Did the DLC feed the tape of the Dean scream to the media?

[LoZoccolo]

Poll question: Did the DLC feed the tape of the Dean scream to the media?

[Debi]

1. I don't know

but I dont' think the media needed any help

[HereSince1628]

7. I don't know either,

I greatly disapprove of the ideology of the DLC but I wouldn't blame them without some really convincing evidence.

[polichick]

2. Good question, but it wasn't just a tape...

It was a tape that had been doctored to remove the noise of the crowd he was trying to be heard over. I've been to rallies where you could see him yelling on stage and still couldn't hear him at all, the crowd was so wild with enthusiasm and hope!

[Kingshakabobo]

6. IIRC, it wasn't doctored. It was from a microphone.......

.......that was designed to filter back-ground noise out. That's not to say the media shouldn't have known better.

[polichick]

13. Either way...

It was a purposeful misrepresentation of what was going on ~ really made me sick, since I'd seen exactly what the situation was in person.

[Kingshakabobo]

I agree. n/t

[Jackpine Radical]

8. My recollection is that it was the pickup of his voice

from a directional mike that was pointed directly at him & therefore wasn't picking up any crowd noise.

[polichick]

14. They had to know what they were doing though...

Despicable!

[Jackpine Radical]

24. Of course they knew what they were doing.

I was just discussing the technique behind the incident, not the intentionality of the perpetrators.

[Bjornsdotter]

28. Yes

...and IIRC didn't Diane Sawyer show the difference between the taped version with the directional mike and the version between the mike that picked up the background noise?

It proved that with the noise in the background Dean's scream was barely audible.

Cheers

[polichick]

54. That's right, to her credit she did...

But the damange was done because so many Americans refuse to think for themselve. The whole thing was sad beyond words.

[MonkeyFunk]

47. It wasn't doctored

I watched it live - he sounded like a lunatic.

Blaming the DLC for "leaking" a tape that had gone out live on national TV is just insane.

[polichick]

53. Sure you didn't hear it without the sound of the crowd?

I was at those rallies ~ no matter how he yelled into the mic, we couldn't hear him. The crowd was THAT loud, THAT fired up! He was an enormous threat to the DLC, and everybody else invested in the status quo.

[MonkeyFunk]

126. I understand that

it doesn't mean it was doctored. And it came across very badly on TV.

I'm not a bit surprised it was played a lot.

[Debi]

62. I saw it live as well

and saw it as a guy trying to rally over 3,000 volunteer and staff after a 3rd place finish preceeded by a plunge in the polls.

[KittyWampus]

147. A Concession Speech in a national election is NOT the place to hold a rally for your staff

No other candidate has ever done such an inapproproate Rally-type speech after losing a primary election. And there's a reason why.

I blame Dean's staff for not having a speech prepared.

The man was obviously worn and should have been provided with a speech made out ahead of time so he'd look good in front of America.

Many Americans were getting their first good look at Dean that night.

It was no time to hold a freaking rally.

[Debi]

148. Yep, I 100% agree with you

There were lots of questions about his staff after the Iowa debacle (the poor showing in the Caucuses and the weeks leading up to it).

But I still didn't see a guy going insane or acting like an idiot.

There should have been a different time for the 'rah rah' stuff for all the 'perfect storm' participants and the other people who worked countless hours for their idea of the Howard Dean Campaign (because I believe that many folks made the campaign into what they wanted it to be rather than support Dean for what he actually represented).

And, there should have been the speech for the media.

Although third place wasn't a complete loss (had $15,000,000 not been spent on Iowa there may have been an opportunity to regroup before New Hampshire - we all know that isn't what happened) I don't know that a concession speech was necessary. But, a speech about changing the political landscape and the introduction of so many new participants into the process could have been treated as a victory and a charge to continue on to the New Hampshire Primary and the next contests. No rally, no rah-rah. Just a good speech.

on edit:

meant to say was not wasn't

[beaconess]

149. BINGO! Most candidates know to do their rallying BEFORE going live on national television

and to remember that, once the cameras roll, the audience they should be appealing to is NOT the people in the room (who are already on their side) but the people on the other side of the camera lens.

[Kingshakabobo]

3. I never heard that one. Is there a source? n/t

[polichick]

5. Many people believe the DLC was behind it...

Though I've never seen proof.

[Lone_Wolf]

38. It was a media hit job. Here is what the crowd saw...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQh0BEUlJWY&mode=related&search=

Context is everything. It certainly didn't have the same effect as the "Scream" the networks saw fit to play 200+ times.

[polichick]

56. Thanks for posting that :)

Whether it was media or DLC, it certainly was a belly crawler's hit job!

[BattyDem]

4. Dean was getting hit from three sides:

The DLC, the media and the GOP. I don't know who was responsible for the scream, but all three of those groups certainly used it to their advantage. Having that scream played over and over again was in all of their best interests, so they all fed the beast.

[wyldwolf]

9. oh, sure. See, the national media all forgot to bring their recorders..

... and the DLC just happened to be there with a recording device.

[beaconess]

40. LOL - the media picked up the sound directly from the multbox provided by the Dean advance team

they had a direct feed that eliminated most of the crowd noise.

I watched it live and thought he sounded like a nut - long before any media commented on it. I was with a group of people, all Democrats, some of us Dean supporters, and we fell out on the floor laughing because it was so funny.

But why is this even an issue anymore?

[Writer]

49. Here's my theory:

Aside from the OP, now...

Some people cannot get over the fact that Dean messed up. Period.

[polichick]

55. That's absurd...

Even if he had actually been screaming for the hell of it instead of trying to be heard over the crowd, there's nothing wrong with it. He had the vision and guts to show people how to take back their country and, had he been president, this country wouldn't be in the godforsaken hole it is now.

[Adelante]

59. There was nothing wrong with it, you're right

After the media had done their evil doings and the full sound was shown on TV, that was clear. But that night, that very initial live broadcast was not tampered with and nobody had to give it to anybody, since it was live TV. The audience sound was dimmed so that Dean could be heard through his mic, which was the only way to do it. Not unusual, either, C-Span does it all the time. I watched it live and it was shocking and raw. There are threads here on DU from that very live minute when we were all talking about it. I wasn't a Dean supporter, quite the opposite, but it was heartbreaking to me and I don't remember glee or scorn that night on DU. It was more like we thought he had a breakdown. Like a terrible disaster had struck. None of us knew about the ambient sound being tamped until days later and it was completely different and you could hardly hear Dean. Only then you got it that this was an interaction of one man with a roaring crowd. So I don't believe the press had to be manipulated by the DLC or anybody else. Dean had been the front runner and it had turned to dust that week. The scream, to the media vultures, was just "good" television, the cherry on top, and they did what they do, but it was a ruthless massacre nonetheless.

