the moment that cost Edwards the nomination in '04

[cleveramerican]

The Dean Scream hurt him far more than any one else. He did very well in Iowa, but never got the bounce. Because the story that came out of Iowa was "all scream".

He never really recovered.

[Hav]

1. .

Is that a joke?

[DaDeacon]

2. insightful however...

Insightful however that was only part of it. Post Iowa his campaign lost focus and went into auto pilot oddly in the south where there seem to be no effort to secure a base that would have received him well. it's like he counted the votes already and lost in southern primaries he should have won.

[karynnj]

7. I agree 100%

With the order of the primaries, Edwards could easily have followed in Clinton's 1992 footsteps by winning most or all of the contests on the first multi-state day.

He had done well in Iowa, with a huge boast from the Des Moines Register endorsement. NH could have been considered Dean's and Kerry's backyard (as SC was considered Edwards'). The states, DE, SC, MO, NM, AZ, and ND were not those that a NewEnglander should have won. In the week leading up to those contests, Edwards was given positive media play. If he were a strong candidate then, this would have been the week he took the momentum away from Kerry.

Even when Kerry won 5 states, Edwards won SC and Clark won OK - the media called Kerry and Edwards the winners. (CNN called it a big win for Kerry and a smaller win for Edwards) In truth, if Edwards could not win these states, where was he going to get enough delegates to beat Kerry? The media loved Edwards and they wanted to keep the race going to have a story.

[DaDeacon]

9. the shortness of DU memory sometimes scares me.

The shortness of DU memory sometimes scares me.We forget to look at the true political cycles and get caught up in the false 2 year swings, and forget 4 to 6 year trends. We seem to want to reinvent teh wheel rather than learn from out mistakes.

[Leilani]

3. I disagree

I think most voters decided to go with John Kerry for a number of reasons, the most important one being his experience.

People I know thought Edwards was too inexperienced.

[DaDeacon]

4. Inexperienced?

Inexperienced? Really? I remember that being a talking head point but when I talked to voters I knew, they just didn't really know his name?

[Leilani]

6. John Edwards received the most positive press coverage

of any of the candidates.

He never faced the the attacks that Kerry, Dean, & to a lesser extent, Wes Clark dealt with.

[DaDeacon]

8. True , good point.

[AP]

21. Edwards received positive "personality" coverage and no "issues" coverage

I wish I kept the links -- there was an analysis of the media coverage of the primaries which broke down the coverage into categories. Edwards got lower "issues" coverage than Carol Mosley Braun, if I remember correctly.

A Stanford and a UTexas professor did an informed voter study during the primaries that found that, after discussing the candidates on the issues, Edwards was the most popular candidate.

Had the actual media coverage matched what was going on in the informed voter study, Edwards most likely would have done even better. In any event, talking about his personality positively isn't exactly the best way to promote Edwards. If the MSM actually wanted to make him the winner, all they needed to do was what the Informed Voter study did -- inform voters about all the candidates on the issues.

[FrenchieCat]

22. Here's a study that speaks of John Edwards receiving 100% positive coverage

the 2.5 critical weeks leading up to the Iowa Caucus.

NETWORKS ANOINTED KERRY, EDWARDS BEFORE IOWA DID
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/NetworksAnointedKerry...

Also this tidbit showing that Kerry and Edwards were a "done Deal" long before many had voted....2 pages worth at the provided link.

"AND THEN THERE WERE TWO"
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2004/02/04/prim...
Kerry breaks into the open field, with Edwards still in pursuit -- while the Dean meteor continues to burn out.

February 4, 2004 | After a month of surprise, confusion and tumult, the race for the Democratic presidential nomination is, suddenly, much more clear: The nomination is John Kerry's to lose.

