Peter Hart 2004 Target Dean: Re-establishing the establishment. Now who is the 08 target?

[madfloridian]

We need to think about that question a lot, because they do it so very well and so very thoroughly. And as with Al Gore and Howard Dean, they are never really done with you. Never.

I happened on this today from FAIR's great coverage in 2004. I had forgotten just how very thorough they were. Light, shallow, stupid, but very very thorough.

Are they going to have a real target this time? Will it just be a matter of going from one candidate to another? How much will DU forums play into their spin?

It does not matter who you support. That is not the point of this. If you read these excerpts from this long media critique by Peter Hart....you will see the deepest darkest side of the media. They did it well, and Democratic forums in the last primary helped them by spreading the word and hating each other.

Target Dean:Re-establishing the establishment

Early reservations about Dean's candidacy were often framed as an ideological problem ("The Left's Mr. Right?" asked an August 11 Newsweek headline). Media impatience about the "cluttered" Democratic race relegated Dean to the margins, presumably on ideological grounds. Before a debate early in the campaign, NPR's Cokie Roberts lamented (4/28/03) that "some of the strongest voices are likely to come from Al Sharpton, Howard Dean, people who are not necessarily in the mainstream of the American voting public."

Oh, Cokie, so obvious.

Running against the party establishment is not a strategy likely to endear you to most political reporters, who view party insiders as their most valued sources and advisors. And Dean's coverage reflected this: "Dr. Dean is a scrappy if diminutive candidate who has commandeered attention with his antiwar platform and sometimes impolitic abandon," explained the New York Times (5/12/03). The paper added that "Dr. Dean enjoys the freedom that comes with being someone viewed as unlikely to win."

Even as a perceived fringe candidate, Dean worried the establishment press. New York Times reporter Matt Bai (6/1/03) warned about the damage he could do to the party: "The bad news for Dean's rivals, however, is that Democratic protest candidates have proved very effective at indelibly soiling whatever image the party is trying to convey at the moment."

Amazing, isn't it? "Protest candidates"..."unlikely to win"..."soiling party image".

Though the press corps initially exhibited genuine interest and amazement at the cyber-support for Dean's campaign, the novelty quickly wore off, and media began to dwell on the reservations of the Democratic Party establishment about the long-term viability of an insurgent candidacy. "The greatest fear among certain Democrats is that if Dean does win the nomination, his liberal supporters will put their Birkenstocks on the gas pedal and drive the party right over the cliff," explained Newsweek's Jonathan Alter (8/11/03).

...."Sometimes journalists seemed bothered by Dean's unconventional campaigning. The fact that Dean's wife Judith Steinberg was not traveling with him became a subplot in the Iowa coverage. New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd (1/15/04) wrote that the Deans "seem to be in need of some tips on togetherness and building a healthy political marriage, if that's not an oxymoron. Even by the transcendentally wacky standard for political unions set by Bill and Hillary Clinton, the Deans have an unusual relationship." Calling Steinberg "a ghost in his political career," Dowd suggested that Dean "could use a character witness on the road to vouch for his core values," closing her column with the command: "Physician, heal thy spouse."

When Steinberg began making appearances on the campaign trail, journalists breathed a sigh of relief. When Chris Matthews commented about hearing "so much buzz" about Steinberg's absence (Hardball, 1/19/04), NBC's Tim Russert explained that the campaign was "trying to round out some of the rough spots on Howard Dean. People are beginning to ask, 'What is this? Is he a loner? Is he an angry man who doesn't have a family that supports him? We want a president without a wife?' And so forth. They threw her out, got her in here right away." Tom Brokaw agreed: "A lot of American politics now are about cultural values, about family and whether you're comfortable with the people that are there. And so Howard Dean couldn't just run as an angry man."

They are the heroes of the people.....Russert, Matthews, and Brokaw. Words from them are hung on by Americans. We could change it but we don't. In fact they are often quoted here.

All of that, and I was only about 1/3 of the way down the article by Peter Hart. It's amazing how they do it. It is also terribly scary.

You know something is very wrong when the media for seven years has protected a incapable fool like Little Boots. Yes, the media does protect him. They run to little George's rescue every time he starts looking foolish again. They pump him up like a good little media.

I have not even covered how the media treated and still treats my president Al Gore. They talk of him in muted tones, like oh, my, is that man back on the scene again?

They ignored his Nobel Peace Prize just as thoroughly as they could. Hardly mentioned it. They still insult him every chance they get.

