Ever get the feeling you've been cheated?

Seeing as how the pundits and party elite have worked overtime to destroy a populist candidate and ensure that a pro-war Bush enabler wins tonight?

We got week after week of talk of Dean's gaffes and unelectibility. Has any primary candidate ever had their words analyzed to this extent? Did Tim Russert and friends hold Dumbya to this standard in 2000? Has anyone brought up Edwards' abysmal performances on Hardball where he was all over the map? Where are the photos of Gephardt in the rose garden with the 'miserable failure" he would have us believe he opposes now?

I can't think of any candidate ever who has been demonized to this level so early. Apparently, a lot of folks in the powers that be had a real problem with voters defying the pre-established 'choices' we were given.

Hopefully, people can see this for what it is

Look at Harkin, he voted for the IWR.

Then look at the media flexing its muscles to tear him down.

Over nothing.

Over

and over

and over.

I'll have some soda cuz I don't drink...

I still think Dean will do fine tonight. Too many people want their country back to fall for all the crap.

edited to avoid the appearance of incivility.

It's going to be okay. It really is. I have a good feeling. :)

I don't know of any other pro-war candidates. I do know ONE 100% anti-war candidate, Dennis Kucinich. Everybody else said Saddam had WMD and needed to be held accountable, by war if necessary. But doing it the right way if it became necessary, not unilaterally and certainly not lying us into it.

Nobody demonized Dean. The bombs came out of his own mouth. People around here tried to warn that the far-left rhetoric wouldn't fly... but no, we didn't know what we were talking about...

Kerry voted FOR the war. Gephardt voted FOR the war. Edwards voted FOR the war. And of course Lieberman voted FOR the war.

Were they misled by the Chimp? Sure. But did they demand that he produce irrefutable evidence before they gave him approval? NO.

And so yes, they enabled Bush. And they cannot justify that away. They bear responsibility for surrending their constitutional authority to that unelected fascist piece of shit.

lying, murdering low class spawn of the devil's minions!!!!!!!!!

Dean '04...

I would *hope* that these men have some sort of critical thinking ability. Didn't most of them study law?

... believe that crap for a minute. Bush* had already established how he operated.

These were politically expedient votes and that is all. And no amount of flowery bullshit will ever convince me otherwise.

Or, maybe they were listening to General Clark's testimony in Sept 2002. You know, where he said Saddam had WMD, that the sanctions were crumbling, that we had to move forward and get the UN to hold Saddam accountable, that it may take force at some point. Hmmm.

my gawd, we are talking about intelligence so convincing that clinton believed it.

or so he says:

MATTHEWS: If you think the decision, which was made by the president, when basically he saw the French weren’t with us and the Germans and the Russians weren’t with us, was he right to say, “We’re going anyway”?

EDWARDS: I stand behind my support of that, yes.

MATTHEWS: You believe in that?

EDWARDS: Yes.

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about-Since you did support the resolution and you did support that ultimate solution to go into combat and to take over that government and occupy that country. Do you think that you, as a United States Senator, got the straight story from the Bush administration on this war? On the need for the war? Did you get the straight story?

EDWARDS: Well, the first thing I should say is I take responsibility for my vote. Period. And I did what I did based upon a belief, Chris, that Saddam Hussein’s potential for getting nuclear capability was what created the threat. That was always the focus of my concern. Still is the focus of my concern.

So did I get misled? No. I didn’t get misled.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3131295/

anti-war purists.

Because if we aren't casting our votes based only on the Iraq war, or are perhaps looking at the entirety of a candidates record, or dare I say it based on whether that person as a whole is appealing to us, then we must just be plumb bamboozled by the right wing media. Because the answer couldn't possibly be just that people aren't that nuts about the candidate you are supporting.

I don't support any candidate at this point other than the one that our party nominates to beat Bush.

But if your approach is to insult the intelligence of people who aren't yet enamored of your candidate, then good luck with that approach.

by implying that "pundits and party elites" control our decisions. This is one of the fundamental flaws in the Dean campaign - the arrogance implied in the us vs. them mentality. The constant condescending attitude. It really works against Dean.

but when a candidate rides high in the polls for months and then, immediately following a month-long media barrage of condescending, head-shaking pollsters and so-called democrats with their republican-esque terra ads, sees that support drop just enough to keep the establishment in power, i can't help but marvel at the susceptibility of people to PR

the mccain-dean analogy is perfect. now we may be left with a lackluster bush-enabling 'centrist' who won't be be able to speak without help from his handlers and will fail to excite the base

comes from the "base".

I don't. I think Dean's core support is mostly reactionary.

I don't know who you're referring to as a "bush-enabling centrist".
Dean has often described himself as a centrist, so I don't understand what you're trying to say.