John Edwards won in South Carolina Tuesday, and he made a strong showing in an Oklahoma race that was too close to call even after all the votes were in. But Kerry, the liberal senator from Massachusetts, took the bellwether state of Missouri by a commanding margin over Edwards. In addition, he won in Delaware, North Dakota, New Mexico, Arizona, placed a strong second in South Carolina and was running strong in Oklahoma.
snip
Edwards staffers tried to make the best of their one victory, casting the race from here on out as a two-man contest. But Kerry, already in Seattle, delivered a front-runner's speech aimed at the Republican incumbent.
snip
Make no mistake -- the race is not over. The weeks ahead may demonstrate again the deep cultural and political disagreements that define the nation, and the Democratic Party. It appears, for now, that Edwards and perhaps Dean will be able to exploit that. Edwards' best hope is to peel off the South; Dean, fighting a guerrilla action, might hope to lock up the Left Coast with wins in Washington on Saturday and in California on March 2. (Oregon doesn't vote until May

[AP]

23. The day before the Iowa primary, All Things Considered didn't even say Edwards's name

The only coverage he got was a clip of him speaking.

But, hey, I guess that was 100% positive.

And, by the way, I'd like to read the study. However, here are the quotes they use to support the conclusion that the media was nice to Kerry and Edwards:

Examples:
“I believe in . I believe what he says. I believe that he means what he says.”
--Unidentified Iowa Voter, ABC (1/18)

“I like approach to the election. I like the way he treats other people.”
--Iowa Resident Earl Crow, NBC (1/11)

So, a week before the primary, the media is asking voters what they think of the candidates and the two that got over 2/3rds of the votes on 1/19 draw positive comments from likely voters. And this is a surprise?

[FrenchieCat]

29. Well, I'm not sure why a report on Edwards' positive media coverage before Iowa

Would have to somehow include one radio show....but OK!

and although John Edwards didn't participate in NPR's two hour Democratic candidate debate: http://www.npr.org/programs/specials/debate2004 /

He still received plenty of ink prior to Iowa...by yes, one "All things considered" radio show; so your post really doesn't make provide any disclaimer to the evidence that I provided on how things were, all things considered!

one radio show out of thousands of ways one could get coverage.......positive for Edwards....as I previously stated. Again....that was 100% positive coverage!

Edwards the Underdog: Iowa Campaign Catches Fire
by David Welna

All Things Considered, January 16, 2004 · NPR's David Welna reports that with just three days to go before the Iowa caucuses, there are indications that the underdog campaign of North Carolina Sen. John Edwards seems to have caught fire. The Democratic candidate is pursuing a positive, optimistic message, focusing less on his Democratic rivals and more on criticism of President Bush.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16...

Latest Poll Shows Dead Heat in Iowa
by Michele Norris

All Things Considered, January 16, 2004 · The latest Zogby tracking poll of voter's opinions of Democratic presidential nominees shows Sen. John Kerry with a slight edge over former front-runners Howard Dean and Richard Gephardt -- with Sen. John Edwards hard on their heels. Allowing for percentages of error, it's a statistical dead heat. Hear NPR's Michele Norris and Des Moines Register political columnist David Yepsin.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16...

Nation
Iowa Race Goes to the Wire
by Melissa Block and Mara Liasson

All Things Considered, January 19, 2004 · Polls show four Democratic presidential hopefuls in a tight race as caucus meetings begin Monday in Iowa: former Vermont governor Howard Dean, Rep. Richard Gephardt of Missouri, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts and Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina. Hear NPR's Mara Liasson and NPR's Melissa Block.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16...

Nation
Edwards Has Strong Showing in Iowa
by Melissa Block and Ken Rudin

All Things Considered, January 19, 2004 · The campaign of Sen. John Edwards is energized by a strong showing in Iowa, as the North Carolina lawmaker comes in second to Sen. John Kerry. Hear NPR's Melissa Block and NPR's Ken Rudin.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16...

[AP]

31. What exactly is your point?

[FrenchieCat]

32. My first point was in reference to this sentence of yours....

"In any event, talking about his personality positively isn't exactly the best way to promote Edwards. If the MSM actually wanted to make him the winner, all they needed to do was what the Informed Voter study did -- inform voters about all the candidates on the issues."--

That statements requires an awful lot of supposition in order to make it work. Personally, I don't think that your statement actually pans out because Edwards ended up doing quite well, and he may not have done as well had "all of the candidates" been covered on the issues although you "suppose" that he would have--something you can't really know since it is an hypothetical position that you have taken.

