, doing things like running Dr. Dean's "scream speech" over and over, ignoring Kucinich and Sharpton, etc., than by giving relatively paltry sums to, say, Kerry's campaign? In other words, what influence to they really get by sprinkling 50 or 100 grand around? And I see that the Time Warner guy gave Bush the princely sum of $2,000. I guess old Shrub needs a new pair of shoe laces for the campaign trail ahead.
And what's with the Guardian using the expression "Democrat campaign"? Have they learned their American English from the Republicans?
Jon Johanning // jjohanning at igc.org __________________________________ A sympathetic Scot summed it all up very neatly in the remark, 'You should make a point of trying every experience once, excepting incest and folk-dancing.' -- Sir Arnold Bax