DU Dean supporters who think Dean lost fair and square check in...

[Endangered Specie]

Id like to know if there are any true Dean people (like myself) who accept that Dean lost, not by some vast conspiracy, or some supernatural incident or the like.

But instead, believe that he lost because the voters DIDNT vote for him as much as they did for others. That sorta thing happens.

[wryter2000]

1. I feel that way

I thought that the minute he didn't win big in Iowa it was over. Even before the "scream." He was an outsider and a rather unsual one (in good ways), at that. His only hope was to keep up his incredible success.

Having said that, though, the Osama commercial didn't help.

[Endangered Specie]

2. True, but mudslinging and smear is fair game nowadays.

[pezcore64]

4. of course

of course it was before Iowa.
He stated he wanted to break up big media corporations in early december.
I think thats explination enuff why the media assasinated him.

[ant]

3. I feel that way, too

The media crap is standard for any candidate, and while it certainly didn't help, in the end what matters is the voters didn't pick him.

I'm disappointed, but shit happens. Life goes on.

(Edited because I didn't realize I had stolen the post above me's subject line.)

[Stuckinthebush]

5. Present and accounted for!

Dean was my choice, but he lost it. I can be like Bush and find blame anywhere else, or I can place blame squarely on the shoulders of the campaign. He didn't make himself attractive to enough voters.

Oh, well...gotta get Bush however - or with whomever - we can.

[mzmolly]

6. I respect your right to that opinion, but the question is WHY didn't

voters who were heavilly favoring Dean only one month ago, vote for him in the Primary? ;)

Carry on.....

[vi5]

8. That's still ultimately a voter making their own decision...

You may not like how they came to that decision but all voters are adults over the age of 18 and empowered with the right to make the decision that they feel is in their best interest and the best interest of the country.

None of this is new. People not wanting to vote for Dukakis because of some stupid picture of him in a tank may not be "right" but it's also not a shadowy conspiracy. People not voting for Bob Dole because he was old and angry looking, or Gore because he was stiff looking and a scold may not be the most intelligent things to base a vote on but it's not a conspiracy.

If the exit polls didn't match the end results then I would think maybe something was up. But the fact is that people went in and made a decision for themselves and their vote. You may not like it but

[mzmolly]

32. Where do people learn about the candiates when making such decisions?

By watching the tele. I understand your point and I hold voters responsible for falling for the take down. But a take down it was, and unless we as Dean supporters see that, and act upon it by pursuing Dean's goal of breaking up the media monopolies, we can't ever have hope for an intelligent educated voting population.

The media controlls the minds of Merica, case in point - 70% of mericans supported the BS war. Need I say more? ;)

[HFishbine]

10. Right on

Sure, the majority of voters (including republicans where they were allowed) voted for someone other than Dean. But, Mzmolly is right, the real question is why?

[LittleDannySlowhorse]

14. At zero hour,

a lot of people get scared. I think a lot of people who supported Dean in theory and in the polls didn't feel he was safe choice when it came down to actually voting. People wanted to go for a safer bet. Perfectly understandable.

Voting for Howard Dean required belief that conventional wisdom regarding necessary "electability" attributes was wrong in this particular case. I thought it was wrong, myself --- I think he could have done it. But I think it was too much of a leap of faith for too many people, particularly with Bush in the White House. The stakes are too high this year for a lot of people to risk it.

Again, I don't agree with that point of view, but I can certainly understand where it was coming from.

[Kahuna]

29. Because the tape showing his dissing IOWA voters appeared?

True, the media dug it up. But they were Dean's own words. You can't blame the media for Dean's own words.

[mzmolly]

33. Do you think Dean was the ONLY candidate who had some vintage

quotes that could have turned off Iowa voters? NOPE, they simply dug and found the Dean take down material.

Dean was murdered by the media day in and day out, he was the only candidate who was.

However, I'd like to correct you, Dean did not insult Iowa voters, he had issues with the caucaus process, and now frankly so do I.

[WI_DEM]

7. if this is the case

where is the scrutiny in the last month of Kerry since he became the front-runner and prospective nominee? Dean went under months of examination and negative press. With Kerry all we have heard is that he is electable.

[George_Bonanza]

22. There has already been three big lies propagated against Kerry

First was the one that he had an affair with his intern. FALSE. The second was his Jane Fonda picture. FALSE. Third was his special interest money. FALSE. What more do you want? Remember that Dean rode the press wave for months before crumbling.

[not systems]

24. Agreed.

I hope Kerry has enough inside pull to hold his own in the
"main stream" media but the far right has and will continue
to attack him with no regard for facts.

[Kahuna]

30. That's the problem with front-loaded primaries...

The opportunity for vetting candidates isn't allowed.

Also, the "debates" were deplorable and accomplished nothing.

What I fear about Kerry is that the issues that normally influence voters have not been discussed--at all. Voters are flocking to Kerry and to a lesser degree Edwards, with no knowledge about where they really stand on controversial issues like the death penalty and gun rights.

[edzontar]

9. Your premise seems to be that we should not care how this or anything else

Ever actually happens or meant to anyone.

This "get over it" line is a mantra well known to me from my mother, who is the empress of all denial freaks.

I think it is ALWAYS worth examining excactgly HOW and WHY things work out the way they do.

For example, a murder is committed, or some other crime. Should we "care" who was responsible? Do we owe anything to the victim? To the family? To society" I say yes.

You say--"it's over"....I ask---"WHY are you saying this?"


But then, I am a historian, and thus stand in direct oppostion to the American garbage-disposal slacker-culture of "getting over it" and forgetting about stuff five minutes after it happens.