[RubyDuby in GA]

57. But why was it ever an issue in the first place?

Biggest non story of 2004. So he showed some enthusiasm, BFD!

The problem with the Democratic Party isn't just the Republican Party and the conservative movement. It's also the entrenched party bureaucracy and especially the DLC. Just think about these two facts.

1) Dean bought hundreds of thousands of new activists to the Democratic party.

2) After Dean came in a dissappointing third in Iowa, DLCer's, including Al From, were high fiving each other in their offices.

Dean was bringing change to the status quo of the Democratic Party. The DLC didn't want it or his volunteers, which begs the question. Does the DLC want a dead party?

[BEZERKO]

58. Oops, I did it again!

previous comment was mine, not Rubyduby's. Two members, one computer, many hazzards!

"But why was it ever an issue in the first place? Biggest non story of 2004. So he showed some enthusiasm, BFD!

The problem with the Democratic Party isn't just the Republican Party and the conservative movement. It's also the entrenched party bureaucracy and especially the DLC. Just think about these two facts.

1) Dean bought hundreds of thousands of new activists to the Democratic party.

2) After Dean came in a dissappointing third in Iowa, DLCer's, including Al From, were high fiving each other in their offices.

Dean was bringing change to the status quo of the Democratic Party. The DLC didn't want it or his volunteers, which begs the question. Does the DLC want a dead party?"

[polichick]

63. The DLC wants a party that can be controlled...

They don't want a progressive people's party that would shake up the status quo and oust them from their profitable and comfortable seats of power. Though a DLC candidate would be vastly better as president than a Rep, at least on global warming and a few other issues, the kind of progress we deserve and should expect will never come from the DLC.

[toska]

10. Tape?

I'm pretty sure I watched it live. So it wasn't a tape that the DLC put out. They may have rigged the feed to use that microphone.

[Kahuna]

16. LOL! Duh. But somebody had to say it..

:hi: Welcome to DU!

[BootinUp]

11. there was media coverage at the event.

there was no need to clandestinely feed something they were filming live, in fact I watched it live.

[snowbear]

33. Best response yet Jim!

I wonder if those who voted yes, also believe in Bigfoot, the Lochness Monster, and little green men from mars?

[Radical Activist]

157. LOTS of media were there.

The idea that it would need to be fed to anyone is a little loony.

[jpgray]

12. Unless they doctored his microphone and the camera as it was recorded live, no

The blame probably goes to some random tech who thought (as in most political speeches) that crowd noise should be kept to a minimum, choosing a directional mic--disaster. Even without post-mortem coverage, everybody I spoke with who wasn't emotionally invested in the Dean campaign viewed the speech as unflattering to say the least. Without the crowd noise, it sounded sort of nuts. I think you can find the real-time DU thread saying such things as it happened in the archives.

[DemBones DemBones]

21. Yes, I watched it live and it was bizarre.

The only way it was a DLC conspiracy is if the tech was a mole from the DLC.

But I thought all along that the DLC was going to push Kerry for the nomination, and somehow get it for him. The scream, replayed over and over by the media, who love anything out of the ordinary, certainly hurt Dean. But I have a feeling it was preordained that Kerry was going to be the nominee and probably that Bush was going to "win." And I don't mean preordained in any theological sense.

[beaconess]

41. I can buy the DLC mole theory - but how did s/he get Dean to scream like that? n/t

[DemBones DemBones]

42. Dean did that to himself, unless the mole fed him drugs -- if we're talking

conspiracy, why not? :tinfoilhat:

Seriously, I hate the DLC but I don't think they did it to Dean. The media loved it because it was entertaining and fodder for pundits to opine about, but I think it was just a case of "Shit happens." If shit hadn't happened, the media would probably have found a way to screw Dean or Edwards or anyone else who threatened Kerry's lead, IMO.

[MH1]

85. DLC didn't need to "push" Kerry

I wasn't on the blogs then, I just watched 4 or 5 of the debates, did some reading, checked places like Project Vote-Smart for the candidates' records, saw one of the Swift Liar ads against Kerry and went and read his actual 1971 testimony, and between all that I decided Kerry was the guy I wanted. That was after slightly leaning toward Dean from all the positive press he was getting in places like Time magazine.

Even back then I hardly ever watched TV, and mostly only listen to NPR on the radio. So unless all the "DLC/Skull&Bones/Bilderberg/{insert conspiracy theory of choice} rigged it for Kerry" folks want to claim their pet nemesis was influencing NPR's coverage considerably :eyes: you might want to admit that a lot of people actually used their BRAINS and came out with Kerry being the person they wanted to support.

[NoPasaran]

15. It was the Dean campaign itself

It was the Dean campaign itself that provided the audio feed to the media. Obviously they fucked up royally by providing just a submix that had Dean's mic instead of a mix containing ambiant sound from the room. I've spoken with a number of people who were there that night who said they could barely hear Dean.

But it wasn't the DLC that did it---just a bad choice from the Deab campaign. And I say that as someone who worked his ass off for Howard long after all hope was gone.

[AX10]

17. It was in front of a tv camera.

[thunder rising]

18. I WAS THERE...Dean did what he did

The media managed to take it out of context. But there was 100 cameras on him from a platform 75' away. The media wasn't fed the film they made the film.

[OHdem10]

19. I reember that there was collaboration between the

Media and DLC to get rid of Dean. The Scream was played
24-7 for at least 3-4 days. Who gave who what--I do not
remember that part.

I heard this story on CNN and C-Span. No it was not the
headline. It came up in discussions .

[baldguy]

20. I wouldn't be surprised.

The DLC is GOP-lite

[Alexander]

22. No, but I'm sure the DLC was happy about the outcome.

So was the media.

[Writer]

23. WTF? It was LIVE COVERAGE.

Good God...

[Alexander]

25. Have any DUers been seriously suggesting this?

Sounds to me like a DLC straw man pulled out of thin air.

[Writer]

27. Yeah I really don't understand this.

The only person who is responsible for Howard Dean's terrible concession speech is Howard Dean. It wasn't just the scream - it was just a flat-out terrible speech LIVE in front of every single news network covering the Iowa caucuses. And that would be ALL of them.

