I'MMA LET YOU FINISH
first?
Of course he was Gored.
But like Gore, Dean failed to understand that his actions would lead to effective and easy attacks. It's self-perpetuating: too much of this and further attacks become easier and easier.
Like Gore, Dean doesn't know how to use broadcast media. Major failing in this day and age.
This whole episode seems oddly similar to the Wellstone Memorial hubub.
"Thursday's coverage was, if anything, even worse. In The New York Times, Adam Nagourney and Jodi Wilgoren described "a roaring, raucous concession speech that many opponents have held up as evidence that Dr. Dean is unfit to be president." (They provided no details on who those unnamed "opponents" might be)."
I would bet that Kerry is one of the "unnamed". In Kerry's Q & A from yesterday, someone asked who he will pick for VP. His answer? "Someone who is qualified to be President and will help the ticket to win."
That is one fucking awesome blog. Almost rivaling Somerby. Check it out.
Yeah, but the Wellstone memorial smear was based on a horrible tragedy that upset everyone, so it's not that surprising that the media was easily able to whip people into a frenzy, with friendly help from the RNC. The Dean "I Have A Scream" speech was relatively unremarkable, considering the context. The fact that the media has whipped themselves into a foaming frenzy about it is just, well, bizarre. I don't think it will stick with the average person for too long. The reality of what happened in no way suppports the faux outrage. It's just an excuse for the Heathers to trash somebody, and use all those nasty superlatives.
Please, God, punish these people by having each and every one of them abused, slandered, ridiculed, slimed, and destroyed in exactly the same way that they treat their victims. The golden rule in reverse. Please!
Hmm... I wonder how the UK newspapers (especially the Economist and the Independent) would fit into this equation? Those who covered the Dean scream generally saw it as a symptom of his 'meltdown'.
Would they have said that if the US media hadn't?
On the one fatal night in Iowa, the man played to the movement instead of America (a lot of whom were seeing him for the first time). It's silly to blame this on the media. Sorry. That was a really big mistake on Dean's part, but, unlike a lot of his supporters, he's realized that and is making a lot of the right moves to take his campaign in a new direction. He's got great credentials and he's a smart guy, but they got obscured by the march of a movement that untested and proved to be a bit of a detriment in Iowa. I never bought into the whole netroots delirium and thought it's power was grossly exaggerated. Dean's gotta transform himself into being more of a candidate and less of a messiah or he's finished.
I long for the days when political commentators didn't try to pass themselves off as psychiatrists. Obviously, the crowd noise was purposely manipulated so that Dean would come off as a howling madman. This is intentional deceit, pure and simple. Even a crack whore wouldn't stoop this low.
I wonder how the UK newspapers (especially the Economist and the Independent) would fit into this equation?
Since the Economist and the Independent are both part and parcel of the wholly-bought-and-paid-for Rethuglican whores, I'm not too worried about it...
On the one fatal night in Iowa, the man played to the movement instead of America...
Oh, puh-leeeeeeze!
If Shrub had done the same exact thing under the same exact circumstances, the media whores would've spun it as a "glimpse of the inner soul of our beloved warrior king." (Okay, maybe I'm exaggerating that a little, but not by much.) Chris Matthews and Howie Fineman would've been waxing poetic tributes to Shrub's display of the core of his manliness, contrasting it against the wimpiness of all those feminized Democratic candidates.
Kevin, you have a legitimate criticism of Dean. Certainly, Dean may not be the nominee because he does not have a broad-based appeal. Perhaps it was an error in judgment for him to use the football-coach speech in that context. But to me, it is so understandable, and forgivable. If people don't back Dean because they don't think he's the best candidate overall to beat Bush, fine -- that's what primaries are for. But the media's manipulation of this is just ridiculous, and for what? To give them something to wax superlative about. That's it. They just don't feel like they grab enough eyeballs and eardrums unless they are using superlatives -- positive or negative. They sure couldn't talk about how shitty and mednacious Bush's SOTU was. Karl wouldn't like it. So they trump and distort Dean's indiscrete screech, take it out of context, and give themselves something to yap about.
Anybody remember how William F. Buckley tried to spin Dan Quayle as the "winner" after he was annihilated in his vice-presidential debate with Lloyd B.?
Oh, how right you are, monchie!
The article fails to mention what changed the reporters' perception of the event they attended and that was, of course, TV. Im 1968 this thing would have been seen by whoever might have been watching live and quickly forgotten.
I don't even watch much TV but I must have seen this Dean goes nuts moment at least three or four times in the next 24 hours. Media covers media and gives crap like this a life of its own.
Yeah, he looked a little kooky. But he looked like the sanest man in the world compared to a president in a flight suit a few hundred yards off San Diego.
Oh, puh-leeeeeeze!
I think he learned a valuable lesson.
Listen, I think some of the criticism from the media has been over-the-top. I've heard more than one pundit say "I don't want his finger near the button." That's just plain offensive. I agree.
But Dean completely set himself up for this. Had he given a measured speech and not acted like a crazed televangelist, he'd be in much better shape in NH, maybe still #1. If you want to ignore the obvious and blame the media, be my guest.
Look, I'll be the first to grant that the media is overplaying this story -- how could the act itself possibly be equal to the ridiculous amount of coverage it has received?
On the other hand, acting as though the speech wouldn't have been just a huge embarassment even in the absence of any media pile on is just crazy.
If the late-night comics immediately go after you hammer and tongs, then maybe you did something authentically ridiculous, you know?
If "Presidential" means anything, I think it means something other than yelling out like Bobby Knight with his parts in a vice.
Dean apologists, will you finally FINALLY just deal with a little reality?
It's way too late in the game to be learning "Running for President 101" Lessons. I thought Dean knew this stuff. He should have. Too late for rookie mistakes. I mean, even Wes Clark has not made huge blunders like this (failing to understand how to play the media and suffering 10+ point plunge in the 9th inning), and he's never even run for office before.
As TownDrunk soberly points out, the audio level of Dean speaking was raised, while the noise of the crowd was diminished on the recording of Dean. This was not only manipulative, it was malicious. Dean yelled to be heard over the crowd, and they want it to look like he was just going crazy. Nothing could be farther from the truth. It's also odd that he is clearly laughing during the speech, yet it is continuously characterized as angry. This is yellow journalism, and it's a coordinated pile-on.
