They couldn’t really come up with any specific examples, but did mention that “He says some outrageous things.” Again, specific examples couldn’t be remembered. I’ve noticed that this is the narrative I keep hearing in the way he is covered in the media. I find it interesting because my impression of the guy is that his positions on various issues line up with popular polling more than anyone else in the field. After a (very) quick look around in tubeland and I found others wondering about the same phenomenon in comment sections of various sites. I also found one allegedly independent (or at least ‘blind’) study confirming the phenomenon.
Mind you these are impressions and I had to do some digging to even find a little confirmation. But why don’t I already know? Why isn’t it clear from news coverage of the candidates on the issues where they line up with the American people? If we don’t start seeing these issues talked about in our media instead of this horserace crap (a favorite of tweety’s) we stand to lose the opportunity to collectively get our heads around important issues that need addressing. Of course, maybe that’s the way the punditocracy would rather have it,… they know what we should be ‘serious” about after all. As Glenn Greenwald put:
…despite all the incessant chatter about “change” and the intensity of election conflicts, our most significant, dubious policies — the ones that actually shape what kind of country we are and how we are perceived around the world — don’t really get debated at all.
I think the media began to frame him as a kook in large part because when he gave voice to these majority opinions he stuck out like a sore thumb because nobody else (running or not) expressed such things. The talking heads tend not to reflect popular opinion and often deride such positions as ‘not serious’ (<a href="http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/07/28/centrism/
“>Glenn Greenwald has tons of stuff on this) – thus the talking heads saw Kucinich as an outlier and thus framed him as a Kook. I think they jumped all over the UFO thing because it finally gave them something that supported their framework and didn’t clash with polling, relieving the cognitive dissonance between their opinion of what is mainstream vs the polling of what is mainstream.
These are just my musings. What are your thoughts? Perhaps I’ll update this once I get my hands on a Moyers transcript.