[jpgray]

34. He's doing it to see how many vote for a ridiculous option

[Writer]

45. If that's the case, then quite a few have voted for a ridiculous option.

And what should we take from that, I wonder?

[sandnsea]

35. I know

They always kill the crowd noise. Nothing nefarious in that tape at all, and the DLC certainly had nothing to do with it. It didn't need to be played a cazillion times afterwards, but the tape was exactly as it should have been for live tv.

[Hippo_Tron]

26. I don't see how one could pin the DLC on this

The media were certainly able and willing to do this all on their own and I don't see why they would need the DLC to feed the tape to them.

[Ninga]

29. Let's face it, DLC types produced the "black and white grainy, out of focus" TV hit ad that played

in Iowa, which included photos of Osama Bin Forgotton.

They were definately Dems, and mainly supported Kerry.

Dean didn't stand a chance within the walls of the party big dogs. They all had a hand in doing him in.

[ClassWarfare2008]

30. There must be some reason Vilsuck got a huge promotion from the DLC

"services renedered" at the Iowa caucus would be a reasonable guess.

[snowbear]

31. Not just NO, but Hell NO.

Believing something like that is like believing that the tabloids at the check-out are the gospel truth.

[madfloridian]

32. Here's an answer.....though your question really is silly, I think.

This is a very important article about our times and our media.
The fact that it mentions Dean has little to do with the dangers it mentions. Dean did say that the media should not be down to so few owners here, and that some reregulation was necessary to get local news that was not biased. That was the day they began to bring him down. I find it heartening that this site addressed it.

http://www.blackcommentator.com/75/75_cover_dean_media.html

SNIP...."Howard Dean has joined the list of victims of U.S. corporate media
consolidation. Dean shares this distinction with Dennis Kucinich and the
people of the formerly sovereign state of Iraq, among many others. Dean was
stripped of half his popular support in the space of two weeks in January
while John Kerry – tied in the polls with Carol Moseley-Braun at seven
percent just two months earlier – rose like a genie from a bottle to become
the overnight presidential frontrunner. Both candidates were shocked and
disoriented by the dizzying turns of fortune, and for good reason. Neither
Dean nor Kerry had done anything on their own that could have so
dramatically altered the race. Corporate America decided that Dean must be savaged, and its media sector made it happen.

This commentary, however, is not about the merits of Howard Dean. If a
mildly progressive, Internet-driven, young white middle class-centered,
movement-like campaign such as Dean’s – flush with money derived from
unconventional sources, backed by significant sections of labor, reinforced
by big name endorsements and surging with upward momentum – can be derailed
in a matter of weeks at the whim of corporate media, then all of us are in
deep trouble. The Dean beat-down should signal an intense reassessment of
media’s role in the American power structure. The African American
historical experience has much to offer in that regard, since the Civil
Rights and Black Power Movements were born in a wrestling match with an
essentially hostile corporate (white) media. However, there can be no
meaningful discussion of the options available to progressive forces in the
United States unless it is first recognized that the corporate media in the
current era is the enemy, and must be treated that way...."

SNIP...."It is no longer possible to view commercial news media as mere
servants of the ruling rich – they are full members of the presiding
corporate pantheon. General media consolidation has created an integrated
mass communications system that is both objectively and self-consciously at
one with the Citibanks and ExxonMobils of the world. Media companies act in
effective unison on matters of importance to the larger corporate class. For
all politically useful purposes, the monopolization of US media is now
complete, in that the corporate owners and managers of the dominant organs
are interchangeable and indistinguishable, sharing a common mission and
worldview. (That’s the underlying reason why their “news” product is nearly
identical.) Monopolies do not require a solitary actor – an ensemble acting
in concert achieves the same results....."

The DLC had nothing to do with the "scream"....that was a directional mic that the media used that excluded the 3000 plus yelling in the audience.

But the DLC did a lot of harm to him....on purpose. Deliberately. Starting in spring 2003 with their memos against him.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/62

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/336

I don't know why you posted this. I have never seen anyone connect the DLC to the scream, though nothing would surprise me.

[madfloridian]

39. Oh, did someone ask me why the DLC did not care for him? I thought so. Answer.

Now they did not have anything to do with the scream. That is flamebait by the OP. Meant to irritate.

But that group truly was not fond of him.

From his book in fall of 2004 You Have the Power:

In his book, "You Have the Power", Dean talks about the Democrats' loss of power in the 90s.

He has many good things to say about Clinton, quite complimentary. However, he goes on to blame the DLC for claiming credit for Clinton's win for the wrong reason. He says Clinton won because he was Bill Clinton, because he had a personal kind of magic. He says the DLC claims he won because he moved to the right.

"The Democrats, throughout the 1980s and early 1990s didn't stick up for the people who were left behind by the Reagan revolution and the corporate restructuring that came at the end of the first Bush recession. Eschewing 'class warfare', they didn't stick their necks out for the millions of American whose wages and living standards were frozen or falling.

The Democrats missed the growing resentment of the 'angry white men' who would later vote them out of congress because they just weren't listening. And when....tried to catch up with the Republicans by belatedly wooing angry white men, they failed to understand that we needed to woo them differently...not with the unsubtle appeals to racism and homophobia used by the Republican Right, but with economic arguments. We began to soft pedal our opposition to racism....and downplayed our remarkable achievements on civil rights..."

SNIP..."We became afraid of the Right, afraid of the anger, and instead of being steadfast, we pandered....The Democratic Party has paid a big price for that. Worse, our people have paid a big price for the collapse of our will to lead. We failed to articulate a vision for American that keyed into Americans' hope of overcoming economic and social instability. ..."

...."By remaining silent about the things that mattered so much to Americans, we allowed ourselves to be painted into a corner and to be defined by the Republican opposition. .."

Then he says this kind of behavior "laid the groundwork for the rise of the radical right".

That is why many of us do point out now when the party is acting too submissive instead of being fighters.

Dean repeated again this week that the party leaders need to listen to us before they speak to us.

Ok, any other questions?

:think:

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/62

[madfloridian]

44. What? No one asked?

Will I answered anyway.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/62

Just kidding.

[Writer]

46. WTF? The person who organized the after caucus party put that mic up there....

this isn't "the media" who "orchestrated" this, like they got into a room and plotted this. Do you sincerely believe this?

