Yes they can.

No we (currently) can't.

"What is the source of their power?"

I would guess its a sociological kind of thing.. Humans tend to aggregate and take directions when they are in their aggregates from group leaders.

In this mass society of America, the media is now in a leadership position and are telling us in effect what we believe, what we consider important, what is the common wisdom, etc. We are taking their lead until, on a person by person basis, sophistication arises and individuals cut themselves free.

The media loves war more than anything else. That's how CNN got its foothold, from nonstop broadcasting the Gulf War in 1991. In 2003 the NYT pushed the invasion of Iraq relentlessly. There is nothing more profitable to the media than war.

Whichever candidate promises the most war (and its accompanying comic-book romanticism of heroic acts, courage, death, military hardware, power struggles, etc.) will get preferred media coverage. Democrats might think the obvious preference would be McCain, but Obama stays in the game by calling Afghanistan a "war" and guaranteeing it as the next news story for the media. Very savvy of him.

But can the MSM actually elect a President? Do they have that much power over our lives?

People who study media bias say yes, the MSM can (and do) elect a president. From what I observe every day at TPM, the MSM has nearly total power over what people know and how they perceive current events.

What is the source of that power?

We give the media the power by surrendering to them our ability for active, critical, independent thinking. The media rewards us by giving us moving pictures to look at and sentimental stories to stir our emotions. We feel we are learning something but are in fact passive, unable to tear ourselves away, unable to formulate questions because the pictures and stories keep moving.

While I have no doubt that some in the media, particularly in the upper layers of the corporate structure would like to throw this election to McCain, I am not sure it will happen this time.

For one thing, this is going to be a wave election. A "throw the bums out" mood generally favors the youngest candidate.

For another, I think that the damage (largely self-inflicted) to the media's credibility over the last 8-10 years has been much greater than they know. Chief among these is the effect of the Iraq War disaster. Even outside of the (relatively restricted) world of the blogosphere, I'll bet there is a fair amount of disdain for the media, and distrust of its message.

So after we "bomb Iran", is the plan to ask 65,000,000 million Iranians to just hand over the oil?

I know that's not the point, but seriously, do you think a large enough portion of the electorate believes this fantasy to swing an election?

I just don't buy your premise, that these are good selling points for McCain:

The electorate knows that under an Obama administration there would have been no surge. They know McCain will bomb Iran and Obama won't. They know that if we start running out of oil, McCain will do what it takes to get more, no matter whose oil it is.

I think the majority is sick to death of the Mideast and doesn't want to hear much about it any more; ditto for Neo-conservatism, it's dead. If he keeps harping on these issues and the MSM plays them up, he'll lose. As far as it being oil/gas related, the public right now is very open to energy alternatives and conservation. Read a poll, watch a T. Boone Pickens ad, Lou Dobbs, or CNBC once in a while, the eventual death of oil is accepted conventional wisdom, and dependence on Mideast oil is hated by many. McCain would get more mileage out of pushing drilling here, as silly and unrealistic as that is, rather than in staying involved in the Mideast. Heck, I think he'd get more mileage out of making friends with Putin to get Russian energy rather than pushing staying involved in the Mideast. One conservative meme that resounds with many conservatives is not being dependent on the Mideast for oil--that does not bode well for the staying in Iraq for 100 years thing. To be fair, that does not bode well for environmentalists who don't want drilling here, either. But it does bode well for anyone not supporting a robust U.S. presence in the Middle East.

I even wonder sometimes if it's wise for Obama to be so outright hawkish about Iran. (The Iran fixation can be seen by some as being done at the behest of the saftey of Saudi Arabian oil as well as Israel.) I wonder whether Obama's pleas in his Berlin speech to help Iraq become more stable are too much, a lot of Americans just want out and don't care about Iraq and Iraqis. Afganistan and Pakistan are different, that's where the majority still has issues and they are not about oil, and they don't buy that Iraq is the new front on those issues whether it's true or not.

Do you really think many Americans believe at this stage that we are ever going to end up with cheaper Iraqi oil than anyone else on the planet?

This blog makes a lot of assumptions about American ideas with regards to three things:

1. That Americans think the "surge" was successful. Most don't and still favor immediate withdrawal, though that is not even possible let alone likely.

2. That Americans think "tensions" are escalating with Iran or that they should. They don't think they are, don't think they should and many are wondering why we even give a shit about that area beyond getting our troops out and capturing or killing Osama bin Laden.