As historians, we endeavor to speak for the dead, or try to give voice to those who can no longer speak to us but might have something useful or moving to say.

We are guardians of memory, and thus stand in oppostion to the forget-about-it ideology that your post seems to reflect.

Remember.

Never Forget.

[vi5]

12. But doesn't historical analysis for a better future cut both ways?

For instance, history tells us how the media will behave. So if we know how they will behave and what types of things they will pounce on to hammer their approved message home, don't the people in question have some sort of culpability if they feed into that and don't take it into account?

Like it or not, that's how people vote in this country and that's how the media works. It's how bush was able to portray himself as a centrist. He knew which words, phrases, and subjects were going to be hammered on by the media and which might turn voters off. So he carefully avoided them except when speaking to the party faithful. Clinton did the same thing.

So if we know that the media will hammer and voters will be turned off by certain things, be they statements (however true) or mannerisms (however innocuous) or certain attitudes, then do we do those things anyway and simply complain about it even though we knew the game going in? Or do we temper those things, then get in an change the game from the inside?

[edzontar]

13. These are of course valid issues of interpretation.

My issue was with "get over it" and the like.

[dorktv]

17. So do you think there is a reason we Americans have

"historical amnesia?" I ask because I will mention something that happened ten years ago that I have just learned about (by reading a book or something) and get totally blank stares even though it was a major event for a month or more when it happened.

[edzontar]

18. Because this culture does not value the past. Or knowledge.

Or thought.

This nation was founded by people trying to get "away" from other places and make a new life.

With the advnet of commodity capitalism, the new life became the "NU LIFE", a thing with no past, only a present and future.

Knowing history makes you a geek. aloser. also you might start asking "qustions" about the things they give you in school, the jobs they let you do, or the candidates they let you vote for.

Knowledge of history is dangerous.

It provides one of the biggest threats to the BIG LIE.

[dorktv]

23. That explains "social studies" in high school instead of

history.

[not systems]

25. It is funny...

that the window of history narrows further and further.

Ancient history now includes last winters lead up to war
and the 2000 election.

The rest of the people have "moved on" I still want to
know what happened on 911 and with the WMD claims.

The Dean scream is now a foot note on a foot note.

The "United States of Amnesia" is a good name for this phenomena.

[edzontar]

26. Have you ever wandered in the DU archives?

You'd be amazed at how passionate and united this place was in the Fall of 2002.

History is something too many people want to forget.

[not systems]

28. Yep.

I started reading here in Fall 2002.

Things have changed.

Maybe because of the primary season but I think it
is part of the large culture of denial.

I am amazed that so many people don't believe in the
existence of propaganda and the roll it plays in shaping
the public mind.

[LittleDannySlowhorse]

11. I feel that way

I've never been much of a conspiracy theorist, myself.

[not systems]

15. More or less.

To whatever extent he was brought down by the media
it was his own naivety of the structures of power and
propaganda that left him open to their big guns.

He could have taken a tack away from the issue of
the war in November when it was obvious that the vast
majority of Americans love war and war makers.

He could have remained silent on the further aggregation
of media or acted like he supported it.

When you cross the river Styx you must pay the ferry man
he forgot this important rule.

He lost fair and square.

[eissa]

16. I'm not sure what happened either, but

I will not allow it to interfere with my objective in life since 2000 -- the ouster of this "president."

I don't know what happened in Iowa -- maybe with such a comfortable lead, people wanted more of a "competition." Maybe the ads took their toll. Maybe it was the DLC. But I'm generally not a conspiracy theorist, and although upset, I remain ABB. The whole premise of the primaries is that those who can withstand all the attacks stand a better chance of winning the GE.

[a_random_joel]

19. Yes and no

Clearly there was a media blitz against him. That said, he had opportunities that were botched as well.

I have very mixed feelings about the whole thing, but ultimately, I will support the nominee, which looks to be Kerry. And have absolutely no qualms whatsoever about it.

What's done is done.

[lastliberalintexas]

20. I guess it depends

on how you view the deals that were cut in Iowa. While I think the media had a role, I don't think they alone brought Dean down. But the coordinated attack campaign from Gephardt and Kerry, the Osama ad, and the deals to throw delegates to (basically) any candidate BUT Dean did hurt him and his campaign a great deal. People who think that only the media brought him down or that Dean didn't make mistakes are living in denial.

But to say that the delegate deals in Iowa are meaningless is to live in denial as well.

Is that a conspiracy? By a legal definition, yes (2 or more parties acting in concert to bring about an event or occurence). Take that for what you will.

[RetroLounge]

21. I think this is overly simplistic.

"But instead, believe that he lost because the voters DIDNT vote for him as much as they did for others. That sorta thing happens."

But you don't ask WHY they didn't vote for him.

Sure, it happens, but not in a vacuum.

RL

[jansu]

27. We Have the Power

the media which was following him gave Dean a T-Shirt which said:
ESTABLISHMENT MEDIA (on the front)
WE HAVE THE POWER! (on the back).

Says it all!

[Padraig18]

31. I feel that way.

The media replaying the scream, the Osama ad, etc., were all factors which contributed to Howard's defeat, but the bottom line was that the voters rejected him.

[banana republican]

34. We had a long discussion

in my caucus. These are are people who live within a few blocks of me. Believe me when I say there was no consperacy there just wasn't.

There was an open and well reasoned discussion of the issues. Our PCO was busy helping some of the other PCO's with their preceincts so she wasn't even around.

The number one issue was who can beat bush. Dean came across to some people as being too far left. I voted for Dean. the delegate count split 50/50; but the majaority voted for Kerry.