[madfloridian]

66. They "played" it all day loing every day for weeks...over and over

They were sent complete scenes of it but refused to use them until Diane Sawyer's interview about the directional mic and how they used it.

I did not say the media orchestrated the mic....?

I said the media used a rally which was not a speech to destroy his image.

[Writer]

69. Dean destroyed his own image. HOWARD DEAN.

There is no excuse. And while the supposed "illuminati" of the media were playing this, as you say, "to destroy his image"... over on the internet we (as in WE ON THE INTERNET) were putting together this (what - are we NOT a part of the media when we're on the internet?)

http://politicalhumor.about.com/b/a/059035.htm

Take a listening. No one but Howard Dean chose his words. No one but Howard Dean decided to deliver those words the way he decided to deliver them. He made his choice and he paid the consequences. He made HIMSELF into a laughing stock.

[madfloridian]

70. Listen to my words, Writer.

There are many people around who do not think that of him and what he accomplished and is accomplishing.

Trust me. There are many.

The people here who have one purpose.....to put down anything grassroots anything that sounds like change...are well-prepared with talking points and hateful posts and comments.

And not much else.

Your words are insulting.

I find it interesting that when so many people read the posts of the ones whom they now know as supporters of the DLC smoke-filled room tactics....that they are beginning to recoil in disgust and anger.

The attacks on the party base have taken their toll. If they continue, if the Democrats in congress continue to play to Bush's base instead of our side....we will most surely lose next year.

[Writer]

74. "Listen to my words, Writer."

It sounds like you're trying to threaten me. Consider me completely UN-threatened. In fact, I'm actually laughing a little.

[madfloridian]

76. Perhaps you should remember that we SHOULD all be in it together.

But a few here look down on the rest of us as peasants and peons.

It is taking its toll on a lot of people who see what this war is doing to our country. It is affecting many who don't see our party yet standing up for things that matter yet.

[Writer]

79. I think the only people looking down on us as peasants and peons...

are in the White House.

Remember - THEY started the war.

[madfloridian]

81. With the help of the former president who supported it

And did not speak out about it. And his wife voted for it knowing Iraq was not a real threat to us.

And yes there is a group here who are just plain ugly to those who are not supportive of the DLC.

[Writer]

83. Forget the DLC... the DLC does its thing, the DNC does it's own thing.

At the end of the day it doesn't matter who is privy to what organization or who has control. The only people in full control of the party are those that vote in the Dem primaries.

Can I assume, based on the above post, however, that you HATE Bill and Hillary Clinton?

[madfloridian]

88. I am angry with the Clintons over Iraq.

No, the people who vote in primaries are NOT in control. It is the people in the congressional committees who dry up funding and put their own in the race. Our party here is trying to do away with "messy primaries."

That's code BTW for we go with their pick.

[Writer]

98. If the people are not in control, then why do politicians even bother to ask for our vote?

We have conditioned ourselves into believing we're not in control. We are the cause and the solution of our own problems.

[madfloridian]

100. They don't.

.

[Writer]

101. Hold on - so why are they spending millions in advertising. For posterity?

[ProudDad]

113. They don't "ask for our votes"

They don't care about our (those of us who are politically aware) votes...we're the tiny minority.

They BUY the votes of the minority of the large majority that are totally politically unaware with their propaganda.

Just as they MADE the "image" of Dean as "Dean the crazy guy" by their biased presentation of the "scream".

As for the OP, the DLC didn't have to do the job.

The right-wing spin machine with their fellow travelers in the corporate owned "liberal media" did it for them because the DLC and the right-wing spin machine and the corporate owned "liberal media" have a common interest -- perpetuation of the corporate capitalist status-quo.

Check this out:

http://www.michaelparenti.org/MonopolyMedia.html

"In a capitalist “democracy” like the United States, the corporate news media faithfully reflect the dominant class ideology both in their reportage and commentary. At the same time, these media leave the impression that they are free and independent, capable of balanced coverage and objective commentary. How they achieve these seemingly contradictory but legitimating goals is a matter worthy of study. Notables in the media industry claim that occasional inaccuracies do occur in news coverage because of innocent error and everyday production problems such as deadline pressures, budgetary restraints, and the difficulty of reducing a complex story into a concise report. Furthermore, no communication system can hope to report everything, hence selectivity is needed.

To be sure, such pressures and problems do exist and honest mistakes are made, but do they really explain the media’s overall performance? True the press must be selective, but what principle of selectivity is involved? I would argue that media bias usually does not occur in random fashion; rather it moves in more or less consistent directions, favoring management over labor, corporations over corporate critics, affluent whites over low income minorities, officialdom over protestors, the two-party monopoly over leftist third parties, privatization and free market “reforms” over public sector development, U.S. dominance of the Third World over revolutionary or populist social change, and conservative commentators and columnists over progressive or radical ones."

[blm]

65. That article is wrong. Kerry had been rising in the internal polls since Nov2003 and corpmedia

was refusing to report that in any accurate way.


Why did they keep under-reporting Kerry's support in Iowa and keep over-reporting Dean's? In my view it was to keep the two camps at odds with each other as both were intended to be taken down no matter what the end result.

The DLC did NOTHING to help Kerry and in fact directed NO MONEY to his campaign during the last 2 crucial months, so he ended up having to finance it himself.

The sabotaging of Kerry's campaign had been going on for months before the corpmedia finally started in on Dean to destroy him.

But when it comes down to it ANY left Dem doing well would have received the same treatment from the manipulators of the party.

Reputable journalists and observers have this to say:

Enemy within?



This talk by historian Douglas Brinkley occurred in April 2004:


http://www.depauw.edu/news/index.asp?id=13354


Whom does the biographer think his subject will pick as a running mate? Not Hillary Rodham Clinton. "There's really two different Democratic parties right now: there's the Clintons and Terry McAuliffe and the DNC and then there's the Kerry upstarts. John Kerry had one of the great advantages in life by being considered to get the nomination in December. He watched every Democrat in the country flee from him, and the Clintons really stick the knife in his back a bunch of times, so he's able to really see who was loyal to him and who wasn't. That's a very useful thing in life."




http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/oct/07/did_carville_tip_bush_off_to_kerry_strategy_woodward



Did Carville Tip Bush Off to Kerry Strategy (Woodward)

By M.J. Rosenberg |

I just came across a troubling incident that Bob Woodward reports in his new book. Very troubling.
On page 344, Woodward describes the doings at the White House in the early morning hours of Wednesday, the day after the '04 election.