There used to be a day when one media outlet would not hesitate to correct the biased stupidity of another. That day has apparently passed. I see why AP opinions disguised as news stories get reprinted with nary a glance from a paper's editor. Vindictiveness on one end, laziness on the other, and the RNC/Rove/Drudge spin machine in the middle. The mighty Wurlitzer plays on.
It seems increasingly clear to me that this primary election comes down to the punditocracy vs. the people. The fourth estate is unwilling to relinquish its power to a bunch of sans-culottes who have the gall to actually assume they live in a democracy.
Once we have a candidate then the dynamic will change slightly. It depends on who the Dem nominee is, but the punditocracy is determined to play a role in this election, a deciding role. If it's Dean then the media goes over to Bush. If it's Kerry or Edwards I think they go to the Dems. Clark is a wild card.
"On the other hand, acting as though the speech wouldn't have been just a huge embarassment even in the absence of any media pile on is just crazy."
Total and complete bullshit, frankly0.
This was nothing but a manufactured story. Until the strangely cropped video with the manipulated audio from Fox, edited to omit all but a few seconds of the speech was disseminated, this was a complete nonstory. Or either uninformed, or just being your usual stupid self. I vote for the latter.
If there is an upside to the coverage of Yawpgate, it is that it's really lowered expectations for Dean. On Monday, I wrote at TAS that Dean needed to win New Hampshire. Now, I'm not so sure. A second place finish might be seen as a victory.
I mean, even Wes Clark has not made huge blunders like this...
Advocating his support for a woman's right to choose abortion up till the baby's head is pokin' out ain't real slick.
Clark: I don't think you should get the law involved in abortion--
McQuaid: At all?
Clark: Nope.
McQuaid: Late-term abortion? No limits?
Clark: Nope.
McQuaid: Anything up to delivery?
Clark: Nope, Nope.
McQuaid: Anything up to the head coming out of the womb?
Clark: I say that it's up to the woman and her doctor, her conscience. . . . You don't put the law in there.
I like the General, but Hoo Boy! was that dumb.
Another thing that many people forget regarding how "shocking" Dean's speech seemed is that it was broadcast right after Edwards' speech, which was calm (as you can imagine) and included nice things said about the other candidates, particularily Gephardt. Dean, on the other hand, didn't really deliver much in the way of concession aside from saying, basically, "I called them and congratulated them." And he shot through a quick couple of lines about Gephardt that didn't amount to much of a tribute.
Whatever you think about the other candidates, it's politics, folks, and I'm sure a lot of people in the media took note of the fact that he didn't appear to be a very good sport.
A second place in NH for Dean would keep him afloat, and in a decent position, for the next round. Depending, of course, on Kerry's margin of victory.
But a first-place finish, I think, re-anoints him as the front-runner. He still has a far superior ground organization in any of these states than Kerry.
As to the rebel yell, it is the defining moment for the Dean campaign. It rallied his supporters behind him, gave them all a bunker mentality that will help them outlast further media criticism. It raised his name recognition and, in the end, was dismissed by most people as an amusing non-story. Anyone who thinks it sunk his campaign has been watching a little too much cable news.
This was not only manipulative, it was malicious.
I disagree. I don't think it was intentional; the TV crews probably had an audio feed straight from the PA, which would not be picking up the crowd noise.
Note that the reporters who were in the room thought the speech was pretty unremarkable.
They'll do it to every candidate. I don't defend Dean because I think he needs to win, I defend Dean because as frontrunner he's gotten most of it. I've also defended Clark quite a bit, because as (For a time) the presumed #2 he also got a lot of this type of crap. Back when Kerry was the presumed frontrunner (in 1998 or whenever), they were doing it to him (remember the haircut?) and now that he's back on top they'll do it him. They'll go nuts on Clark's abortion statements the minute it looks like he could be ahead.
Anyone who has been following the media coverage for the past 6 years and doesn't comprehend that IT CAN AND WILL HAPPEN TO EVERYONE is really Not Getting It.
If you don't like Dean, fine, but if you think any candidate is any more or less likely to get this kind of treatment then you're a fool.
Phew. For a second there I thought you were talking about me.
Look, Yoda, for what it's worth, when I heard Dean's speech live, I was sitting in the company of a number of people who, though vaguely Democratic (as best I could make out), and the immediate reaction of EVERYBODY was that Dean was out of control, and that the speech was bizarre. I was probably the least affected by it, because it just didn't so much surprise me.
Now I'm sure my experience has been replicated in bars and living rooms all across America. You DON'T need someone else to tell you Dean was beyond the pale -- THAT is what made it immediate fodder for the late night comics. THAT is why a video of the speech with Dean's head exploding is going to be funny, NOT because some media person has previously set it up so that it might be.
Has the media piled-on? Of course. But Dean gave generously to them everything they could possibly want as grist for their mill.
As TownDrunk soberly points out, the audio level of Dean speaking was raised, while the noise of the crowd was diminished on the recording of Dean. This was not only manipulative, it was malicious.
Ummmm, where's the proof of this? Did it ever occur to you that the media has direct access to the mike feed and that's why you didn't hear the crowd overpowering him. They do the same thing with sports announcers. They do the same thing at ever live broadcast. They're not Dead Heads in the taping sections of concert halls. Of course the crowd noise was diminshed.
Why aren't the media outlets playing Georgie Boy's odd behavior in the rib restaurant over and over? Please somebody explain this to me? Did they send out a memo saying that Dubya is off limits to skewering?
Jeanne has a link to video shot from the crowd. The yawp is barely audible.
Doesn't mean anything, the yawp is out there. But if you like Dems, you'll like the video.
Why aren't the media outlets playing Georgie Boy's odd behavior in the rib restaurant over and over?
Viewers get very uncomfortable when they think you might be exploiting someone's developmental disability for laighs.
They'll go nuts on Clark's abortion statements the minute it looks like he could be ahead.
Yeah, I really think Clark should ease up on the abortion talk. Next thing you know they'll say he was helping the Iraqis pull the babies out of the incubators in Kuwait.
Atrios is right. The media will go after everyone. They've been hitting Clark just as hard as Dean and I'd argue a lot more. Edwards seems to be the only one of the top 4 getting a pass right now, but I'm sure they'll find something he did as a lawyer to dredge up as he makes inroads going forward.