As it were, some candidates weren't covered at all, and Edwards got great coverage in spade. Had all candidates been covered fairly (as in bringing the Fairness Doctrine back which some candidates advocate-like mine), John Edwards may not has fared as well as he did via free publicity, which in many televised cases only showed footage of John Edwards with a loud backdrop to "Go, Johnny, Go" music, but without words coming out of his mouth. Considering that Edwards was touted as being able to talk owls out of trees, it is curious that the press in parroting this meme never actually promoted him by playing clips of John Edwards speaking...but rather, John Edwards smiling and looking young and good. There was a reason for this....partially because the meme of his speaking ability was, in my opinion, fabricated based on his one speech to begin with.

What I posted in reference to the radio show you mentioned was to demonstrate that this one radio show indeed did provide John Edwards with ample coverage, unlike the impression you created based on your words. It is always useful to readers to be reminded that things said aren't always backed up with facts.

Apart from that, it is nice to "see" you again AP...and have a Great New Year.

[AP]

33. The only ATC coverage you could find for Edwards was on Jan 16th?

Nothing on the 17th and nothing on the 18th? And then after 5pm on the day of the primary they mentioned him?

Is that right?

[FrenchieCat]

34. No, that's not right......I ain't no "search" engine......

Let's not get carried away with the silliness now!

I think I found more than enough though....considering we are talking about 1 radio show that lasts 1 hour per day.

[SheilaT]

5. There's also the possibility

that Edwards was always campaigning to get the v-p nomination all along.

[blm]

10. The scream lie hurt Kerry more than anyone else - the media hyped it to cover their

own asses for why they had been reporting the primary falsely for so long. So they invented this 'myth' that Dean imploded, when they were the ones exaggerating the strength on the ground with actual voters while minimizing the strengths kerry had displayed there.

So, the public really did not get to know Kerry well or why he became the top choice of most voters, including the college voters who the media had been playing up as Dean's strength. They didn't learn about Vietnam vets who voted for the first time in Iowa, or the firefighters who worked hard in their communities because of Kerry's longtime commitment to their causes. Nope - it became all about a "Dean implosion' that never really happened.

Corpmedia lied about ALL the candidates, but the way they hyped the antiDean stories after the scream lie was pure cover their own lying asses time.

[comsymp]

12. I dunno - I saw it differently

The thing that hurt Kerry in IA (IMO) was his "Dean, Dean, Dean..." muttering that they caught on mike. I believe that The Scream was manufactured because Dean was, at that time, the "hot" candidate and (as they always do) they felt the need to take him down - remember, he had just blasted the MCM a couple weeks earlier about their shoddy reporting, etc. So showing him losing IA and immediately flipping out (as they were able to portray it) was manna from Heaven.

[blm]

13. Kerry won Iowa, and Dean didn't 'implode' the way media pretended he did.

They had consistently over-reported his strength there while under-reporting Kerry's.

Dean's Dec. 2003 remark about the media was NOTHING compared to the threat they perceived from Kerry back in June 2003 when they started to minimize his coverage and dry up his campaign donations by pronouncing his candidacy dead throughout the fall.

Kerry Seeks to Reverse FCC's "Wrongheaded Vote"

Commission Decision May Violate Laws Protecting Small Businesses; Kerry to File Resolution of Disapproval

Monday, June 2, 2003

WASHINGTON - Senator John Kerry today announced plans to file a "Resolution of Disapproval" as a means to overturn today's decision by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to raise media ownership caps and loosen various media cross-ownership rules.
Kerry will soon introduce the resolution seeking to reverse this action under the Congressional Review Act and Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act on the grounds that the decision may violate the laws intended to protect America's small businesses and allow them an opportunity to compete.

As Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, Kerry expressed concern that the FCC's decision will hurt localism, reduce diversity, and will allow media monopolies to flourish. This raises significant concerns about the potential negative impacts the decision will have on small businesses and their ability to compete in today's media marketplace.

In a statement released earlier today regarding the FCC's decision, Kerry said:

"Nothing is more important in a democracy than public access to debates and information, which lift up our discourse and give Americans an opportunity to make honest informed choices. Today's wrongheaded vote by the Republican members of the FCC to loosen media ownership rules shows a dangerous indifference to the consolidation of power in the hands of a few large entities rather than promoting diversity and independence at the local level. The FCC should do more than rubber stamp the business plans of narrow economic interests.