It is going to keep on happening.

I will never get over the way the Florida media has covered for the Florida Democrats so completely and so thoroughly. It has been an amazing and scary thing to see. Florida got pouty during the IA and NH primaries, and the press started attacking the party chairman again....just because they can.

I do not trust anyone much anymore. That is the fault of the media in part. But it is also the fault of those who don't speak and defend those who are working for us.

It is like being an observer at a political drama playing on the stage in front of us. We start to believe we might be part of that drama, but then we get hit back into reality.

So, who is the next one? Just one of our Democrats? All of them? Probably the latter.

[terisan]

1. You got it. Why do we have Chris Matthews groupies-they profess to hate but alsway watch.

what is the answer to getting the media off out backs?

[madfloridian]

2. We could stop falling for stuff like that....but we won't.

I think the blogs have come a long way since even 2004. They are stronger now, and some are getting invited onto the shows.

Why? Because they found out their viewership rises.

The media picks their targets. Who will it be this time?

[madfloridian]

3. 60% of Americans agreed with the "Saddam gaffe"...yet tragically

his own party blasted him out of the water.

Why mention it? Because the same kind of stuff is being used right here at this forum against all our good Democrats. It is a sin.

From the OP link:

"The New York Times, which co-sponsored that very poll, treated its findings as almost an afterthought to the main storyline. A December 19 story, "Some Democrats Uneasy About Dean as Nominee," conveyed the feeling among many party leaders that Dean wasn't the best candidate. According to the Times, "their worry has been heightened anew, they say, by Dr. Dean's statement this week that the capture of Saddam Hussein 'did not make America safer.'"

Several paragraphs later, the Times did finally mention this salient point: "The latest New York Times poll showed that the capture improved Americans' view of President Bush and his handling of the war but also that 60 percent said the United States was as vulnerable to terrorist attack as before the capture." In other words, most Americans agreed with Dean's "gaffe" (as did, apparently, the Bush administration, which raised the terrorism warning from yellow to orange about a week later)."

Watch them do stuff like this again, watch for the words, watch for the clucking and warnings from the media who does no research and relies on us to do it for them.

:shrug:

[madfloridian]

4. Kick for keeping our eyes on the media, and on each other

in case we use their rhetoric. In case? We are using it here against each other. Even News Max rhetoric is used to attack others.

[road2000]

5. I know. I agree.

I migrated over here from a longtime perch at another good site, where the community was slicing and dicing one another alive in early 2004.

It's just as bad this cycle, and it has seemingly infected civil discussion at all progressive sites, including DU.

[madfloridian]

6. It is painful to watch.

I have often said that it has carried over, the vitriol from 2004 primaries. People still attack each other here based on who they supported in that primary. Friends were banned from here, never allowed back.

I see 04 happening again, but worse in many ways.

[tnlefty]

7. Error you can only recommend threads started within the past

24 hrs.! Dang it.

You know the answer to your question about who is the next one (s). How much coverage did Dodd, Richardson, Biden, Kucinich and Edwards receive in the months going into IA and NH? Why is the media still ignoring Edwards and calling him angry? The media pushed a 2 candidate race of "firsts", and they continue to do so.

Why has the Chamber of Commerce declared war on populists and populism? Why is the DLC only recognizing 2 candidates in the race for the nomination and discounting Edwards? The DLC is thrilled that none of these candidates (Clinton and Obama) supports single payer health care which is talked about by Kucinich.

Thanks for another excellent post.

[madfloridian]

10. Appreciate the thought.

Yeh, I am afraid I already know the answer. But we still fall for it.

:hi:

[spag68]

8. Media

This really is a good post about the media. My idea on the whole thing is this, we should care about all 3 of our candidates who are left. Further we should encourage all of them to stay in the race all the way to the convention. Why, you might ask, the answer is simple, if they< the rovite assholes> don't know who to attack until then it may be to late for them to slander our eventual candidate. In order to beat them we have to think of what they will do and be ready to counter it. Most of all we can't let our choice keep us from supporting the nominee. It's most important to try to influence all of them to be more progressive, that is our best tactic here. As an aside, I'm off to St. Pete soon and I know I will enjoy the action there first hand.

[madfloridian]

9. Good thought....keep the media busy deciding who to attack.

This time we know what they are capable of doing. Last time we were caught off guard at the viciousness. So we need to speak up and be aware and watch for words like ones in that article.