As for PR and susceptibility, have you ever stopped to think that maybe YOU'VE been sold a bill of goods?

anyone who voted for dumbya's ilegal invasion, for one

dean gave this party back its soul and optimism, following mcaulliffe's fuck-up in 2002

finally someone exposed 'conventional wisdom' for the sham that it was

For a long time, it was activists who were paying attention, and they supported Dean. But when real numbers of people started paying attention - people that aren't so devoted to the idea of a movement or that have different priorities than the average activist or who don't like being told who the frontrunner is by the media that ran story after story about Dean - not as many people wanted to support him.

His support wasn't a mile wide and inch deep - it was an inch wide and a mile deep. But when the whole field opens up, it was still only an inch or so wide.

Ugh. Bad analogy. But you get the point.

cuz', after all, we're all smarter than to believe all of that nonsense, right?

Truth is, unless folks are COMPLETELY cynical about what the media tells them (and that level of cynicism is exhausing), smears work. A number of folks here might have that level of cynicism, but most "normal" folks don't.

I do feel cheated by the big money candidates and the Corporate Media who gave them just enough press to tear them down when they wanted to.

Now that DK's got an in with the DLC.

for you to suggest that just because Dennis and John decided to team up towards common goals, Dennis' life long record of fighting for progressive values is mute. He has put his political career on the line for the good of the people and yet this alliance, which could serve to promote all the of values he has fought for makes him evil?

What a shame you have brought to one of the best Democrats in the party, Paul Wellstones' close friend and ally, and a truly principled person.

Shame on you!

DK's the man. No one can say shit about DK- even if he is bargaining with Edwards.

And my previous post was meant to be sarcastic.

You've gotta be kidding me...

a dean supporter say, you should be ashamed of yourself. You do no honor to your candidate at all in making such a nasty claim.

Just because Kucinich didn't throw in with dean you want to lable him as a DLC wanna be?

I truely hope other dean supporters would not position themselves to your level.


And then there were none!
” JAFO”

The closest thing was Gary Hart on a cruise ship.

facts are... ah, skip it.

as I intended it?

I think I had that issue. Only figure that pops into my head.

The game hasn't even started yet. Polls are dubious in their construction.

9-11-01, definitely not since the drumbeat to Iraq.

McCain was clearly the choice of the rank-and-file while Bush was the choice of the Establishment. When McCain began to win and to threaten to take the nomination, the Establishment squashed him like a bug.

The Osama/Dean ad and the environmental smears against Dean are nearly carbon copies of the smears Rove used against McCain. People like Trent Lott and Pat Robertson did their bit by spreading the rumor that McCain was mentally unbalanced and could not be trusted as Commander in Chief.

Except Dean has more money and a stronger organization so it's been an even more incessant drumbeat.

They are working for bush. Just wait until Wesley Clark starts pulling ahead in the polls, they will attack him too. Bush wants to run against one of the enablers. Their response to everything will be: "why did you vote for it".

In about an hour and half the naysayers are gonna have a big F-you coming at them.

On edit: Great post, by the way. Keep the faith. Things are going to work out. We've got great, dedicated, well-principled people out there, working for our country and us.

...And those who quote them.

though i'm more of a PIL man myself, I agree with your sentiments wholeheartedly

because it's the worst I've ever seen it this early. Usually Iowa got little coverage, just a few press on the ground/pundits. Not like this where the rhetoric is so ratchet.

They are going after all our candidates as they did with Gore, but the "Vicious Machine/Attack Dogs" are really experienced and totally control the media now. They revel in it! In just three years we have total control. Big Bucks and threats about "Patriotism" buys alot.

Some of us who just don't have the stomach left will have to rely on the internet for it all. Forget turning the tube on. It's the ENEMY! :grr:

every day i fell that my decision to disconnect my cable after the msnbc donahue-scarborugh switch was one of the wisest moves i've made.

televison journalism is dead. anyone who saw the smarm-dripping panel on Meet the Press sunday knows what I mean

That if some Dean supporters don't get their coronation, we are going to be subjected to a conspiracy-laden whinefest of epic proportions?

in Oct. 2002. Dean picked it up. :shrug:

in Iowa disagree.

Dean isn't the only candidate running. And he never had a huge percentage of the total vote in any poll. There are an enormous number of undecideds in a crowded field. Other candidates are going to pick them up.

They'll go to whomever they choose.

Dean may well win Iowa, you know.

But it's not a conspiracy if he doesn't. Don't insult the voters with that crap. They have every right to choose someone else, and many reasons to do so.

with the media exclusively attacking him day in and day out? with his every word being taken out of context and distorted?

I just hope that this party hasn't forgotten the lessons of the 2002 elections. The 'don't rock the boat' approach doesn't work. The last thing we need is a candidate who feels the need to apologize for taking a liberal position on things.