I should note that I like Dean. I just think his supporters have to let go a bit and let him find some new footing.
hamletta, you're right, but Clark didn't suffer a 10 point drop from that. People won't believe Clark is a baby killer. I think it's quite likely people will believe that Dean "isn't in control of his emotions" or is not "presidential".
Regardless of how silly those formulations are, they are real for many, many voters, and Dean should have known it. That's why this madness became so big. And finally, there are images attached to it. Clark's statement is just a statement.
Images should never be underestimated.
Why aren't the media outlets playing Georgie Boy's odd behavior in the rib restaurant over and over?
Because they knew if they did, they'd be immediately investigated for revealing top secret information about the president's eating habits.
or even laughs
>But Dean completely set himself up for this. Had he given a measured speech and not acted like a crazed televangelist, he'd be in much better shape in NH, maybe still #1. If you want to ignore the obvious and blame the media, be my guest.
If he had given a measured speech to the three thousand people there, they would have fucking lynched him
Dean has attracted support because he knows how give a good barnburning speech....just like Bill Clinton.
Clark didn't lose support over it because they haven't kicked it into overdrive yet. If he bubbles up, the whack-a-mole paddle will come out and we'll see 24/7 discussions of clark supporting the right of women to kill their viable babies as they're born.
Dean was a football player and sounded like he was rallying the team. Bush is probably the only cheerleader in history that had a football player write his termpapers...
I better revise the above note because of this discomfort literal minded people have with passion.
Listen Kevin....and anyone who second guesses Dean and his campaign,
you are flat out wrong with about how this was spun.
And if you are uncomfortable with passion on the part of people who support Dean....well, get used to for more years of Bush.
Because in all of politics, the most gifted of politicans are the ones who can inflame and excite a crowd who otherwise would be in total despair with what happened.
As it is, with the clueless who have bought into this crap, you better hope Dean is able to pull this thing out....because none of the other bloodless, passionless, assholic selfpromoting clan of jerks running can hope to beat Bush...
The speech in its entirety wasn't as bad as its most memorable parts. But most of the people who have now seen it or the most damning excerpts saw Dean for the first time and they saw a guy on the brink of raving.
Dean should have known better and his supporters who say he was speaking to them in some sort of just-between-us emotional connection are missing the point. If you act like a flake on national TV people are going to think you're a flake. And that was a flakey performance if there ever was one. Blame the media if it feels good.
The speech is one of the reasons people are taking a second look at Dean and realizing his campaign is based on faulty premises. The biggest falsehood is that he'll bring in millions of new voters who will turn the tide. Dean stopped picking up hard core supporters more than a month ago and now he's losing many of them. There are no signs at all that there is a hidden electorate out there that he can tap into.
And as the speech showed, the in-your-face style his supporters admire so much has its limits.
Nancy, it is very far from true that only candidates that inspire passion win. Especially those perceived as liberals. (mccarthy, humphrey, harkin, brown......)
A vast majority of people does not see politics as an opportunity to soothe or stoke their own emotions.
and Atrios - remember what I said comparing the Dean speech and Clark/abortions: no images of Clark slaying babies. If they've got those, I'm wrong.
or what it's worth, when I heard Dean's speech live, I was sitting in the company of a number of people who, though vaguely Democratic (as best I could make out), and the immediate reaction of EVERYBODY was that Dean was out of control, and that the speech was bizarre.
And did they know how much you dislike Dean, because we here sure do based on your postings. Funny how their reaction fits your perception.
Now, as to your quote, substitute Dean with Kahn and this is EXACTLY what we were hearing after the Wellstone memorial. Exactly. In fact much of the press behavior is identical to that of the post memorial spin and non-Dean supporters are only too happy to play right along.
As to the contention that were there no there there Dean wouldn't have dropped 10 points in the polls, I'd point to this excerpt from a post I made at Kos' this morning:
Enter Solomon Asch.
In his now famous study he demonstrated that you could take three lines of different lengths, add a fourth line that was obviously the same length as the middle of the three and ask subjects which of the three lines the fourth line matched. The number of subjects that correctly named the middle line approached 100%. But when the test subjects were put into groups and the respondents answering before them were a part of the test, giving the wrong answer:
Even though S/he knew what the correct answer was, presumably there was a social pressure to conform to what the group perceived as correct. Overall, 35% of the subject's responses conformed to the group's incorrect judgements. While this is not a majority, it is certainly a substantial minority. Either group pressure convinced the subjects that their own judgement was incorrect, or the subject was too afraid to voice their minority opinion against an overwelming majoirty. This would tend to indicate that being accepted is more important than being correct.
Now, with Kerry and Edwards quietly drafting behind (and Gephart attaching a tow line) the Republican Press Machine seizes on a meaningless close to a pep rally, strips it of context and collectively declares the fourth line to match the shorter line. And they say it with conviction. They know that as long as the softest of the "Just Want To Be On The Side That's Winning" group crosses over they can then trumpet their conversion in the hopes of gaining more of that larger base of soft support until they can create the image of being correct.
What does it mean to us? It means that a significant percentage of anyone's support is there solely on the assumption of viability. And that they're about as steady as a field of wheat. If the winds change direction watch how fluid the numbers can be. We just have to have enough of us to stand up and point out IT'S THE MIDDLE LINE!
If it's Dean then the media goes over to Bush. If it's Kerry or Edwards I think they go to the Dems. Clark is a wild card.
Nope.
The media are a fully owned subsidiary of the RNC and the Bush Crime Family. They will trash any Democrat who dares to become the nominee.
...Like Gore, Dean doesn't know how to use broadcast media.
It's silly to blame this on the media.
I give up. I just fucking give up. Don't you assholes see that balming Dean is exactly like blaming a rape victim for wearing a sexy dress? Fuck the both of you, jacko and Kevin K. troll,s the both of you, as far as I'm concerned. Or maybe just too damned stupid for me to waste any more time with. Why don't the both of you go over to LGF or FreeRepublic? I'm sure your simplistic thinking will be more than welcome there.
I think that there is far too much analysis of the 'Dean scream' by Liberals. If it had not been this, it would have been something else. As someone pointed out, if it had been Bush who YELLED into the microphone, they would have spun it positive for him. They always will. Look how they covered Arnie!
