From that "make love not war" media then to this one now that shot down the anti-war Howard Dean and sacrificed 2004 with Kerry, all for the sake of waging wars (year plural, more to come people). It's not about left or right, liberal or conservative any more. That's a fake fight, a sideshow. Dean was the only viable candidate but the media shot him down because of his anti-war position. As soon as they decided to shoot down Dean they've had their sight dead set on 2008. Everything that's been done since is for 2008. Kerry was picked not to win, but to limit the political discussion to how should we fight this war, instead of should we be fighting this war at all.
Dean shot himself in the foot with his stupid "we're going to Idaho and Ohio and Florida and Texas and yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa" moment. He got carried away and from that point forward was not a viable candidate in a lot of people's minds as he looked like a loon.
Dean was picked on and portrayed by the media as a loon. At the worst he was being un-PR-savvy during that moment. The media smelt blood and moved in for the kill. His anti-war position was his real downfall. The fact that people are willing to overlook everything else about Dean except that silly moment shows you how powerful this media has become and the extreme this media is willing to go to get what it wants. Nothing wrong with trying to get what one wants. That’s what America’s all about, freedom to pursue what you want. But the American system is also based on checks and balances and only works well that way. This fourth branch of the government (yeah the media is now the one the makes more policies and sways more influence on public opinion than the three real branches of the government) is left unchecked, which is a recipe for disaster, as the one we’re in now.
Not that I believe the conspiracy theory forwarded by the thread starter, but your point would actually support his theory. Dean was in a very noisy crowded hall when he made that speech. The volume was perfectly normal for the crowd. There was an issue with the way the stage was miked or the editing of the footage (can't remember which) made it sound as if Dean was going off, but if the sound came through normally, it would have been a fine speech.
Take a step back and forget about this term "conspiracy theory." A theory is just a theory. To give a theory a negative color as this term suggests doesn't help get to the truth of what the heck is going on nowadays with this media.
Basically the mic was a noise cancelling one so he came through sounding loud and if he was not in a crowded room. Later (after he was cooked) the floor mics showed that he could barely hear himself over the din Reason #2136789823462 why I hate the media although in fairness, the reason he was amking that speech in the firt place was because he didn't win Iowa like the pundits thought he would Also can we please place all state primaries on one day. I'm sick and tired of everything being "decided" by the time it rolls around to NY.
Exactly. If it wasn't the speech, it would've been something else. All they needed was one embrassing moment to run away with, production wise. Luckily Dean gave them that moment so the media didn't have to resort to showing Dean picking his own nose or something. This nation might've been less obese otherwise. We were spared. Dean's real downfall was his anti-war position, and the fact that with that position he actually had a real chance to win the presidency for the Democrats. Obviously the media thinks an anti-war Democratic president is worse than a Republican president in Bush.
Dr. Dean was popular in the internet, but he was disliked by the democratic leadership, and was rejected by a majority of the democratic primary voters. Remember, that infamous speech came AFTER he had posted dissapointing results in Iowa. When it happened, he was already on his way down, and Senator Kerry was already on his way up. The speech and the scream caught on with the media and the public because they were an apt symbol of his already faltering campaign.
John Kerry wouldn't have had half of a chance of beating Howard Dean if it hadn't been for an activist media. Whatever happened to objective reporting? Or was that a myth from the start?
They're already at it today. Playing up all the negatives of the economy while ignoring to mention the positives. Brace for a few tough years ahead people. As usual, the media will win.
To support this theory, you'll first have to explain how Kerry beat Dean in Iowa. The answer is that many Iowa caucus attendees were extremely concerned about Dean as a candidate, and preferred Kerry AND Edwards.
Correct me if am wrong. But Dean was leading in Iowa until the media blew that one moment (or non-moment) out of proportion and neglected or put negative spins on everything else Dean stood for. Very intense bad press for Dean immediate prior to Iowa.
That is correct. Dean provided an extremely valuable service to the Dems this election: he made them realize that they had to be an opposition party, and he was the loudest critic of Iraq. He did in fact shape the Dems platform, and his changes were positive. He would have also been eaten like salad in the general election.
Dean had no chance for two reasons. First, he was anti-establishment, anti-CW, and the media were never going to give him a fair shake. Second, he wasn't in the race to win. I saw some interesting candid comments by and about him this summer to that effect. He just wanted to "represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic party."