"Today's vote is a complete dereliction of duty. The Commissioners are well aware that these rules greatly influence the competitive structure of the industry and protect the public's access to multiple sources of information and media. It is the Commission's responsibility to ensure that the rules serve our national goals of diversity, competition, and localism in media. With today's vote, they shirked that responsibility and have dismissed any serious discussion about the impact of media consolidation on our own democracy."

[karynnj]

15. Kerry saying "Dean, Dean, Dean"

was before he unexpectedly took 38% of Iowa - then preceded to easily win the primaries - how did that hurt him?

Dean was NOT the "hot" candidate at the time - he got 18% of the vote in Iowa in a race that people expected him to win.

It would be more logical to say that the Kerry reunion with Rassman fueled his camopaign and Dean was hurt by the exchange he had with the old hecler he told angrily to "sit down". At least in these cases, the event precedes the likely consequence.

[comsymp]

30. Oh for goodness' sake~

Not every non-glowing, non-fellating observation about Kerry is a personal attack on his character or lineage.

Perhaps I should have phrased my response to BLM more clearly. Her assertion was that the scream lie hurt Kerry more than anyone else. My disagreement was that 1) Kerry was *not* hurt by the incident, at least not nearly as badly as Dean was - after doing poorly in IA, then The Scream, Dean was toast; and 2) if anything had hurt / negatively impacted Kerry *at that point in the primaries*, it was the Dean, Dean, Dean business... seems like he made one other verbal gaffe at around the same time but I'm a bit hazy about that.

Kerry's frustration with Dean's greater media coverage (and yes, Dean was the "hot" candidate at the time - perhaps you didn't grok that my use of "hot" referred to coverage and telebabble?) prompted a spate of discussion about the whole "Dean, Dean, Dean" thing. As you acknowledged, "most people expected <Dean> to win" IA, not Kerry - hence Dean = hot ATT.

[hijinx87]

17. oh.for.crying.out.loud.

[PATRICK]

11. The cause of the "scream"

was more crucial, namely that the one with the most established political skilled team trounced the maverick. That point aside, bluntly, Dean's complete demise is what doomed the hopes of those moving up. There is no single "what if" factor either. It was across the board a hard earned win by Kerry based on himself, his organization and the voter response. The effect on the others was as if Dean's horse collapsed and writhed in the middle of the track but to be fair none of the others had what it took to fare any better. I think Edwards and Clark(and Dean) suffered from what Obama is probably in the process of suffering now. Beginner's charisma can carry you only so far. This system was designed to head off a McGovern "miracle" at the pass. A youthful JFK could now barely squeak through without better overall organization, as intensely brilliant as his family and team was. With experience, contacts and freedom from mentors and policy ties, Edwards and Clark have an immense advantage over Obama that will likely show up in surprising rhetorical victories and more efficient national organizations. There really is no outside Manichean divide between candidates and issues this time and the advantage in the long haul will go not to media darlings or conventional wisdom sports picks but to those with the best candidacy and organization to present. Hillary has campaign legacy and experience of her own but lest we forget, her sole lack is having to face people who have been strong candidates before. I am not sure she will shine in the debates given her authentic caution and repressed progressive centrism. She will be raked over for her stands on the Iraq war vote(for one thing) and in this her frontrunner status- a necessary strong card- will also be her greatest vulnerability.

I find a lot of regrettable contradictions in this bloody gauntlet but it MAY help uncover who is best at managing an activist administrative team for the values of the party, once in office after 8 years of destructive horror and chaos. The GOP is left to choose the ham sandwich that makes them least afraid and ramming it down people's throats with a bestial octopus of media and money sans truth or anything else tangible or remotely competent. Maybe it is not so wise of the Dems to have a system where competition gets so weird and wasteful and risky beyond the parameters of the simple process of the people choosing among several great, reasonable candidates who truly are public servants.

[madfloridian]

14. Oh, wait, Dean's cheering on over 3000 supporters...lost it for the others?

Now come on, isn't that a wee bit of a stretch?



I thought I had heard every excuse, but this is the best one yet. Poor candidates, they never had a chance because Dean did not give a proper concession speech...complete with all the sadness and credit to all the proper Democrats in Iowa.

I mean, come on now.