I have said it before, and I will say it again, The Democratic party is only putting of the day when it has to go to war with the media. Clinton, then Gore, and then .......who ever is next up, will be destroyed.
The most frustrating thing about all this is that the media actually fear an all out war with the Democratic party. Because they won't be able to predend any more that they are a serious balanced media. They will look dam stupid when no Democrats ever turn up on the show. Or When the Dems refuse to allow them to control the debates.
Before we get to that stage, the Democrats have got to stand up to these whores. They must learn to stick together. It is terible how few, if any of the other candidates have come ouy to defend Dean on this issue. Instead, they hide in the corner, just pleased that the spotlight is off them. But it will return if they become a front runner.
One of the other candidates in the Fox debate should have said something like this......" Berfoe I answer that Brit, I would just like to say that I think it is a scandal the way you in the media have dealt with this issue. If, 'being presidential' is such a big issue, why do you not play endless reruns of Mr Bush looking into the camera and saying 'bring em on?' Here was the President of the United states encouraging people to attack our troops, since when, many 100s have been killed. Tell me Brit, why do you cover for Mr Bush again and again?"
Dean is smart enough to bypass the MWs and it pisses them off. just remember even with the horrid horrid coverage Gore got. he won.
Dean should have known better and his supporters who say he was speaking to them in some sort of just-between-us emotional connection are missing the point. If you act like a flake on national TV people are going to think you're a flake. And that was a flakey performance if there ever was one. Blame the media if it feels good.
Yeah, I can blame the media. Why? Because if the media had any intentions of being fair they would have included something about the crowd reaction and not focused exclusively on the soft supporters (and fake supporters) who were either reacting to the media's self-serving portrayal or taking advantage of the spin to pile on in the hopes of aiding their favorite non-Dean candidate [frankly0, I'm talking to you too here]. In every_single_report I read the following day the crowd's frenzied reaction was omitted and Dean was shown in a context free vacuum.
The role of the media is to report the news, not manufacture the news. And in this case the news was highly manufactured.
Hint to non-Dean supporters: The press can and will take any Dem frontrunner and manufacture a disqualifying scandal out of ANYTHING. Animated=unhinged. Statesmanlike=boring/stiff. There will be no in between and there will be no Dem survivor spared. Period.
I'm aware of the damage that has been done to Dean. If all you want is to jump on the bandwagon of whoever's in the lead, than good luck with that approach. I think it's pathetic. If you can't decide who your candidate is based on something more than a single vote in Iowa, you probably don't have many convictions anyway.
I picked Dean for many reasons, none of which had to do with his frontrunner status. I have taken a new look at Kerry due to his Iowa win, and I like him even less than before. On the other hand, John Edwards now has gained new esteem in my eyes. He might make a good VP. All in all, Howard Dean is by far the best candidate, and a chance for real change from the coporate crowd in DC.
I said it a few days ago, and I'll say it again: the media trashing of Dean is all about trying to knock off the guy who has proven he will have the resources to combat Bush's $200 million between the end of the primaries and the convention in August.
Kerry and Edwards have raised the bulk of their money from $2000 contributors (read: folks who are now maxed out on what they can give prior to the general election). The small contributors who are giving to Dean can continue to give to him all the way through August. Clark likewise will be a sitting duck - since he did not "opt out" of public financing, he is limited on what he can spend and will need every penny of it for the primaries.
Mark my words, this is the RNC/media battleplan: knock off the guy who can fight back between April and August. Bush's $200 million will finish the job.
See this editorial on the CBS News site:
http://tinyurl.com/2d5hj
This is the only sensible thing I've seen re: the scream. Let's get over it and move on. The longer we obsess, the longer the media obsesses.
I've seen the clip (about 100 times, now - FOUR times in the first half hour of the Today Show one morning last week, with Katie Couric giggling inanely every time), and I just don't get it. It was obviously just a pep talk for his supporters. Sure, the yell was kinda funny but he in no way looked to be "out of control" or "raving" or any of the other descriptions that the media are relentlessly applying to him, per their script.
Fuck all of them.
Berfoe I answer that Brit, I would just like to say that I think it is a scandal the way you in the media have dealt with this issue. If, 'being presidential' is such a big issue, why do you not play endless reruns of Mr Bush looking into the camera and saying 'bring em on?' Here was the President of the United states encouraging people to attack our troops, since when, many 100s have been killed. Tell me Brit, why do you cover for Mr Bush again and again?"
sally | Email | Homepage | 01.24.04 - 5:54 pm | #
Sally for preznit!
I thought it was a great morale-boosting rally, and I don't care how others think about it, it's encouraged me to stick with him.
God save us from another calculating technocrat...
Thumb and Jennifer:
What you both said, and have said far better than I could.
Dr. Pedant, you're cursing speaks for itself.
Politics is about winning, and to win you have to understand the rules of the game. Period. And the rules aren't fair - but that's besides the point.
The rape analogy is ridiculous and possibly insulting to women. The rules of the game are this: rape is illegal. In politics: image and media manipulation is a proven good. Your logic fails.
And Dean was nowhere near on the trajectory to raising 200 million. You have to argue that Dean's fundraising would somehow zoom after he's nominated. No precedence for that. He had a big money advantage going into IA and now in NH, and has that delivered it for him?
Logical rebuttals people, please. And less insulting. Or at
jacko2, the game is RIGGED.
Right. That's what I'm saying. And it can be played to win. That's also what I'm saying.
Changing the rules is a whole other ballgame that has to be handled separately. (the role of money, our media saturated culture, etc.) One presidential campaign cannot be a silver bullet for all that ails the nation.
Don't you assholes see that balming Dean is exactly like blaming a rape victim for wearing a sexy dress?
Bingo. The only question remaining is: are they brownshirts or Kerry staffers?
Logical rebuttals people, please.
Howzabout: blow it out your ass?
End of discussion.
taking advantage of the spin to pile on in the hopes of aiding their favorite non-Dean candidate [frankly0, I'm talking to you too here].