People, it was NOT the media. WAS NOT. Dean was a candidate who spoke way before thinking about what he said. The media makes their living off of those sorts of people Absolutely kills them. (Unless you think the media was after Quayle, too.) Dean wasn't likeable enough to overcome his many faux pas, was too arrogant, and not a good enough campaigner (although great at raising money). The media didn't kill him - it merely gave him more than enough rope to hang himself.
Please. I've seen and heard a tape from the crowd. While it wasn't nearly as bad as it was portrayed in the media, Dean was anything but normal. It wasn't a "fine speech" unless you're on drugs.
Part of me feels like letting this go because so many people worked their butts off for Dean. Yet there can be no doubt that Dean inadvertently harmed the Democrats. No doubt. Dean pushed Kerry to the left on Iraq and the Republicans exploited it mercilessly.
??? First of all, Kerry's a big boy, Dean didn't make him do anything. Second, Kerry had two good chances to gracefully back away. He could have gone along with Rep. Murtha and just say, I was lied to. That probably wasn't the best time, but it could have worked. The other time was when he was asked "if you know then what you know now." He botched that badly. Look, John, I know that you've been very consistent on this thing. You believed that a president deserves to have the Congress behind him on such matters when he goes into negotiations. And, OK, you had no clue as to the neo-cons' true nature, you were naive. (The most comical GOP attack on Kerry is the guys who attacked him for being naive and believing Bush.) But at that moment in the campaign, when you were making serious progress by attacking Bush on his implementation of the policy, it was NOT the time for you to reiterate your nuance. You should have bluntly said, no, I would not have. I did not know then that the president wasn't telling the truth when he said he would go to war as a last resort. I didn't know about Sec. Snow's revelations that the Bush team was planning to invade Iraq from Jan 2001. I didn't know about Clarke's revelation that on 9-12, they wanted to invade Iraq. I didn't know how faked the intel presentations were. Etc etc etc. Ben, I'm surprised you wrote this. You brilliantly, concisely identified the problem, which is that Bush voters thought of Iraq and terrorism as the same issue. Any Dem who could have separated those two issues could have won.
Dean has always been underestimated because he doesn't have a camera-genic face. The media at first didn't think he could win the primary too. That's why they had to be more obvious than usual the days leading up to Iowa when they realized Dean actually had wide-spread support. I think Dean would've beat Bush on his anti-war position alone, that is, if the media played up the anti-war angle too, like the way they did during the Vietnam era, or at least not take an active war-waging position. Did you see how many people protested against the war, despite the media spins? The people didn't do it this time because the media play up the sexy angles such as Woodstock. They did it this time because they really do think we shouldn't be fighting a war in Iraq. Electability? Please. The day (or should I say even the day before?) they decided to shoot down Dean they knew they should focus on 2008. They knew darn well Kerry didn't have a real chance, not that they mind it either. 2008 is the real focus. And looking back now, even Kerry came so close. Dean would've won it, if the media didn't hate his anti-war position so much.
Replying to a question, Bush is saying right now if you're a Jew a Muslim a Christian you're equally American. He's not as dumb as some people think he is. But the Buddhist may have something to say about that.
The "Dean Scream," as it's become known was, in many respects, a media creation. Anyone who was in the hall that night (I was not), noticed nothing unusual except some hyperbole from a candidate trying to energize and give hope to his base. The reason why the scream became such a talking point was because Dean was wearing a directional mic - the type used to better hear the speaker when interviewed with very noisy backgrounds - which amplifies, way above normal, the speaker's voice. A regular mic would not have focused Dean's voice like that. And hence the media story, even though all outlets knew the story about the directional mic. The scream just helped the media pigeonhole Dean exactly where it had been trying to put him for a number of weeks anyway. The question remains however, absent the scream, what would Dean have done? He would not have been the first candidate to lose Iowa to come back and win the nomination; equally he might have positioned himself well enough to be the VP pick under Kerry or another candidate (Edwards?), given that had he stayed in the race, Kerry may, or may not, have secured the nomination. Equally, I suppose, he might have dropped out at a later stage, with no VP nomination, but again who knows how his sustained candidacy might have affected the Democratic race? I'm not certain that he would have fared as well in the debates against Bush, but then again, Kerry won all three and look what that got him. Dean would not have been my choice for the nomination, but then again neither was Kerry and he convinced me in the end. Shoulda, coulda, woulda............