Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

and they will continue to do this. I am sick of the media trying to pick our nominee. That said, welcome to the club.

it's either totally ignoring or a misrepresentation of what the candidate actually said or did. and i don't mind and i'm sure kerry doesn't mind discussing the iwr vote but it's them not giving his side and just makeing up something i have a problem with. but i'm sure kerry knows he can't depend on the media, and in fact the media would work as the opposition.

and they know it. You won't see Gary Hart or Joe Wilson on tv much anymore, not since they joined Kerry's team. Nor Rand Beers or William Perry. The only way they get back on the tube is if Kerry is the nominee and the media CAN'T ignore them anymore.

And Kerry isn't very experienced with stepping on Democrats to glorify himself as the centrist candidates in the race who are long accustomed to knocking the liberals around.

I haven't seen any of the debates (except one), so I can't comment on how he has been treated there. (Except that in the one I saw, he was treated fairly. It was the one in New Mexico.)

Kerry's campaign just hasn't caught on. He doesn't stand out in any particular way and so does not inspire people to make him their first choice.

At least that's the impression I get.

--Peter

is doing all it can to damage ALL of the candidates. By ignorring some of them, muddying up their views, etc. This is just the beginning.

and doggone it, I like him!

though kerry and nobody else has what clinton has, but kerry is still very smart. bill clinton got kerry's help on many foreign policy issues.

Those who vote in primaries are people who carefully follow the issues and are well informed. They attacked Bush, Clinton, Gore, Dole, etc and all were nominated. The thing to watch for is what goes on in the election itself. Overall the media have much more power then because the swing voters and the terminally disengaged are watching their personal favorite media spokeweasel to form an opinion.

That is when the networks will help us and talk radio and Faux will help the repugs.

Both my mother and I were in the Kerry camp last year.Both of us watched quite a few speeches of his and both came away less than impressed with what we saw as trying to play every issue safe,trying to please all sides and being afraid to offend ANYONE.I've seen nothing in the time since then that has overcome that impression,in fact every time I watch him it only get's reinforced.

Would he make a good prez? I believe he would.Is he just another politician? I believe he is.

Anyone but the Republicans favorite candidate, Howard Dean.

Put clark under the glass and he will be knocked over with a feather.

As for Kerry, no one marginalizes Kerry better than Kerry. What a clod.

Put Clark under the glass and you see a diamond. I know that's difficult to ascertain from our ADD affected press and their love of the 5 second sound byte, but it's true.

when it serves them to see it.

But they could rip Clark a new one coming in either direction based on his past political alliances, his lack of experience and his controversial military record. In fact, the press has been somewhat easy on Clark and he keeps his head down. Only Edwards is taking nasty jabs.

No politician is immune from this UNLESS there is a concerted effort by the press to protect a politician who serves their interests. How else do you suppose we got in this ongoing mess with Bush and the thugs he rode in with for so long without strong press condemnation??

I swear....does the name Pavlov ring a bell?

The media should lay of CLarks apparent problems with free speech and property ownership rights. Even though he lines up with John Ashcroft on the issue.

Was he the least bit self depricating?

They can attack you for being paranoid, while complaining about how Dean is being victimized by (pick one or more) the media/DNC/DLC/insiders/Kerry/Clark/Edwards/Sharpton/Lieberman/Gore/Gephardt/Dan Rather/Oprah/Krusty the Clown/etc

So far the only people bringing up Dean are other candidates supporters.

Huh...go figure :shrug:

as well as a few others.

I did miss that.

and post #23

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

That's hard enough without having to be gracious at the same time.

And it was very gracious of you to accuse me of something while ignoring the facts.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Should I bow down and beg for forgiveness from the almighty Sangha

Put it this way - It's not required, but it wouldn't hurt.

I apologized for my mistake,I meant the apology and I still apologize for making it. I read the posts as they are listed,not in numerical order.I hadn't seen those yet.I should have read the whole thread before responding but I didn't.

But you won't put the effort into changing your act so that it doesn't happen again. I remember another time you falsely responded due to not reading all of the thread. It's hard to believe an apology is sincere when the person making it has done the same thing before.