Apparently, Kerry had decided not to concede. There were 250,000 outstanding ballots in Ohio.

So Kerry decides to fight. In fact, he considers going to Ohio to camp out with his voters until there is a recount. This is the last thing the White House needs, especially after Florida 2000.

So what happened?

James Carville gets on the phone with his wife, Mary Matalin, who is at the White House with Bush.

"Carville told her he had some inside news. The Kerry campaign was going to challenge the provisional ballots in Ohio -- perhaps up to 250,000 of them. 'I don't agree with it, Carville said. I'm just telling you that's what they're talking about.'

"Matalin went to Cheney to report...You better tell the President Cheney told her."

Matalin does, advising Bush that "somebody in authority needed to get in touch with J. Kenneth Blackwell, the Republican Secretary of State in Ohio who would be in charge of any challenge to the provisional votes." An SOS goes out to Blackwell.
>>>>>>>>




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dk1k0nUWEQg




Wonder why?


http://consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

[madfloridian]

67. I agree the media hurt Kerry as well.

Where did you get the impression I did not think that?

Most of that article is concerned with the way the media doggedly kept playing something over and over.

It was truly death by media. And there was nothing wrong with that night.

But that's how it goes, blm. Isn't it?

Things happen when the future is ordained and people like Dean and Kerry don't fit into the plans.

[MH1]

87. Yep, as I think you and blm know,

the corporatocracy didn't want either Dean or Kerry.

We could debate which would have been their "worst" nightmare, but either one would have been a nightmare for at least a few greedy executives.

But now for 2008 I don't see anyone on the horizon for the corporatocracy to worry about. As it is we can just do our best to defend the Supreme Court from the worst anti-democratic abuses, sigh.

[blm]

111. Oh - I know YOU know that, but the article's writer had that part wrong. That's why

I pointed to the article being wrong. I think you and I both have a much clearer view of the machinations used by the establishment powerstructure because we have stepped back and viewed what went down with the fuller picture in my mind.

And we don't like what we see.

:(

[LoZoccolo]

36. Currently, we have 24 yes votes vs. 28 no votes. n/t

On edit: my count of the "no" votes should be 28, not 26; this has been corrected.

[Alexander]

37. Common sense: 1, straw man bullshit: 0.

[madfloridian]

43. LoZoccolo still misses Dean, I think.

That's why he had to post this.

That's ok, LoZoccolo. We miss him also.

[ProudDad]

115. Wasn't Dean the Nader of 2004?

:sarcasm:


I liked a lot of what Dean was saying too... In fact, I was a co-mod at [email protected]


Hey, LoZoc. How about a truce -- I'm sure neither of us wants to see a repuke pResident or Congress ever again... :hi:

[MonkeyFunk]

48. No

what a ridiculous accusation. The DLC didn't need to get involved. The actual event was spectacular enough - nobody needed to "leak" it - it went out on national TV.

As I watched his speech, live on TV, I said to those with me in the room "Oh we're gonna see a lot of THAT!"

I knew as it occurred that it was going to be a big deal - because he came across as insane.

[Writer]

50. Everytime I read a comment containing some apparent "group" decision by "the media"...

such as "the media had a field day with this" or "the media couldn't get enough of this..."

I want to rewrite the sentence with:

"THE AMERICAN PEOPLE had a field day with this" or "THE AMERICAN PEOPLE couldn't get enough of this..."

What comes first: the public or its media?

[Egnever]

51. The Dean campaign died....

The day he was on hardball and tweety asked him if he was president would he go after the media monopolies. I knew the second he answered yes he was done. The scream thing came about a week later.

[MonkeyFunk]

52. after he came in third in Iowa

that had far more to do with his undoing than the media, who had been quite favorable to Dean for months.

[Debi]

64. Not the month of December

I agree that he became the medias darling during the summer, but around the time that Gore endorsed him (without first consulting Lieberman) and the revelation of his "I hate the caucuses" comments on a television show in the early 1990s the media was enjoying sinking their teeth into him. (As they had done to Kerry after he was no longer the presumede nominee)

[lyonn]

150. Thanks for reminding me of those instances

Then there was that underground chatter about Dean's people that volunteered from other States to help with the campaigns in Iowa and New Hampshire, insinuating that they were pushy, told untruths, basicly saying these young people were untrained, became offensive to the public.!?? Those stories bothered me at the time. How were these stories to be verified? These tactics were used the last weeks before caucus and vote.!?

[Adelante]

73. The media for Iowa, though, was positive only for Kerry and Edwards

Dean's coverage was maybe 40-60 negative to positive, but Kerry and Edwards received almost 100% positive coverage leading in to the caucus. The media wasn't everything, but it was a whole lot good for Kerry and Edwards and a whole lot bad for Dean.

Edit: Center for Media & Public Affairs study showed little fairness in media coverage of primary candidates:

Study: Iowa Caucus Victors Received 98 Percent Positive Coverage

WASHINGTON, DC—Prior to their surprising Iowa caucus performances, 98 percent of the network evening news coverage of Democratic Presidential candidates John Kerry and John Edwards was positive, according to research conducted by the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA). The study also found Howard Dean received more critical coverage over the same time period, at 58 percent positive.

This is CMPA’s second ElectionWatch report of Campaign 2004. ElectionWatch will provide regular updates of how the broadcast networks are covering the candidates, the issues and the campaign. This report examines the 91 stories broadcast on the ABC, CBS and NBC evening news from January 1st through January 18th, the night before the Iowa caucus.

OTHER MAJOR FINDINGS:

Golden Boys Get Midas Touch-Not one person quoted by the networks had anything critical to say about North Carolina Senator John Edwards (100 percent favorable coverage) in the two and half weeks leading up to the Iowa caucus, while 96 percent of the evaluations of Massachusetts Senator John Kerry were positive.

http://www.cmpa.com/pressReleases/NetworksAnointedKerryEdwards.htm

[ElizabethDC]

60. Of course they didn't feed it to them - the media was there and got it directly

it's not like it was secret, inside videotape, there was lost of media there and they got it for themselves.

[Orangepeel]

61. Nah. The media was covering the rally live.

they didn't need anyone to feed them anything.

:shrug:

[madfloridian]

68. Congrats, LoZoccolo A flamefest beautifully done to stir the 04 memories.

And probably to remind us who has the power now.

See, you did good. You even got some Kerry folks upset at me because I took up for Dean.

Just like the good old days. LoZoccolo. And this flamefest is still going strong.