As far as I'm concerned, as a Kerry supporter, I'd infinitely prefer if the Dean scream thing just went away at this point. As Josh Marshall pointed out, this story is taking so much oxygen out of the media atmosphere that other stories are being neglected. And what would BE the dominant story if Dean Scream weren't? Kerry's completely unexpected and unprecedented rise to the top of the Democratic race.
Why would a sensible Kerry supporter want Dean to get any more publicity, even of the negative kind, at this point, if it comes at the expense of positive publicity for Kerry? Dean already looks like toast to most of us, and certainly seems to be far less of a long term threat at this point than either Clark or Edwards.
From cassandra's link:
"I'm not being contrarian for the sake of being contrarian, honest. But I don't think Howard Dean's "I Have A Scream" performance was weird, troubling, scary, revealing or nuts. I don't think it was a big deal in any way, shape or form. I thought it was standard pump-up-the-troops campaign stuff."
This is by Dick Meyer on CBS.com. He's a great moderate voice out there, it's too bad he doesn't get more exposure. He's one of the best out there, nearly as good as Krugman.
I want to point out that he is indicating I think what the explanation is for why the media took several days to decide that everyone should be critical of Howard:
"I'm not being contrarian for the sake of being contrarian, honest."
Basic peer pressure. Even a writer that has been following his own path for months now feels like he needs to apologize for not agreeing with his lemming spawned brethren. These people don't really report anymore, do they. They just read their friend's columns, accept it as truth, then comment on it.
Dave, good comeback. That's a way to persuade. To bring people on your side. To learn. To win elections.
Clearly, you've got something else stuck up your own ass. A whole lotta bullshit. So much that it's run up your insides and dribbling out your mouth.
Am I speaking your neanderthal language now?
So now the media decides who gets to be president. Has the coffin lid finally been nailed shut on democracy?
Thumb, I don't think the speech had much impact on people who only read about it. You had to see it. It was obvious the crowd was enthusiastic and adoring. They cheered for Dean in a big way and I don't think TV viewers were misled into thinking otherwise.
I agree with you that Rove and the right wing media will brutally attack the Dem nominee, whoever that is. We all know by now that Bush and the Republicans are corrupt, vicious liars.
But I don't think Dean is better postitioned to deal with the attacks just because he can be ferocious.
Well, on the bright side of things, there's talk of a no confidence vote for Tony Blair if he can't rally support to pass a tuition funding bill this coming week. Since this comes directly after David Kay resigned, things are looking up!
I give up. I just fucking give up. Don't you assholes see that balming Dean is exactly like blaming a rape victim for wearing a sexy dress? Fuck the both of you, jacko and Kevin K. troll,s the both of you, as far as I'm concerned. Or maybe just too damned stupid for me to waste any more time with. Why don't the both of you go over to LGF or FreeRepublic? I'm sure your simplistic thinking will be more than welcome there.
Typical reaction from the loonier edge of the Dean Machine. Anyone who criticizes or doesn't support Dean (including Kucinich folks) are nazis. Too funny.
You, my friend, are part of the problem. Note to the Dean campaign: Don't give this guy an orange hat. Ever.
Here's more:
But the press corps' decision that the Scream was serious is a bit more disturbing. One of the many character flaws common to the species 'reporter' -- one that I have in spades -- is an exaggerated pleasure in the fall of the mighty. There is some of that happening with Dean right now. I don't get too worked up about the media "making" or "creating" stories; there is no way for that not to happen in modern government and politics. But this time I do think Dean is getting a very bad rap.
I've met Kerry supporters, Clark supporters, Edwards supporters, Dean supporters and Kucinich supporters. All of them believe in their candidates, and just want the Democrats to win. So why is it that Kerry supporters are the only ones that consistently come off as close-minded to what anyone else may think?
The only question remaining is: are they brownshirts or Kerry staffers?
Just saw this after I made the 'nazi' comment.
I've been a lifelong lefty who's backing Clark, who has made a ton of mistakes, all of which I'm willing to acknowledge without blowing a gasket or calling people who point them out fascists. I've voted for Dems for president going back to Dukakis. Any other questions from the nut job jamboree?
"I’ve been around campaigns for a long time. On most campaigns, if you come in third in Iowa with 18% and you go to the after party, you’re lucky to find 4 people there. Most every one by the time it’s over has left to find another party and another campaign.
But on Monday night Howard Dean walked in to the ballroom in Des Moines and there were 3500 people there. And the energy was higher than most victory parties I’ve been to.
The Governor looked out at the room and saw 3500 people who had come from all across the country because they believed in changing their country and he wanted them to know how proud he was of them and their efforts. And he wanted them to know that we’re going on no matter what.
He wasn’t thinking about the cameras. It was the people right in front of him who had done so much because they believe in a better America that he was speaking to.
That the press would report on his speech for one day is understandable. But what’s remarkable is that they could run it over and over for 48 hours and still call it journalism. The State of the union took place. The next day we find out that Bush plans to ask for $40 billion more for his war in Iraq. But what do they run over and over again?"
From the Dean blog.
queen crab - the media has been in the business of annointing the president for at least the past 25 - 30 years. See "President GW Bush" and "Earth Tones/Liar/Wooden Al Gore".
Also look back at past races to see how the media shitstorm intensifies against any candidate when the voters don't buy into the media's spin or "conventional wisdom" about that candidate.
So why is it that Kerry supporters are the only ones that consistently come off as close-minded to what anyone else may think?
Because you, personally, hate Kerry and his supporters more than anyone else?
The only question remaining is: are they brownshirts or Kerry staffers?
Just saw this after I made the 'nazi' comment.
I've been a lifelong lefty who's backing Clark, who has made a ton of mistakes, all of which I'm willing to acknowledge without blowing a gasket or calling people who point them out fascists. I've voted for Dems for president going back to Dukakis. Any other questions from the nut job jamboree?
Actually Candy Crowley (Sp?) from CNN said this morning that she was at the event and that she didn't think his speech was that bad. She says that what's missing from what we are seeing on TV is the crowd noise and her impression was that he was yelling to be heard over the crowd.
She said that the crowd was alreay whipped up into a frenzy by Tom Harkin before Dean got out there and when he came on stage it was very hard to hear over them. I've seen the clip with the crowd noise in it and it ends up looking like a guy trying to yell over the crowd noise. She thinks that the camera made him look a lot worse than it really was.