[karynnj]

24. I agree with you

I certainly don't think the story of the sream hurt Kerry. As to Edwards, I have watched politics closely for at least 40 years and the big story is NEVER the man who came in second - unless there are some special circumstances.

The big story was that Kerry - whose campaign was declared dead even a week or so before the caucus, won - and he did it while the Iowa media was pushing...not, Kerry ...not, Gepheart, not, Dean but Edwards.

If anything over the course of 2004, Edwards was given TOO MUCH credit for his results. They played the Kerry/Edwards contest story up until the day Kerry won MA, CA, NY and several other states - making it mathematicly impossible for him to lose. In fact, the polls showed Kerry with more than a 20 point lead in these 3 vote heavy states at a point where Kerry beat him in WI - and some in the media made the story that Edwards did "better than expected" in losing.

[Tom Rinaldo]

16. I completely disagree

Iowa is the one event that made an Edwards nomination even possible. Edwards got a huge bounce from Iowa, huge. Prior to Iowa Edwards was in single digits in all national polls, and a month before Iowa he was in low single digits. Prior to Iowa Edwards got almost no national media coverage. Prior to Iowa Edwards was only an also ran in New Hampshire. The reason why Edwards dramatically increased his support after Iowa from before Iowa is because Iowa resulted in Edwdards receiving significant media attention for the first time, because of his surprising second place finish there. I think most Edwards supporters on DU would not argue against saying that the media ignored Edwards BEFORE Iowa. But as a result of Iowa, and of course his own strengths which then finally started getting media attention, Edwards was able to come in 4th in New Hampshire and still be treated as if he was leaving the first actual primary election with real "momentum". Wes Clark, who actually narrowly defeated Johm Edwards for third place in New Hampshire, did not receive that type of media treatment after Iowa. Starting with Iowa, Kerry and Edwards got positive attention, Dean got negative attention, and Clark got little attention.

[JNelson6563]

37. Very good analysis

Well done Tom.

[question everything]

18. I need explanation, slowly, please

how can Dean's "scream" cost Edwards?

[cleveramerican]

35. here goes

the news cycle that followed the Iowa caucus, was dominated by Dean's scream, robbing Edwards of any bounce he must have hoped for after coming in second.

[madfloridian]

19. You know what?

I have been blasted here for posting about Dean more than some would like.

The other day one person implied my posting about him since he was not running in 08 was hurting others. I never figured that one out, and now this.

I have heard of most everything, but this is so weird it takes the cake.

And anyone speculating on this with you should be ashamed.

[AP]

20. I agree with that. At the time I thought that the Dean Scream was a story

created so that they wouldn't have to talk about Edwards.

[madfloridian]

25. In this thread people are blaming Dean for both Kerry and Edwards problems.

This is pathetic, and if it is indicative of 08, then I will make other choices.

It is so angering to see this continue.

Pathetic.

Poor Edwards, poor Kerry...it was all Dean Dean Dean's fault.

Pathetic.

[blm]

27. I don't blame Dean - I blame the media for lying about ALL of them.

I even say Dean was lied about the most after Iowa so the media could cover their own lying asses while blaming him.

[venable]

28. nobody's blamind Dean, they are blaming the media

for blowing the scream way out of proportion, thus taking the air out of Edwards chance at a big bump due to his surprising showing in Iowa. that's all. nobody has said a word against dean here.

the media coverage of a guy simply working his crowd was criminal in it's arrogance. it is the black mark of 04, outside of the theft of Ohio.

[Sparkly]

26. The media did make a ridiculous fuss over "the scream," BUT

I don't see how that impacted Edwards, especially "far more than any one else."

As I recall, the media gave him plenty of attention, and neither the RNC nor the media did much oppo on him.

[renie408]

36. I am not being intentionally obtuse, but you lost me

How did the Dean Scream hurt Edwards?

[cleveramerican]

38. got the votes, but not the bounce from them.

the news cycle in the days following Iowa was all about the scream.

[Jai4WKC08]

39. Silly revisionism

Edwards was below 5% in NH before the Iowa caucus. He ended up at 12% iirc. That's plenty of "bounce" out of Iowa -- more than deserved imo. He only came in second, and only that because Dean and Gephardt took each other out, and he cut a deal with Kucinich.