[Writer]

71. I think the approach makes a pretty damn good point...

it uses irony to point out how the media (and apparently the DLC? WTF?) are used as scapegoats when the candidate him or herself makes the decision on how ultimately to craft his or her image. It's so much easier to blame faceless institutions and organizations than to hold a person accountable for his or her actions. Much easier.

I mean look how many voted YES to this... and at the same time, 40% of the American people still believe that Saddam Hussein had a hand in the 2001 Terror Attacks. Do you think we're any more "rational" than the average American? That we Democrats are not as prone as anyone else to believe the same conspiratorial pap as the next person?

[madfloridian]

75. What the post is doing is opening up the way for people like you

who passionately hate Howard Dean to get another chance to say so.

The funny thing is I get accused of idolatry. Fact is, I am far more involved in my country and its future than I ever was.

Your remark about him above was geared to hurt a good man who is sincerely trying to change and turn around a party who was losing by recruiting Republicans to run...for God's sake...as Democrats.

By playing it safe and attacking anyone who spoke out.

That is what this post did and it was meant that way. It was a way to get all those who want the party to stay the same to tell the world how much you hate the rest of us.

Nice idea.

[Writer]

78. Okay, let's take this point by point...

1. I don't hate Howard Dean. You can ascribe whatever sentiments to me all you want, but I simply don't hate him.

2. I have read your posts over the many months, and I do believe you may be idolizing him, because you will not engage in a rational conversation about him. I've never read an exchange where you didn't get extremely defensive and combative at the mere questioning of Dean. If that's your passion, then that's great, but Dean is fallible and I do think he is the reason (actually Joe Trippi, too) for his own demise.

3. I'm sure that Howard Dean is a grown man who can handle a criticism or two by a random poster on the internet. And also... why do you feel responsible for his feelings, anyway?

4. There were many very good aspects and fascinating facets of the 2004 Howard Dean campaign, but there were also a few alarming aspects, I thought. I'd prefer to keep his campaign in perspective. I think we would all learn more that way so that subsequent elections are handled even better.

[madfloridian]

86. I won't bother with most of your post....I am used to that crap.

I have been through it since 2003 when I had hope again. I don't have the hope now because I see the writing on the wall.

But I do know that when a group like the DLC has a press conference to read a memo saying Dean is not the one to be the candidate....ooops.

I am working up another post on it when I get through with my idolatry for the day. That stuff is just so old, Writer. If you want to discredit me, think of something better. At least be creative.





Just not the same old same old idolatry crap.

[Writer]

89. Well? You may want to consider moving out of 2003 and into 2007.

I seriously believe that you have never reached a state of transcendence, you know, where you move past the previous primary season and move on.

Don't think of it as discrediting, think of it as a true concern. :)

[madfloridian]

92. Hilarious. This whole thread is about 2003-2004. Are you forgetting...

that is what you are defending?

You are in this thread from an event which he knew would be painful to many here and he knew it was controversial.

And you tell me to get into 2007? Hilarious.

[Writer]

94. No it's not about 2003-2004. It's about how we blame the media/DLC for all the party's ills.

In 2007. Because that's still going on. In 2007.

[madfloridian]

102. I blame the party for its ills.

I blame the corporate media and the corporate wing of the party for calling Dean crazy...that was from the DLC by the way...for perpetuating the scream from the directional mic without showing the 3000 plus in the room cheering and still trying to have hope.

I don't have hope for our party much now.

I knew when Carville said Dean should be fired what was meant by that.

Time is limited, and there won't be time for change. We will stay in Iraq, go on to Iran and the rest of the middle east.

So be happy, don't fret about folks like us who really do care about our country.

[Writer]

103. Let me ask you this: Do you think you're out of power because you do not have as much money...

as they do?

[madfloridian]

105. Clarify what you mean by "you're" ....not sure of subject.

.

[Writer]

106. You're, as in YOU ARE...

as in: Do YOU think YOU ARE out of power because YOU do not have as much money as THEY (meaning politicians/corporations, etc.) do?

[madfloridian]

109. So in using "you" are you saying you are not one of "us"?

I can't figure it. If you are talking about the Democrats overall and you say "you", you distance yourself.

But it would make sense to refer to the nutroors..oops netroots, grassroots that way...if you were not part of it.

[Writer]

110. LOL... no, I'm asking YOU for YOUR opinion.

I want to know if YOU personally believe you're out of power because you're not wealthy.

[madfloridian]

112. So you are not considering yourself out of power?

Hmmmm.....you don't get how you are sounding do you?

It ia all about me and what I write, and nothing about our country's tragic attack on another country with the blessing of a Demcratic president.

[Writer]

114. ROFL!

I am just asking you a question!!!!! LOL!

Okay, we seem to be having trouble with the second person. Let me try a new tactic:

I would like to ask madfloridian if madfloridian believes that madfloridian is out of power because madfloridian is not wealthy.

I'll make it easy. You can just answer yes or no, if you'd like.

[madfloridian]

119. You use the 2nd person to refer to the rest of us. Funny that.

First person, which includes the writer (I/we)

Second person, which includes the reader and excludes the writer (you)

Third person, which excludes both the writer and the reader (he/she/it/they)

It really hit me when you said it that way. It said a lot about your feelings.

I taught for over 30 years, and I guess I pick up on that stuff naturally. Picky old school teacher, you know.

So you don't think you are out of power.

[Writer]

120. Honey, I'm using the second person because I'm asking YOU the question.

Do you believe that you're out of power because you are not wealthy?

[madfloridian]

136. Honey? Honey??

:rofl:

[Writer]

137. Sugar sugar...

just answer my question.

Do you think you're out of power because you are not wealthy?

[ProudDad]

125. Yes, that's a lot of it

Or rather, we are poorer because, unlike most Europeans, we do not TAKE the power!

"The United States is the richest country, and in 2000, the mean wealth was $144,000 per person.<5> In the United States at the end of 2001, 10% of the population owned 71% of the wealth, and the top 1% controlled 38%. On the other hand, the bottom 40% owned less than 1% of the nation's wealth."

Is your net worth more than or less than $144,000?

And this has gotten much worse since 2000.