3. That Peak Oil means Americans want the next president to start another resource war to keep cheap oil coming, rather than moving from a petroleum-based system altogether and focus on renewable. Americans don't want an Aggressive Oil Acquisition Strategy, by large margins.

The corporate media is bleeding market share like a stuck pig. For everyone one of us who frequent this site, there are dozens of people we touch who are influenced by a counter narrative to the one they find on TV.

That sets up a cognitive dissonance for most people. One that is enhanced by the obviously biased and dishonest nature of the information being presented. Plus there is so much fluff and non-news, that what news is left is less credible by far, compounded by the media scandals of the last decade.

I think you ask a relevant question: Does the media have the same influence in 2008 that they did in 2004?

Same dichotomy. Some difference in candidates, perceptually, yet the corporate narrative held and this year it doesn't seem to be sticking. I think it is Web 2.0 and the changing nature of both the electorate and the Internet.

When the media can be debunked in a ten second Google search, we are starting to see a lessening of their power. As Internet penetration continues to rise (probably in the form of mobile broadband ultimately) then the corporate media narrative will no longer be possible for them to maintain.

Too many holes poked in the cardboard facade they built over the last 30 years.

Obama is in the difficult position of having to trash an American military success story.

Anyone familiar with the back stabbing, ethnic and tribal divisions, the greed and violence inherent in the words 'Middle East' should be very hesitant about declaring victory/success in Iraq.

Look at the Gaza Strip, the West Bank or Lebanon, to see what Iraq might become at any point if we reduce troops/spending or after the occupation has bankrupted the USA.

As to oil, Bush tried killing folks for oil. It didn't work for him. It won't work for McCain.

Ok, let me try a shorter argument. I agree McCain would gain if we entered a 'hot' fight with Iran. Obama has to talk "diplomacy" & still look tough - harder to do than "withdraw" from Iraq. The media might like this war since it could back McCain AND get hot war visuals. We have 2 means to combat that:

1. Play up - as TBoone is doing - the financial costs of higher oil prices. Highlight expert opinions on the likely $/bbl cost of disruption in Iran & translate that into $/gallon. Show maps of how much of the world's oil goes through the Persian Gulf & past Iran's borders. Drumbeat how Iran has roughly 3X the population & size of Iraq - could be 3X messier. Mention it'd be our 3rd major military front. Wheel out any business of military person who warns against engaging with Iran.

2. Repeat endlessly that we EXPECT the Rep'ns to trigger hot war with Iran, for electoral reasons. Blog on it as much as we did on FISA. Bush damaged Rep'n credibility on the "causes" of war with Iraq. WE should build on this, position Iran as the "War to Save Republican Ass."

If there is one thing even more demented than American Exceptionalism, its American Omnipotentism.

Is there any serious person who thinks we can "hold" the Middle East, if the cultural currents there carry it another direction?

Our economy is hurting and our economic power has always been the motor that drove our military power. And our so-called "soft power" added another leg to the chair. Rounding it out was our alliances.

That was our strength:

Economic Power
Military Power (often in potential)
Soft Power (the moral example dimension)
Alliance Power (again, often in potential)

So right now as we blog, #1 is hurting, #2 is paramount in the world, #3 is hurting bad, and #4 is really really shakey.

So we want to "hold" the Middle East on less than 50 percent of our optimal power?

And its not even clear that we'd be up to the task at full strength. In fact, we probably wouldn't be.

I know there may not be a lot of history PhD's on this thread and I'm not one of them, but if there is any lesson recent history teaches, I bet its that militarily outgunned local insurgencies always win out against foreign occupations. The local boys always win in the end.

Iran? fuggedaboudit! We won't even be able to hold Iraq or Afghanistan!

And don't forget China and Russia have significant interests in the region and aren't going to sit on their hands while we try to play Imperial Rome.

Wow...maybe I'm going to be able to swim across the pool before the sharks tear me apart!

Anyway, if someone had asked me what MY plan would be, then I'd say stick to what we know we can do with our current resources: guarantee Israel's territorial integrity and statehood and keep the Al-saud family in power in the KSA.

Other than that, militarily intervene whenever anybody in that region tries to absorb someone else militarily.

But no force basing, no garrisons, no targetable presence.

Thanks Quinn.

Its a little like getting out in front of the judges and singing "No, Che non sei Capace"

Its okay while you're singing..its what comes after....!