Dean supporters: Your guy is getting smeared

[kiahzero]

http://www.spinsanity.org/

On July 22, Dean, who opposed military intervention in Iraq, commented at a New Hampshire campaign stop that the deaths of Saddam Hussein's sons Uday and Qusay were "a victory for the Iraqi people ... but it doesn't have any effect on whether we should or shouldn't have had a war. I think in general the ends do not justify the means."

<snip>

An Associated Press story published on the 22nd, however, midwifed the birth of a media myth. The lead paragraph stripped Dean's quote of any context, making it appear as though he was referring directly to the deaths of Saddam's sons. The story began, "Presidential candidate Howard Dean, a staunch opponent of the U.S.-led war against Iraq, shrugged off the deaths of Saddam Hussein's two sons Tuesday, saying 'the ends do not justify the means.' He scolded Democratic rivals for backing the conflict." Only at the very end of the piece does it report Dean's full remarks. The article was picked up in the Boston Globe, among other outlets.

<snip>

Despite a few more repetitions, including another page one story by Lakely on August 5, the myth appears to have vanished from the radar screen until earlier this month. Then, in an October 8 story about McCain in the New York Times, reporter Sheryl Gay Stolberg repeated the out-of-context snippet, writing that "Mr. McCain cited Dr. Dean's remark that 'the ends do not justify the means,' in reference to the death of Saddam Hussein's sons."

Safire ratched up the spin yesterday, reporting that Dean criticized Stolberg at a New York Times-sponsored lunch last week for reprinting the out-of-context quotation. Safire then cites the full quotation, but suggests that Dean's attempt to correct the record is somehow disingenuous, writing that "Dean spinmeisters will abandon their candidate's untenable 'never said any such thing' and argue that the words 'in general' remove the quoted sentence from an answer to the specific question about killing Saddam's sons. They will blow smoke about Dean offering a philosophical observation entirely detached from the rapists who were the subject of the question." Safire concludes, "By repeatedly denying the words ever came out of his mouth — thereby imputing inaccuracy to the A.P. reporter and blatant dishonesty to McCain — he compounds the original blunder that all too tellingly revealed his mindset."

<snip>

This is getting ridiculous. How scared are the right-wingers, when all they can do is make up crap to smear our candidates with?

Disclaimer: I like Clark, but Dean's up there on my list too.

On Edit: Thought it'd be helpful to post some snips... D'oh. Gotta stop posting so fast.

[dorktv]

1. Well us Deaniacs know just how great Dean is so we do not care.

We generally convince others too.

[virtualobserver]

2. that is what the right wing does......

and Dean will have to handle it. It will get a million times worse.

[dsc]

3. I wonder if all the Dean bashers will read this

Now to believe it is Dean who is lying you have to choose Safire over Spinsanity.

[kiahzero]

5. To be fair

This doesn't say "Dean is a saint who never lies"... it just clears him of one particular claim. So it's a little disingenuous to say that Dean bashers are siding with Safire; I haven't seen this claim on DU.

Your statement does hold true if a basher tries to use this argument against Dean, but that doesn't sound like an attack that would come from DU.

[Guaranteed]

12. I'm not siding with Safire

because I'm not saying the words never came out of his mouth. I would say exactly the same thing that Dean said: the deaths of Saddam's sons are definitely a good thing for Iraqis, however, the deaths of Saddam's sons don't justify the entire fricking war.
Did he stutter or something?

[dsc]

13. You might wish to look here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=108&topic_id=58963&mesg_id=58963

This is exactly and precisely what I am referring to.

[poskonig]

4. I'm used to it.

Dean is getting smeared 24/7, and I'm kinda numb to it. Dean supports rule of law in Iraq, which I believe is a good thing. Maybe Bush should try it.

[AP]

6. If Dean critics are anything like me, they would have discounted this out

of hand when they saw Saffire's name attached to it.

[dsc]

11. and I sincerely thank you for that

I have no problem with intellectually honest criticism of Dean. You have proven to have that with this post. Thanks.

[Blue-Jay]

7. "Smeared"? What's new about that?

(also, not a "Deanie", although he's in my top three)

[Rowdyboy]

8. This is as deliberate as the lies...

that Al Gore claimed to have invented the internet. They twist logic into gibberish. Its shameful. Dean should not be tagged with the media-invented controversy.

[madfloridian]

9. It is not smearing Dean, it is vindicating him. Good grief.

SNIP...."The media has an obligation to report the words of presidential candidates accurately and those candidates have every right to speak up when mistreated by the press. Safire's attack on Dean's efforts to be understood in context is an example of our pundit class at its worst....."

Last paragraph. Can you convince me that is smear?

[Rose Siding]

10. Safire is "language-tone-deaf"

according to yesterday's ABC The Note. And I'll add that his agenda couldn't be more clear.

[quaker bill]

14. So what's new

They did it to Gore. They did it to Clinton. They did it to Dukakis, To Carter......

Hell, they do it to me. I enforce environmental law for a living. I have been reported on maybe a hundred times in the last 10 years. I can only think of maybe a half dozen times they got it right.

The trick is not letting the lies stand. Dean takes an aggressive approach on this. Gore was not aggressive enough in this regard.