Reply #67: "...and more analysis..."

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

1. Dean did make a flat, unqualified statement, denying that he said what was attributed to him.

This is where you go wrong. He's denying the mischaracterization of his words, not the words themself.

2. He did not explain how he was misinterpretated.

How do you know this? Read the article. Apparently the entire conversation on Dean's part was this:
"I never said that. I never said that," the man from Vermont insisted. "McCain claimed I said that on television. We called the station and said we never said that. This is the problem with LexisNexis. It's great, but it circulates urban legends and creates them and I had never said that. . . ."
What an odd conversation. What did the reporter say to Dean after he said this? What was Dean's subsequent rejoinder? It stresses the limits of credulity to believe that the entire conversation between Dean and the reporter was the aforementioned quote. The reporter is being disingenuous and leaving the reader without context for the conversation. It's impossible to make a valid judgment without the entirety of the conversation. Maybe Dean did say how he was mischaracterized, or maybe he didn't. The relating of the conversation is obviously truncated. You may be able to read the tea leaves but I can't.

3. He did not use this opportunity to demonstrate how crooked McCain's 'straight talk' really is.

See #2.

4. He did not use this opportunity to educate the American people the truth and morality of the statement: "the ends justify the means".

See #2.

5. He did not stand by his words and show courage.

See #2.


My point is that the article is severely lacking in detail. You're saying that Dean didn't do this and didn't do that. How do you know? I can guarantee you that the conversation didn't go like this, as portrayed in the article:

Dean: I want to quickly jump on you for a sec here. I never said that. I never said that. McCain claimed I said that on television. We called the station and said we never said that. This is the problem with LexisNexis. It's great, but it circulates urban legends and creates them and I had never said that. . .

Safire: <crickets>

Notice how Safire never quotes himself in the article. According to him, Dean came up to him and made a denial and then instead of responding Safire leisurely walked over to his computer and "Googled" his key words. Bullshit. Safire probably said "What are you talking about?" And then Dean said something that we'll never know.

It's a hit piece and it's bullshit.




PS- Sorry for the condescending remark.