I think he was smart to "own it" but it was blown up by the media. Joe Scarborough and Andersen Cooper, who both think it's been blown out of proportion, should get ahold of the tape from the audience's perspective and play it on their shows.
The media bias was unbelievable. No attempt to analyze the context at all. So many posts have described it I wont't go into the total unprofessionalism of so many in the media, but I live in NH and Tuesday I am voting for Dean. I am really pissed!
frankly0, good luck with some of these folks. I'm late for my Hitler Appreciation Society meeting. Adios.
Kevin K,
I've heard it all from them before -- it all flows from the mouth of a river in Egypt.
The amazing thing is after months of the "Angry Dean" meme, the only "smoking gun" they can come up is one where he is
1. delivering a positive message; and
2. constantly smiling.
You call that anger? it was a freakin' PEP RALLY. It's not that complicated.
Dr. Pedant, you're cursing speaks for itself.
And your inability to understand the basic rules of the language speaks for itself.
'Your' is possesive. 'You're' is a contraction, meaning 'you are'. As in, you're a fucking dummy.
And your friend who claims to be a 'lifelong lefty'? Funny, all the trolls say that. Blow it out your ass, the both of you. Like Atrios said, you don't get it. And neither of you have demonstrated enough brains to indicate you ever will get it.
I think Dean was marked ever since he said he'd break up the media conglomerates...
Funny thing about the audio is ususally there's one signal level running to the presspool and another running to the sound reinforecment in the hall. Sounded like the sound engineer was pushing up the master level to both...
'Your' is possesive. 'You're' is a contraction, meaning 'you are'. As in, you're a fucking dummy.
Dr. Pedant earns his name.
I've been a lifelong lefty who's backing Clark...
I'm a blonde, blue-eyed freshman who never thought she'd be writing "Forum" - but the other day, in the cheerleader's locker room...
dave,
Yep.
And frankly0,
Hey, it's a personal problem. I can't help it, ok?
Frankly0, do you think it's possible to focus on the subject without the personal attacks on the people here? You don't know anyone here personally and your putting people into little boxes is a narrow minded tactic used by the right. There are many reasons many types of people support Dean.
It is a whole lot different to say things about the candidates and what they represent than it is to start calling people on this board names because they don't agree with you. You don't represent your candidate well, but it's obvious why you support him.
You're on a board for which a majority of the posters seem not to have the issues with Dean that you do. You're angry that we don't agree with you. Too bad. You're not going convince most people here that Dean is some kind of anti-Christ and Kerry was sent from the Gods, so give it up. We all can think for ourselves and have come to differences conclusions than you.
Maybe you would feel more comfortable on another site, rather than coming here day after day fighting the people on this board and then calling us names because they get sick of your crap. You have earned the status of troll at this point, not because we are insane blind Deanics, but because you are behaving rudely and immaturely.
frankly0 - You are so tiresome. If we don't see things your way, we are in denial. Correct? How many months do we have to witness the frankly0 act? It's frankly boring. It's frankly monotonous. You don't like Dean, so you attack his supporters. When someone reacts to your provocation, then you play the victim. It's getting old.
I am really kind of sick of this, this whole electability thing. It makes me want to rent Bulworth, which I enjoyed more than Network.
Guess what? When people are talking about electibility so much, that is an indication of serious trouble within the party. We are facing a united, and ruthless set of opponents that are actively trying to play spoiler, and we are trying to talk about *electibility* when we are at an early stage in this whole process. To focus on such silly metathought betrays silliness, when a body chooses an canidate, they will have judged who they will vote for, and why they will vote for someone. Electibility will be the person who wins the general electorate. Constantly comparing to McGovern, who has run a different primary campaign, and who stumbled badly during the GENERAL campaign is a great way undermine confidence in the ability of Democrats to choose a good canidate, because they would always be to afraid to pick someone who can inspire. Taking in account of the mushy independent vote, when that vote goes will 'o the wisp depending on the circumstances is foolhardy.
While I will support Kerry if he wins, I have very little confidence in him. If we're going to compare people, Dean is heckuva lot more like Clinton in his ability to inspire people in his leadership, than Kerry is. What's more, while Dean doesn't have Clinton's smoothness, he is as empathetic. I see Dean as being agressive in trying to win, agressive in trying to get ahead of issues, while I see Kerry as being somewhat passive, and well, packaged. I see Kerry as someone who's too easily spun around, trying to be a sophisticated political kool kid. I have doubts about his ability to be resolute in the face of the coming media attack, and be as willing and as comfortable in smacking down reporters who are trying to play games as Clark is (sarcasm, calling them on it) and Dean (genuiness, contrasting cynical question). Edwards has shown skill in dancing around inappropriate question like a butterfly, and when you address the issues he is focusing on, you get what he cares about.
I'm not saying Kerry couldn't do it, but I just come up with:
Kerry, if someone raped your wife, how would you deal with it?
I have trouble seeing Kerry being able to deal with strongly personal questions, or being able to deal with confrontational questions in a manner that doesn't leave people cold.
This is not to say that other canidates don't their problems. I don't think much of Clark (I have a policy: no generals, no matter how good, is an appropriate person for president). What I think of Kerry, I think like I did with Gore. If I had to make a choice, it would probably be either Dean or Edwards.
Anyways, my opinion isn't that important. The important thing is to allow individuality in who we think is the best canidate, regardless of what other people think. Don't take in account how your peers or your neighbors think. When we h
hat he cares about.
I'm not saying Kerry couldn't do it, but I just come up with:
Kerry, if someone raped your wife, how would you deal with it?
I have trouble seeing Kerry being able to deal with strongly personal questions, or being able to deal with confrontational questions in a manner that doesn't leave people cold.
This is not to say that other canidates don't their problems. I don't think much of Clark (I have a policy: no generals, no matter how good, is an appropriate person for president). What I think of Kerry, I think like I did with Gore. If I had to make a choice, it would probably be either Dean or Edwards.
Anyways, my opinion isn't that important. The important thing is to allow individuality in who we think is the best canidate, regardless of what other people think. Don't take in account how your peers or your neighbors think. When we have the consensus of who (the I in)we think is the best canidate is, that canidate probably will be strong enough to win. We are not psychic. Therefore pretending to be psychic is a great way to lose.
dave, nice job on the forum joke.
Clearly, you don't get much. I think too much lube has been absorbed through your hands and into your brain.
I hope your logic-free attacks on others' opinions make you feel more manly. Because the world certainly isn't going to evolve in the way your adolescent dreams would like it to.
The same is true for the eminent Dr. Pedant and his inimitable style of argument and riposte. (Now that's pedantry.)
While I think Dean has obviously been Wellstoned on this one, I do think that the Iowa speech was ill advised. Why? Two reasons really.
First, I think all those Deaniacs who say that this was speech was exactly like a coach rallying his team in the locker room after a tough first half are 100% right. But there's a reason that coaches don't let TV cameras into halftime lockerrooms. I've worked for a year as a staff on a presidential campaign (Dukakis, if you must know). One thing you learned quickly was there were certain things you were told -- and certain ways you were spoken to -- in private campaign meetings, and other ways things and tones that were the stuff of public rallies. Admittedly, there are fewer times and places without TV cameras than in '88. But that doesn't make it smart to engage in a private kind of communication in public.
This is especially true if that private kind of communication is likely to play into an unfair reputation that your candidate has already developed. The Dean-can't-control-his-mouth/emotions meme was all over the place in the weeks before Iowa. Was it fair? No. But Dean knew this was the playing field, and probably suspected that this unfair notion contributed to his loss in Iowa. All the more reason to keep your locker room talks in the locker room.
One more point: I agree 100% with all those who say that whoever the Democratic candidate is will be catching this sort of crap throughout the campaign.
So there is some truth to the notion that the real issue here is how Dean responds. In fact, I think how the Democrats (and especially the candidate) respond to such attacks is going to make all the difference this year. Gore did as badly as he did (making the race close enough to steal) largely because he did an awful job responding to the attacks on him and his campaign. Anyone who followed the Gore campaign in '88 -- a year in which Gore did exactly what he had to do on Super Tuesday to get the nomination, and then, apparently, simply had no second act to his strategy -- knows what a lousy national campaigner Al Gore has always been. Let's hope whomever emerges from the Democratic pack is better at this sort of thing.
I [heart] dave.
hey, Thumb, let's hear a longwinded intellectual rationalization of your political opinions based on your marketing career.
Frankly0, do you think it's possible to focus on the subject without the personal attacks on the people here? You don't know anyone here personally and your putting people into little boxes is a narrow minded tactic used by the right. There are many reasons many types of people support Dean.
It is a whole lot different to say things about the candidates and what they represent than it is to start calling people on this board names because they don't agree with you.
And where is it exactly that I've been making "personal" attacks on posters, and "calling them names" here?
Hansel, you're just making things up, and all one has to do is look up thread to see it.
shah8 says:
"... The important thing is to allow individuality in who we think is the best canidate, regardless of what other people think. Don't take in account how your peers or your neighbors think. When we have the consensus of who (the I in)we think is the best canidate is, that canidate probably will be strong enough to win. We are not psychic. Therefore pretending to be psychic is a great way to lose."
This is an excellent point -- right at the heart of the "electable" thing. As James Poniewozik put it on NPR yesterday, thin kind of thinking makes us vote as pundits, trying to guess what everyone else would do. We really should try to remember that we are citizens, with very real interests here and vote on that. The punditocracy (I like Josh Marshall's mumbojumbocrats alot better) haven't done too well reading their tarot cards in a pretty long time...
Dean apologists, will you finally FINALLY just deal with a little reality? frankly0
frankly0, good luck with some of these folks. I'm late for my Hitler Appreciation Society meeting. Adios.
Kevin K.
I've heard it all from them before -- it all flows from the mouth of a river in Egypt.
frankly0
Here are 2 remarks from this thread. Anyone who doesn't agree with you isn't living in reality, is in denial, and is a Dean apologist. Not very flattering labels in case you were unaware.
But it isn't just this thread. It's an ongoing sniping and then comes the whining when you get called on it, as mentioned above. Try this on for size just once: Those of us who don't agree with you are not in denial, apologists, or living outside of reality. We just don't agree with you.
All the people who think "Dean should have known better" are enablers for a fucked up national media.
What is wrong with the media reporting that their initial stories were someehat exaggerated by microphone placement. Couldn't we expect such stories from a national media that gives a shit.
And in the future if you go fucking whining about media treatment of shithead Bush and his lying ways or any other Republican - well you can kiss your own ass.
[/blood-boiling speech]
It's not like Dean called anybody a whore. Perhaps he should call up a few of the reporters who have been whining that he doesn't seem to care they exist and show them he does care when they train each other.
Hansel,
To begin with, one of the quotes you present was NOT from me. And I hardly see the things you quoted that were from me as counting as "personal" attacks. Making the general statement that some people here are Dean apologists who are in denial is light years away from a PERSONAL attack, or calling names.
On the other hand, there are Dean supporters here who have called others "assholes" and the like, without the slightest objection from you. THAT is name calling. THAT is a personal attack.
Get it?
Thank you Chuck Taylor.
hey, Thumb, let's hear a longwinded intellectual rationalization of your political opinions based on your marketing career.
I'm off the clock, but here's a Shorter longwinded intellectual rationalization of my political opinions based on my marketing career:
1) People base decisions on their hearts and minds . . . in that order.
2) Word of mouth is worth more than any advertising campaign. People will trust their neighbor over a paid shill.
3) Satisfy your customers [constituents] and they will tell their friends and neighbors. Piss on them and they will too.
4) Treat your largest customers [donors] as you would the Mom & Pops, and your mom & Pop customers [donors] as you would your largest customers.
Okay, short enough?
franklyo: "If the late-night comics immediately go after you hammer and tongs, then maybe you did something authentically ridiculous, you know?"
In any other universe I'd agree. But how come the late night comics didn't go hammer and tongs after Bush with the flight suit? Collectively, the people on this blog likely know a million or more people who found that authentically ridiculous. But not much from Leno as I recall.
Part of the reason the media are going after Dean and other Dems with such fury is that Bush & Co have so successfully draped themselves in the flag after 9-11 and made themselves and their lies/foibles a taboo topic - in the vapid eyes of media moguls anyway - that the media have a lot of spent up negative energy they need to unleash somewhere. Hence go after Dean more than you normally would.