WE the PEOPLE are absolutely out of power because we don't have the money...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealth
http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/faculty/hodgson/Courses/so11/stratification/income&wealth.htm

Table 1 Distribution of U.S. Household Income in 2003
Group of Households Share of
Aggregate Income Lower Limit of Each Fifth
Poorest fifth... 3.4%...
Second fifth... 8.7%... $17,984
Middle fifth... 14.8%... $34,000
Fourth fifth... 23.4%... $54,453
Richest fifth... 49.8%... $86,867
Richest 5%... 21.4%... $154,120

http://www.eoearth.org/article/Distribution_of_wealth

-------------

Check out the movie SiCKO. There's a brilliant interview with Tony Benn -- The Labour MP. He said it ALL in one statement: "Thanks to Democracy here in Britain, the government fears the people. In the U.S. the people fear the government."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Benn

Just as in Europe, until we get a critical mass of people ready to go out in the street and, like Code Pink, fill their goddamn offices with bodies until the bastards can't continue "business as usual", we ain't gonna get shit.

From another GREAT PATRIOT OF THE PEOPLES OF THE EARTH:

"There's a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can't take part, you can't even passively take part, and you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it stop! And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all!"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mario_Savio
http://www.fsm-a.org/stacks/mario/mario_speech.html

It's time for the spirit of the 60s to revive and our goals to finally be realised...

On Edit: If you want to hear a great Patriot of the People:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcx9BJRadfw

And here's another:

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/barbarajordanjudiciarystatement.htm

[Writer]

127. Okay. So let me ask you this...

How much money did it take:

- For the labor movement in the early 20th Century?

- For the Civil Rights movement in the 1950's and 1960's?

- For the gay rights movement since the 1980's?

How much money does it truly take to make a change? Or have you errantly adopted the language of capitalism in order to excuse away why thousands aren't outside with picket signs?

[lyonn]

151. It appears 2003 is happening in 2007.

We have really only 2 candidates running in the Dem primaries. How did that happen? Flick on the tv and all you hear about is Rudy vs. Hillary, etc.

You say Dean did himself in. So he wasn't perfect. Kerry stood at the Grand Canyon and said he wasn't sorry about his war vote. Didn't push the Swift Boaters for some truth and proof of their allegations. Edwards stood with bush at a gathering prior to the vote on the war while bush pushed to get all to agree with him. They all had issues that could have been handled better. Ya, like george was brilliant? Just had to throw that in.

Best I can figure out is that corporations and the media control. Why do the Dem candidates keep quiet on these issues? Why doesn't Hillary beat up on the HMO's and Pharma? The same can be said for most of them I'm sorry to say. Clark would suit me fine, but, he falls in with the fringe crowd it seems, according to the media.

[wyldwolf]

107. isn't that something you do every other day?

[LoZoccolo]

72. Currently, we have 33 yes votes vs. 41 no votes. n/t

[madfloridian]

77. You are so inordinately proud of this flamefest.

Why is that?

You knew what you were doing, and you seem proud.

I think you know a lot of people are about ready to exit the party, and when you post things like this...it might give them a push.

Why are you proud of that?

[Writer]

80. You know... you could choose not to respond, if you think it's a flamefest.

Just saying...

[madfloridian]

82. I choose to point out the flamefest nature of another attack on Dean....

who is trying to do something important for the party.

But then its pretty obvious what this is all about.

[Writer]

84. You know what? We ALL are trying to do something important for the party.

But Howard Dean is now the DNC Chair. He IS the establishment of the party. Why is he above criticism?

[madfloridian]

90. Going back to the scream is fair criticism when he is working his butt off?

Sorry I don't see that.

I called it a flamefest, and it is meant to be one.

Getting my post ready about that press conference where the elite announced he would not be president...May 2003.

[Writer]

91. Holy shit - you really ARE reliving this!

Look. It's okay. It's all over.

The above post is a point about the DLC/media it seems, NOT about the scream. It's just referring to history as a means to make a point. That's all. It's only as much of a flame war as you decide it to be.

[madfloridian]

93. Is it ok for the OP to start a thread about 2003-2004? Then....

why not ok for me to take part in it?

I mean fair is fair.

[Writer]

95. Because it's not about the scream, it's about the ludicrous illuminati claims about the DLC/media.

[madfloridian]

99. Bull Hockey.

I am getting my post ready about the press conference the DLC held to tell the public Dean would not be president. I almost "screamed" when I heard that.

[madfloridian]

96. Consider the irony...someone just told me not to relive 2004...to stay in 2007

even as this OP started it.

I find that so very funny.

I am not supposed to jump into a thread about the primary, yet it is perfectly fine to start one.

:rofl:

[paulk]

97. no, of course, but great poll!

show's that a lot of people will believe whatever fits into their preconcieved world view - despite solid evidence to the contrary.

[madfloridian]

104. It's a wonderful poll. It shows the party divisiveness well.

It shows the lines that divide us still, and may always will.

Wonderful wonderful poll.

[paulk]

124. yeah, it shows party divisiveness, too

it shows that there are some people who will blame the DLC for anything in their attempts to divide the party....

[madfloridian]

139. I don't blame them for the scream. I blame them for Iraq, for making fun of anti-war

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/62

I blame them for calling a press conference in 2003 to say that Dean was not the one to be president.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/336

How about that?

[paulk]

141. why would you assume I was talking about you?

I'm talking about the 40 posters who voted "yes" (so far) on this poll....

;)

[Writer]

145. Because, just like the Dean campaign...

it's all about YOU. (Wait - what was that pronoun again?)

;)

:hi:

[madfloridian]

154. That's just one more insult in a thread full of them.

Do you take delight in them?

[Dr Fate]

108. Did these DLCers at DU support Joe Lieberman (I) and Bush's war? Why yes, they did.

Just in case anyone forgot.

Was the DLC behind the scream? I doubt it.

DLCers like Harold Ford or Joe Lieberman(I)and thier DU counterparts may agree with Bush and the media in their opposition to Howard Dean, but I doubt there was a partisan democrat, even a conservative, DLC one, anywhere near those volume controls!!

[lligrd]

116. He Sounded Like A Lunatic???

What seems ludicrous to me is that many of you who supported candidates who helped Bush perpetuate this disaster have the nerve to make fun of a "Yahoo" from Dean who was right all of the time. I don't see that as much different from those who blindly support Bush just because they don't want to admit they were wrong.