If you can show me where I've done it before I'll be happy to apologize for that as well.If not I think it's you that owes me an apology this time.Of course that's what a real class act would do.

My apology is on standby.

I won't name them (though I ought to) is any sort of concession or admission of even the most obvious mistake in fact or reason. Asking for (or having an apology graciously accepted) on a substantive matter is even more unusual on this board, which I think is too bad.

I'll spare you my analysis as to why- I just note this as an observation over 2 1/2 years at DU.

Um, er, I thought this thread was started as a discussion of Kerry's "victimization."

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Kerry had the opportunity to gather up voters while Dean was campaining. He refused because his campaign felt that Dean's rise would help Kerry. I think this is because Kerry viewed Dean as an insurgent candidate, and most insurgents are thrown off the campaign trail in the end (Reagan was different though). I could understand his logic by employing this tactic, but this time it is different. This time, there is a strong social network to support Dean. Thanks to the power of the internet, a candidate can stay afloat for a very long time and also plan out campaign tactic. I don't think Kerry understood this really.

Dean was a blip on the poll that turned a small campaign into a beast that is plowing through all traditional history like the "chok n' awe" campaign in Baghdad.

The only person I could really think that the media is trying to marginalize is Clark. The New Republic is beating him down AND Faux news emotes the perception that they are hoping Clark does not get any traction.

You mean the 16% Dean is getting is a historic high?

In which universe?

...like that because it WAS goofy. I'm sorry, but it was. Dean strumming a guitar collecting change for his campaign was a lot more natural than Kerry busting through a security block on a motorcycle. And you think Stewart's gonna ease up on a 60-year-old on a motorcycle, c'mon. That's just whining.

On the IWR, he's the only one being gaslighted for it because Edwards and Gephardt are afterthoughts in the eyes of the media. Kerry can still win, hence he's getting the coverage.

Later.

RJS

no matter who does them.Didn't we learn anything from Dukakis riding in that tank? Be yourself or be no one.

A "stroke of genius"?

No, I didn't. It was a funny little joke of Dean begging for spare change on a street corner.

Later.

RJS

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Deeeeeeeeeeeal.

Later.

RJS

If you were "just answering", then why did your response include a question mark?

It's obvious you thought I was talking to you. You should get over yourself. It's not about you.

Hrrrrrmph. ;) I made a mistake. Please forgive me, I beg of you. :eyes:

Later.

RJS

The word ALL is a pretty strong qualifier dont you agree?

.

What I said would obviously cover Deans guitar playing that seems to have you all hot under the collar.

:freak:

What made Dean's endearing is that it was self depricating. He was making fun of himself. As usual, he's just him.

I wanna see Kerry on Leno. I understand he didn't too badly at all. I love to see D's take on that smirking, chinny MF.

It's just the beginning was so dorky it threw off everything else. Plus, Kerry joked about comparing his and Leno's chins, and it just seemed like "Ooooh, now I'm a funny guy!" Kerry Gone Wild, funny, I Have the Same Chin as Leno, not funny.

Later.

RJS

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I think that the media has established Kerry as the mainstream Dem candidate who's primary purpose is to stand in opposition to Dean's "radical" candidacy.

Personally, I'm a Dean supporter, but I wonder whether it is better for Kerry to have a good amount of generally critical media coverage, or whether he would prefer to be like Kucinich, Mosley-Braun, or Edwards, who seem to be getting almost no coverage whatsoever.

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

it's Dean's turn, now.

I'm not sure there's a media bias in "favor" of anyone, really. Their main concern is to make a race of it - to "make" news. A runaway campaign isn't very interesting, newswise.

It's politics as sporting event - keep the game close until the 4th quarter.

describing the media rush to declare Dean the winner.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34348-2003Nov12.html

<edit>

Some journalists defend the hype, particularly in light of Dean's decision to raise a boatload of cash rather than accept the restrictions that come with public financing of his campaign. "His money advantage is so prohibitive that it's a reasonable judgment to make to say he's a prohibitive favorite," said Mark Halperin, ABC's political director. To be sure, Halperin said, Dean is "a flawed and inexperienced candidate in many ways," but by the time the opposition unites behind someone else, "Howard Dean's rear tail lights might be off in the distant future."

The pumped-up press is justified, says Wall Street Journal columnist John Harwood, because "Dean has managed to be both the spunky outsider candidate drawing a lot of emotional support from people and the huge front-running fundraiser. That almost never happens." But although the positive headlines could help Dean "by hurting other people's fundraising and juicing up his backers, the negative would be if you get expectations up really high and he has something bad happen to him."

Others sound a note of caution. "The press overvalues two things in politics: money and endorsements," Time columnist Joe Klein says. "Both are kind of important, but so much of this is driven by other factors, and Dean hasn't really been tested yet. Questions about Dean's disposition and character are going to have to be answered. Things can turn around incredibly quickly, especially in a situation where the public hasn't tuned in yet."

Oh right -- the public.

History suggests that sometimes the media get too far out in front. On the eve of the 1984 New Hampshire primary, a front-page New York Times story declared: "Walter F. Mondale now holds the most commanding lead ever recorded this early in a presidential nomination campaign by a nonincumbent, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll." Mondale's 57-percent-to-7-percent margin over Gary Hart meant little, though, as Hart trounced Mondale in New Hampshire and the former vice president barely hung on to win the nomination.

more...

"Questions about Dean's disposition and character are going to have to be answered."

I assume that by "disposition" he's primarily talking about the confederate flag incident - specifically, Dean's refusal to immediately apologize to Edwards and Sharpton and the whole "if you get in my face, I don't back down" attitude.

Isn't this exactly the attitude that seems to appeal to so many people in Bush?

What specifically is questionable about Dean's character?

Whatever problems were caused by Kerry were exacerbated by a palapable media antipathy to him, starting with the Boston Globe's bizarre obsession with Kerry's ethnicity. Karl Rove couldn't have asked for better cooperation from the fifth column--I mean the fourth estate.

paranoid? no. It's real.

A Dean supporter agreeing? I can imagine the heads exploding across the globe.

And I saw media collusion in the undermining of Kerry that preceded his IWR vote.

I'm not disagreeing with you. I was just commenting on how your objectivity wil certainly blow the minds of people who might say "Dean supporters are fanatics".

I was just amplifying my thoughts on the subject. I'm personally very disappointed in Kerry's difficulties getting traction. He was my first choice before the IWR, and I think he's a good guy. I voted for him in his first run for the Senate. I was proud of him during the Iran-Contra and BCCI gigs. So I've been noticing how negative the coverage of him tends to be. It's the same old Washinton insider bullshit that dogged Gore. Some candidates develop this aura of vincibility that somehow makes journalists feel impunity to pile on on. The number of times journalists openly expressed disgust for Gore was a sickening revelation of the shallowness of this class of journalist. They're the same ones who, beta wolf-like, think it's safe to attack Kerry.

about how objective Dean's supporters are. Meanwhile, he ignores the irrational conclusions of other Deanies, like Forkboy who thought none of Deans' supporters were criticizing Kerry in this thread even though there were several instances of it.

Meanwhile, "objective" observers like Hep, have decided that decided that the use of props (ex. Kerry's Harley, Dukakis' tank ride, etc) are bad ideas, but Dean's guitar stunt was good because it was "self-deprecating". Self-deprecation is a widely recognized inoculator.

I haven't seen the Kerry campaign working to get Kerry's positions and ideas out. Virtually all I've seen is them trying to make him look cool to try and pull people in that way. Kerry's campaign has been behaving like Beauty Contest Agents and that's why he's doing awful. Kerry is not what I would call "cool", and when he tries to look that way it's just lame. It honestly reminds me of a mid-life crisis. On the issues and his positions he's been cautious and hasn't come out strong enough...except for his recent statements on gun control, which is going to prove to be a kiss of death in NH, which is extrememly pro-gun. The media is just reporting what they see...a candidate everyone expected a lot from who has not lived up to those expectations.

do you remember how much they did cover the cost of his haircuts ? this was at the same time kerry went after bush for selecting kissinger to head the investigation into 9/11 but they made no mention of that.

When what he really said was "I hate going to places like Dubuque to whore myself for campaign cash", or something to that effect.

with those huge headlines and the story being about things like kerry having swiss on his cheese steak.

I like Swiss cheese, not sure I'd have it on a cheesesteak sub, but for God's sake, shall we nitpick all of his tastes?

http://www.thetoughdemocrat.com/archives/000195.html

and this blog entry covers the "Goring" of Kerry quite well.

God forbid someone isn't totally aware of all local customs throughout the land....though swiss does seem counter-intuitive :)

... it's amazing how many vultures there are in the media, Drudge being most prominent. "Daintily" eating a dang foreigner Swiss-cheese steak sub? How petty and low can you get?

just attacked Dean for being unphotogenic enough...somehow I dont think unfair attacks are a concern when s/he's the one making them.

But if you really want my opinion, I don't think Dean is very telegenic, either. I don't say that to pick on him - I like him a lot - but that's just how I see it. A big part of the President's job is on TV.

it's not as bad as it is with Kucinich and Sharpton. Kerry shouldn't, and doesn't, expect to be entitled to front-runner status. I think he said on Leno that he has to earn his support. If it wasn't on Leno, it was somewhere else he said it.

only thing kerry complained about was the media not focusing on issues. what's wrong with that? and he has said if he doesn't win then it's ok.i can't remember exactly what he said but he certainly understands it's not owed him. and agree about kucinich and sharpton. and don't forget edwards.

drawing, quatering and disembowling Dem candidates by the media. You know, it's like when a candidate says they want to get rid of Bush's tax cuts and the media say "OH YOU MEAN YOU ARE GOING TO RAISE TAXES??--and then they beat that goddamn drum over and over and over and over, no matter how many times a candidate makes it crystal clear what he's talking about. And why do you think they do it??...because they are out to destroy anyone who they think may be strong against Bush. And once we have a nominee, even if it's a nominee who couldn't win his own mother's vote, they will go into full blow to seek, ravage and destroy "just in case". They will leave no Dem standing. I can tell you how they will destroy Howard if he should be the candidate. They don't have to go at him now. If he becomes the nominee, you will hear them say absolutely nothing about him except: Howard Dean, the Democratic nominee for president, who will bring gay marriage to your neighborhood. Want to bet??---and want to bet that will lose every state in the union with the exception of a couple Northeast states (maybe) and California. They know what they can put in the sheeps' water to make them turn against a candidate with fangs dripping. Want to put money on it???????????????

to force one specific candidate on us. And that candidate is not Kerry.

It stinketh.

...because Media Inc.'s primary concern is to make it seem as if there are continuous bits of "breaking news" regarding the primary race so that people are sure to stay tuned to hear the latest. What is not their primary concern is the ability of the American Democratic public to make an informed choice about which candidate they will support.

From his disastrous pro-IWR vote, to his incessant and flatuous attacks on Dean, Kerry has worked very hard to see that he loses his bid in record time. I don't think the "media" can be blamed for that.

Dean was smeared all over the front of USA Today yesterday for his perceived angry temperment. Front page photo and all of the most unflattering shot they could find.

You are only sensitive when it is directed at your own preference.

Not only does the media intentionally seek to sensationalize all stories to sell papers but they act against those who are seen as not acting in their interests. They aren't going to promote politicians who threaten to regulate their limits of power - they prop up those who support their interests. They have as much at stake in this as Enron did in influencing energy policy.

He's decidedly un-photogenic IMO, and though seemingly unimportant, could lose him a possibly critical handful of votes in a general election.
And though Kerry is arguably not without his detractors, at least he's tall.

...shots of Kerry that look like he's, in the words of Jon Stewart last night, "decomposing and wanting brains...BRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAINS!"

Later.

RJS

appearance.

And it is telling that while you whine about perceived mistreatment of Kerry you then rally behind the smearing of Dean. Can't say I respect it.

When it comes to Kerry, it's "perceived mistreatment", but when it's Dean, it's "smearing" (see post #10)

depends on who is doing the perceiving.

I don't think criticism of Kerry's position on IWR is mistreatment, but I do think attacks on Dean's appearance are, considering the source.

that you wont use against Dean in some way? And you complain about unfair shots at Kerry like the cheesesteak crap? Why are you being so hypocritical?

.

A long record and some complicated explanations for his stances.

...IMAGINE if the "Liberal Media" decided to scrutinze every move Bush made during his 2004 campaign (the one he is running right now)

I'd like more media stories on Bush's staff, Bush's fundraisers. Bush's remarks.

A "balanced" media- one can always dream...

He is just an incompetent presidential candidate. His organization has been rocky from Day 1. He doesn't need the media to marginalize him when he has done a fantastic job doing that to himself.

.

being particularly unkind to Dennis Kucinich and Al Sharpton. Not surprisingly, Kucinich and Sharpton would do more for the average citizen than any of the other candidates would, and they'd make life a bit less cushy for the rich. Kucinich would also break up monopolies, including media monopolies.

I think they decided to see if they could bring Kerry down just for the hell of it and then realized they could use up a lot of airtime doing post-mortems on"Why Kerry's Campaign Failed."

If Kerry had been given anything like the coverage Dean has been given, he'd be polling much, much better. They've lavished attention on Dean. Clark got some of the same sort of intensive coverage for a time but it didn't last.

I find it all very depressing, as if everything is scripted.

Concerted sounds paranoid. I just think the media is clueless, and generally doesn't like to work hard. They've decided that Dean is the story, and why cover anyone else. Of course, these same morons said that Dubya was unassailable a few months ago - so you'd think that they would have been properly humbled, and absorbed the lesson.

Why ask Dean how his position on Iraq ranged from Cowboy Dubya-ish (the Salon quote) to dedicated internationist (PBS Newshour quote) over a mere 29 days in January-February 2003 (a full four months after the vote that he criticizes Kerry, Edwards and Gephardt for)?

Personally, I think than anything that people in this country claim is evidence of a conspiracy is better explained by either stupidity or chronic inattention.

Still, the media are the gatekeepers in this society, and they need to do a better job - and they need to be constantly reminded of that. The Republicans have done an excellent job at getting their attention. It's time that we matched their effort.

Like much of the electorate in this country, the media is much less aware than they imagine they are.

I think they want Dean...

It's all Dean, all the time now. Should he be the nominee, it'll go back to Bush 24/7.

Check out a more nuanced view:

http://www.hermes-press.com/HDean/dean_republican.htm

EDIT: The whole post

you 'da man- and so is Kerry!

he should fold.

No, I don't think the media has marginalized Kerry, he just ran a lousy campaign. Sorry, I like the man, I want him in office, but he lacks the political savvy to be president. He's a good man, a mediocre politician.

because he never had the experience or the heart to attack fellow Democrats.

Dean, OTOH, had attacked the progressive Democrats his entire career in Vermont while aligning with the GOP pigs there. He wouldn't think twice about dumping on Democrats.

Perhaps it will get better now.

Media goes where ever it is easiest to report on a "big story". They have a bias towards laziness. Dean's people have been feeding them regularly. So that is where they go.

Kerry needs to stop sulking in the woods, stop focusing on Dean, take the initiative and get out in front on some issues. Not just the simple theoretical ones (about what he might do if he ever gets elected), but show some actual leadership in the Senate (you know, his workplace, where he actually has been elected).

He needs to spend more time and effort on convincing us to vote for him and less telling us not to vote for Dean. He needs to remember that there are alot of options out there. Talking someone out of voting for Dean may just mean they vote for Clark instead.

No----he is doing that all by himself!

Speaker: Senator John Forbes Kerry (MA)
Title: Commission Decision May Violate Laws Protecting Small Businesses; Kerry to File Resolution of Disapproval
Location: Washington, DC
Date: 06/02/2003

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.

Corporate McPravda will do all it can to destroy somebody. Besides small planes, the best way to get rid of a Presidential candidate these days is to have the media put him or her on "IGNORE." That way, no one learns enough to give a damn.


Two rules of Advertising:
I. Any publicity is good publicity.
II. No publicity is bad publicity .

Catalysts to speed the process:
I. Smear the candidate first.
II. Repeat smear frequently.

And shame on those Dems who cooperate with the media and BushInc.