But yeah, Dean did look somewhat ridiculous. I actually found it to be a pretty cool speech (the yelp at the end notwithstanding) but I could see how some people might find it off-putting. Of course, any show of emotion is inherently a risk, as you are exposing yourself to the scorn of assholes.
Get it?
frankly0
I get a lot more than you think.
The quote from Kevin K was what you were responding to with the river in Egypt comment. I was putting it in context, but I see where that would be confusing.
I also agree that you do at times get called names and I don't agree with that either. For me, some of them are not worth responding to. Some of them are too sporadic to respond to. But I have responded to others beside you.
Your so-called "general statements" are direct responses to other peoples comments on this board. They are personal attacks whether you are addressing us individually or in general. You can personally attack more than one person at once. Calling them "general statements" doesn't change that fact. They still are personal attacks and a form of name calling.
What do you hope to accomplish by getting on threads where Dean is the subject and then making offensive remarks about or to the people sympathic to the subject? You see the topic, know it's going to irritate you, so stay out. That's what I do.
Of course, any show of emotion is inherently a risk, as you are exposing yourself to the scorn of assholes.
So good, I'm going to steal it.
Annoy the SCLM and the Skull & Bonesmen, vote for Dean.
This movement isn't about winning a football game, it's about restoring the Republic we once had.
Hansel,
If making the general statement that some people on the thread are Dean apologists, and are in denial counts as "personal attack" in your book, then one wonders how you can, or why you would, engage in political argument at all; can anyone's flesh and spirit be so pure?
As for why I got on this thread, I was once again struck by the implication that Dean was being simply "Gored" by The Scream. Virtually all of the things of which Gore was accused were MADE UP or twisted to mean something very ugly when they were no way intrinsically bad.
In contrast, Dean's squeal was CLEARLY a huge blunder -- even his own supporters on his own blog often admit this. Must we once again, as Atrios seems to wish, go into denial of the bloody obvious because it is Dean who is the butt of the ridicule? As I mentioned several times earlier, I certainly grant that it's been way overdone by the media, but Dean took the first big step in this fool's dance by offering up some behavior that was authentically ridiculous.
And of course Dean supporters took offense at my take on this, as they always do. But I have a big problem with equating, on the one hand, Dean's bad press over something he did that showed some truly bad judgement, with, on the other hand, Gore's horrible trashing by the media for stuff that was just plain made up.
I've read some comments below here where people have kinda criticized Dean for doing the political thing, admitting the scream was a blunder.
I think these people, like me, don't think Dean is perfect, we just honestly thought the speech was great! and found it really suspicious that talking heads were pushing it as the biggest political blunder ever witnessed.
What really pisses people off here is the news whoring. The bad spin on this speech can probably be traced to Drudge. How many times can this guy be quoted in the "legit" news?
No, frankly0, Hansel is right. You are downright irrational when it comes to Dean, and you are consistently insulting and hostile to people who support his candidacy.
Case in point: your use of the phrase "Dean apologist."
In addition, if you read the link (which I seriously doubt), you'd see that a blog written by journalism scholars for the express purpose of counteracting spin in campaign coverage agreed that coverage of the Dean speech was horribly spun.
Doesn't mean Dean's speech was a great move, or anything. That's separate. Maybe it was a silly thing to do. But the coverage was beyond the pale.
If Hansel and I are "Dean apologists," what does that make the writers at CJR Campaign Desk?
I find this thread rather depressing, seeing all this infighting. Like Rodney King once had said "Can't we alljust get along?"--- I mean after all we all have a common desire to kick Bush out of the White House,so lets chill a bit.
Shut up, liberals. Dean is unelectable and poses a threat to our economy and sovereighty. I guarantee that he would push our country into a socialistic hellhole.
And of course Dean supporters took offense at my take on this, as they always do.
As a Dean supporter, I'm growing very tired of his detractors sterotyping us as irrational fanatics. Do we have a few of those in our campaign? Sure, but every campaign does. I've never bee involved in one that doesn't. It comes with the territory.
I've met with a lot of Dean supporters. A couple of them have been the "consumed fanatic" type. The 99.99% that make up the rest of his support are about evenly split between dissaffected liberals returning to the party, party activists who see the Dean campaign as a way to eevitalize the party and political neophytes who despise Bush's policies and like Deans message. They are a very diverse group in terms of age, income, and gender. Most have a college education and are very interested in discussing real issues rather.
Apparently most of our whore journalists think that Georgie is the only one allowed to be a cheerleader.
Cut me off
...Most have a college education and are interested in discussing real issues rather than promoting a cult of personality.
Hm! Interesting analysis Patriotboy - here's some more in Homepage: if it's Haloscanned, here it is
http://www.guardian.co.uk/
uselec...1130473,00.html
MGJ's got a good point as well... if the Dems have still got until October, it's not a good idea for them to implode under the weight of bickering. Compete, yes, but don't do other candidates down.
When I first heard the speech, on NPR the night of, I was definitely taken aback, and it was the first time I cringed at something he'd done -- but I cringed because I knew people would immediately make fun of it, not because I thought he'd gone crazy.
The advantage of the oversaturation -- this was THE story of the week, overshadowing the SOTU -- is that it's only been a couple of days and already people are getting sick of discussing it. Because the more it was played, the less of a big deal it seemed: he did not dangle a baby out a window, or get married in Vegas, and those are the types of celebrity scandals outside-the-beltway voters are used to. Those who bought the line that he was having a meltdown should be be outweighed by those who watched him act all self-deprecating and rational on TV Thursday.
On top of that, the dude should have greater name recognition now than the other Dems combined. And in terms of electability, The poll I just saw cited on CNN has him losing by 5% in a head-to-head matchup with Bush. That's not as good a showing as the other Dems in the poll, but only by a negligible margin, and I have a feeling that if nominated Dean would just trounce the chimp in debates.
monchieb.monchum on 1.24.04@5:47pm:
"The media are a fully owned subsidiary of the RNC and the Bush crime family." This statement deserves to be framed and put up in every newsroom, and not just in the US but down here in Australia as well where almost all of the media are a fully owned subsidiary of the Liberal party (a misnomer really) which rules Australia in a savagely conservative way.
And thanks for your entry, atrios! Many people have said it and I say it again: you ROCK!
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