[ProudDad]

117. Here's the word on the Media

http://www.michaelparenti.org/MonopolyMedia.html

"In a capitalist “democracy” like the United States, the corporate news media faithfully reflect the dominant class ideology both in their reportage and commentary. At the same time, these media leave the impression that they are free and independent, capable of balanced coverage and objective commentary. How they achieve these seemingly contradictory but legitimating goals is a matter worthy of study. Notables in the media industry claim that occasional inaccuracies do occur in news coverage because of innocent error and everyday production problems such as deadline pressures, budgetary restraints, and the difficulty of reducing a complex story into a concise report. Furthermore, no communication system can hope to report everything, hence selectivity is needed.

To be sure, such pressures and problems do exist and honest mistakes are made, but do they really explain the media’s overall performance? True the press must be selective, but what principle of selectivity is involved? I would argue that media bias usually does not occur in random fashion; rather it moves in more or less consistent directions, favoring management over labor, corporations over corporate critics, affluent whites over low income minorities, officialdom over protestors, the two-party monopoly over leftist third parties, privatization and free market “reforms” over public sector development, U.S. dominance of the Third World over revolutionary or populist social change, and conservative commentators and columnists over progressive or radical ones."


I posted this up thread but felt it needed to be reiterated...

[Writer]

118. Okay... knowing that this will beget a greater discussion, I am going to say that...

this is crap. It's a logic that has perpetuated on the liberal side for far too long and it needs to go. It's a logic that has harmed us time and time again by placing us in a permanent secondary status when we are far from it.

[madfloridian]

121. That statement from someone who just used 2nd person...

to refer to the Democrats?

[Writer]

122. Are you (hey - I used the second person) suggesting that I'm not a Democrat?

Or is it that YOU are using semantics to avoid answering a question... about yourself. ;)

[madfloridian]

128. I am what I am.

It shows in my writing. I don't pretend to be what I am not.

Others must speak for themselves.

[Writer]

129. I can see that.

So I will ask one more time. Do you believe you're out of power because you are not wealthy?

[madfloridian]

130. You are obviously referring then to the people of the party as out of power.

Or most likely you are referring to all of us as Dems out of power, but not including yourself.

[Writer]

131. LOL...

I'm referring to YOU, madfloridian.

Do you think you're out of power because you are not wealthy?

[madfloridian]

132. You are assuming

things you don't know.

You are judging me instead of being honest about what this thread is all about.

[Writer]

133. No, I am just asking you a simple, straight-forward question...

just one simple... little... question... (cue dramatic Captain Kirk flair)

Do you think you're out of power because you are not wealthy?

[madfloridian]

123. DLC not responsible for scream...but they had a press conference to say Dean would not be president.

And they pushed the "crazy" Dean meme, and went on the media to attack him.

Remember Crossfire? Oh my what an attack hour against Dean. Paul Begala, James Carville, Tucker Carlson, they all got their jollies...he's crazy, Gore's crazy for endorsing him.

That was just one show, but there was so much more.

The DLC was tax exempt then, and they should not have been influencing the election. More on that later.

[ripple]

134. Was the media excluded from the event?

No? Then the answer to the question is no.

I'm not a fan of the DLC, but this accusation is pretty far-fetched.

[StudentsMustUniteNow]

135. The DLC fed it

It was captured by live media, true. But why was it played on neoliberal infotainment channel CNN ad nauseum? Think.

[Dr Fate]

138. Well, the DLC does agree with Bush and the media over opposing Dean...

...so I can see why you make the connex there.

I doubt that the DLC as an organization fed the scream to anyone- but you are correct to suggest that the DLC often agrees with Bush and the media when it comes to opposing Dean, progressives or anti-war moderates.

Harold Ford, Joe Lieberman (I) and James Carville-all stars of the DLC -have been pretty open about disliking Dean and other anti-Bush liberals.

[paulk]

140. maybe because the leading candidate at the time

who many in the press had already ordained as the nominee
came in 3rd with only 17% of the vote
then proceeded to make a complete fool of himself on national tv?

maybe that was considered newsworthy?

[janx]

142. Say what?

:shrug:

How is this relevant today?

[ulysses]

143. of course not.

They certainly fought the man tooth and nail, but they didn't have to "feed" the "scream" to anyone.

[Cameron27]

144. No, I watched it live and I cringed.

When the crowd noise was added, it wasn't nearly as bad, but tv feed wasn't the result of the DLC.

[LoZoccolo]

146. Currently, we have 40 yes votes vs. 51 no votes. n/t

[IamyourTVandIownyou]

152. Whomever recorded it, made sure it was a soundboard recording.

ie. No crowd noise, only microphone.

Sabotage.

If the crowd noise was included, it would have sounded "in context", with Dean screaming over the crowd noise.

With the crowd noise not included, it became a scream.



"Nobody here but us gunslingers." - p begala

[madfloridian]

153. Ah, yes, Nobody here but us gunslingers.....found the article. Thanks for reminding.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20040308/greider

Howard Dean contributed some fatal errors of his own, to be sure, but he also brought fresh air and new ideas, a crisp call to revitalize the Democratic Party and at least the outlines of deeper political and economic reforms. The reporters, as surrogate agents for Washington's insider sensibilities, blew him off. Dean's big mistake was in not recognizing, up front, that the media are very much part of the existing order and were bound to be hostile to his provocative kind of politics. To be heard, clearly and accurately, he would have had to find another channel.

For the record, reporters and editors deny that this occurred. Privately, they chortle over their accomplishment. At the Washington airport I ran into a bunch of them, including some old friends from long-ago campaigns, on their way to the next contest after Iowa. So, I remarked, you guys saved the Republic from the doctor. Yes, they assented with giggly pleasure, Dean was finished--though one newsmagazine correspondent confided the coverage would become more balanced once they went after Senator Kerry. Only Paul Begala of CNN demurred. "I don't know what you're talking about," Begala said, blank-faced. Nobody here but us gunslingers.

The party establishment, limp as it is, was correct to target Dean with tribal vengeance. From their narrow perspective, he represented a political Antichrist. The unvarnished way he talked. The glint of unfamiliar, breakthrough ideas in his speeches. His lack of customary deference to party elders (and to the media's own cockeyed definition of reality). What the insiders loathed are the same qualities many of us found exhilarating."

Yep, nobody here but us gunslingers from Crossfire and Hardball and other formats.

[lyonn]

155. Thanks Madfloridian....

This article does bring back memories - - and disgust. It is hard being suspicious all the time when it comes to politics, much easier to just "believe".

[lojasmo]

156. Well, Dean is in charge of the DNC now.....

The DLC is becoming more and more irrelevant every minute.

Not voting....stupid poll.

[AtomicKitten]

158. oh, for crissakes

:crazy: