Undeniable truth that Dean is the most interesting candidate...

by far or the media is really trying to promote him:

what happened :shrug:

him, clark and liberman went ballistic :wow:

peace

if your candidate, Mr. Clark, made some news of his own, media would cover him. :shrug:

Dean has WORKED for this coverage. Don't doubt that for one minute.


If you do, you're blind and bitter.


Clark's just a bore. A snoozer if you will.

because he's worked his butt off for it!

his double chin apparently.

Seriously, is that the best ya got? :hi:

the media is the most comfortable studying Dean. And I would also say that the media monopolies need to be split up (as our constition rules against monopolies). And I would say that the media is pro-Bush, wouldn't you? And pro-Dean, wouldn't you? And that these media people if you will marched the American people into an illegal war, wouldn't you? And that the media is comprised of upper-middle class professional careerist journalists who have no knowledge of international law, the working poor, the dying diseased, the CIA attempts to overthrow the Venezualian government for oil, the intimidation of peace groups. These people want latte's for breakfast. Who do you trust? I trust Dennis Kucinich.

Come on guys lets get behind Dean, was he right on the war? Was he the only one not lead astray by right wingers into supporting the war? Most of the others were falling over themselves to sign on even before bush lite ask them.... I can't believe clerk (yeah clerk on purpose) gets as much support as he does here, a freaking ex general for gods sake... and everyone's ready to sign up.

:hi:

:eyes:
Anyways Kucinich spoke out against the war around or maybe the same time Dean did, I dont recall, I am suprised Clark gets support too as much as he does. I'll support Dean if hes the nominee, that cool with ya? oh and welcome, I am sorry its just I dont like the inferance that Dean was all alone on Iraq, when in fact we had people like my own candiate working hard against it as well.

maybe there's an inverse relationship between the amount of media coverage and a candidate's threat to the status quo. It sure as hell is not in the corporate media's interest to put any thought of real change into people's heads, now is it?

A thoughtful analysis is completely out of place in this thread.
How dare you?!
How dare you sir!?

:evilgrin:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/1000747.asp?vts=12320031545





Dean Stumbles Over Sealed Records
Dithering over telling the full story only intensifies furor


NEWSWEEK WEB EXCLUSIVE


Dec. 3 — Is Howard Dean ready for prime time? I’m not so sure after watching him handle—if that is the word—the issue that has taken possession of his campaign this week: the 10-year seal he placed on the records of his 12-year tenure as governor of Vermont.

snip--------

He’s managed to turn a one-day story into a week-long story, at least in Campaignland, and managed to generate curiosity and suspicion about exactly what the sealed papers contain.
---cut----

RECORDS COVER MANY TOPICS
My friend and Newsweek colleague Mike Isikoff ignited the issue. (The Isikoff byline alone is enough to make sure the story got attention.) It wasn’t news that Dean had had his records sealed, but Mike added new details: that Dean had sought and won an unusually long stay in the deep freeze for them; that the governor’s lawyers had demanded that any item with his name on it be removed from “live” files; and that the records covered a wide swath of topics, including Dean’s handling of the explosive issue of civil unions.

Politics: What’s in Howard Dean’s Secret Vermont Files?

Dean is no babe in the woods: Everyone knew what he was up to. He was burying what he could of his papers to keep them from the prying eyes and hands of the “oppo men”—opposition researchers for other Democratic contenders and, of course, the Republican National Committee. The proudly combative Dean admitted as much last January, telling Vermont Public Radio in teasing fashion, “Well, there are political considerations. We didn’t want anything embarrassing appearing in the papers at a crucial time in any future endeavor.”

A FLIP RESPONSE
Wink, wink.
Timing is everything in politics. Mike’s Periscope item in Newsweek hit the wires on Sunday. On Monday morning, Dean was asked about it on ABC’s “Good Morning America.” He gave a flippant—and, as it turned out, ill-informed—reply, arguing that he was doing nothing more than what George W. Bush had done at the end of his term in Texas. That’s hardly a strong argument to begin with, but the point is, it was factually wrong. Bush had tried to seal his records, but had ultimately failed, when the Texas attorney general ruled that they had to be placed in a public repository.
snip----

Dean’s public reaction to the mini-furor was revealing. When Matthews asked about the records, Dean—with a straight face—came up with this defiant howler: He had had the records sealed not to protect himself, God forbid, but to protect the privacy of HIV-AIDS patients. I think Chris was too stunned to laugh. As it turns out, the identity of such patients is automatically shielded; and, of course, Dean had long since gone on record with the refreshingly candid admission that the advent of the presidential campaign was the real reason.

cut and snip------

As for the original terms of the agreement to sequester his records, “I didn’t have anything to do with those negotiations,” Dean explained. Hardly a tough-guy answer, and an ironic moment. Just the night before, on “Hardball,” Dean had called President Harry Truman—the guy with “The buck stops here” sign on his desk—one of his heroes. It’s hard to imagine “Give ‘em Hell Harry” saying “I didn’t have anything to do with those negotiations.”

BFD!

How did George W. Bush deal with his gubernatorial records in Texas?

Our research indicates Dubya's done a better job than Dean of keeping his from public view.

When Dubya left office in Texas in 2000, he shipped his gubernatorial records to his daddy's presidential library on the campus of Texas A&M. According to Texas State Archivist Chris LaPlante, they were totally inaccessible to the public. There was no staff to catalogue them, said Laplante. And since "They were physically in a federal facility, they were subject to federal, rather than Texas, public-records law."

After complaints were made, said LaPlante, the attorney general ruled they should be shipped to the state archive for cataloguing. The Bush records arrived in Austin in August 2002. According to LaPlante, it's going to take another three years to complete the cataloguing. Then they'll be shipped back to daddy's library.

By Tuesday everybody, including two of Dean's Democratic rivals, was piling on. The New York Times' Jodi Wilgoren reported that "Mr. Bush's Texas records were moved back to state custody after a ruling from the attorney general, and an archivist for the state said the Bush records were available for viewing."

Archivist LaPlante called the above statement in the Times story "deceiving." While the Bush records are officially "viewable," said LaPlante, actually viewing them is another matter.

http://www.sevendaysvt.com/insidetrack

as "president"

Fundraising records, opting out of public financing, two major union endorsments, the confederate flag, sealed records, and everyone likes a good underdog victory story.

You have a link to C-Span and one to irregular times. I don't see that chart at either.

With the corollary being that interesting doesn't mean good.

Everyone can't get Dean off their minds. Even people who HATE dean with a passion talk more about Dean than their own candidate. What does that tell you?

Don't they realize that most people don't pay attention this early on in the primary season? But they are giving Dean the last thing that they should want him to get--name recognition.