If voters are presented with a choice of repubican and republican-lite, they'll pick the real thing every time.

there's a majority out here who wants bush gone but needs someone who will give them a reason to vote

and a candidate who goes from a relative unknown obscurity to frontrunner status thanks to the support of thousands of rank and file supporters is hardly being 'coronated'

What you said says it all. That's the end of the story. We don't have a choice, here. Those who voted for the IWR are already tainted by their voting history, consciences, and lack of leadership. They lost my trust. They're finished. If I have to in the GE, I'll vote for them, but, GODDAMMIT, I've had ENOUGH of being left out in the cold, holding my principles while they're pussyfooting around and worrying about "not losing" their jobs instead doing what's best for the frickin' country. ENOUGH.


GO DEAN 2004!!!!!

Dean deserves special gloves-off attention, unlike any other frontrunner in history? Why is it a (unproven) conspiracy instead of the fact that a lot of us either A) haven't decided or B) long ago decided on someone else?

It's a coronation when you refuse to acknowlege that there is anyone else in the running, and act affronted and cry about the DLC when they get votes. It's called a Deomocracy.

attention, however I DO think that Dean doesn't get nearly enough credit. Dean IS our party right now, whether the other candidates like it or not. Dean has been not only been the leader of the anti-Iraq-war movement, but he's also been leading Kerry, Gephardt, Edwards, Clark, and even Lieberman. Just in the same way that Bush has led the country TO war, Dean has led us away from it. Dean takes the lead and the hits, and the rest come in behind him.

And he has yet to hear a "Thank you" from any of the other candidates.

"Dean IS our party right now, whether the other candidates like it or not."

"And he has yet to hear a "Thank you" from any of the other candidates."

The arrogance of those statements is only eclipsed by their ignorance.

Is this how you win over people to Dean? Good Luck.

roll over and play dead? LOL ;)

On edit: I'm sorry if I'm being an asshole. Seriously. But, supporting the Democratic whipping boy makes one a little bitter sometimes. Dean can take the criticism...all he wants is some freakin' credit.

For what? For letting them play in what he perceives to be "His" ballpark?

Reality Check: dean is just another candidate, no more no less, one of many. dean has attacked all the candidates from day one, and for this he should get a thank you? You complain that the others are weak and yet should thank the one that has tried to point out they weren't worthy to challenge him. I don't know who's arrogance is worse here.

As James Carville said: When reacting to false allegations, forget about an "eye for an eye. Take a face for an eye" and dean has sure spewed his fair share of false allegations....no dean doesn't deserve a thank you from any of the candidates, he deserves exactly what he gets, no more and certainly no less.

As far as the media? Oh well, it only gets worse from here and if it's unfair now and he can't take it, then maybe this is not for him.


And then there were none!
” JAFO”

Gore's endorsement sent the media over the edge.

Every attack has been overblown.

Dean is a perfectly electable moderate.

Dean's campaign is built on hope, not anger. The media should have already reported all of Dean's perfectly legitimate criticisms of Bush, but since they acted as Bush's biggest cheerleader instead, they call Dean -- and any informed citizens -- angry.

No candidates have released 100% of their documents to rival campaigns and the media, but you wouldn't know that from media reports.

Dean is not "prone to gaffes." His supposed "gaffes" fall into at least two of these three categories:

1) truth too unvarnished for political pundits,
2) quotes taken out of context and overblown, and
3) quotes he made many years ago.

None of the overhyped and memed-to-death media criticisms of Dean could fill up a single decent column of legitimate political analysis.

Without Dean's new voters, organizational strength and money, we are looking at four more years of Bush.

But I have a good idea of what we'll get if he wins.

as if nobody else is even running. Yeah, I hate that.

any candidate's chances?

Have you ever heard the saying, "It's far easier to vote against than to vote for"?

I was thinking about this press issue today, in light of the bad media attention Dean's gotten this week, and in particular the extremely unfair reporting after the MLK event today. You can just feel the press getting snarky about being told to behave and taking it out on Dean in their little hit pieces.

The thing is, they do it to all the Dems. I think the press are on a power trip, drunk with their ability to "make or break" people. They love to build them up only to tear them down.

The first victim was actually Kerry. He was getting all the "anointed one" stories early on last year, then the jackals turned on him. The same thing has happened to Clark. And now, in the past few days, to Dean. I am obviously upset about the timing right before the Iowa caucus.

And maybe some of that is about upsetting the balance of things, wielding those almighty pens just for the sake of influencing the results. And so Dean is the target simply because he was the front runner, the guy to beat. I hope and trust the Iowa voters are not swayed by this last minute bashing.

The sad fact is, that whoever wins the nomination will be the brunt of media lies and distortions while Boy King gets a totally free pass again. One reason I'm a Dean supporter is I fully expect him to make an issue of Bush's more dubious accomplishments.

Besides, I loved it that he told the press off today. He's not going to get a break from them if he's the nominee, so why kiss ass?

bring down just as it was catching fire.

In contrast, they raised Kerry's cold corpse from the dead.

Imagine how the media would have played it if someone came out of an Iowa crowd "by chance" to tell us Dean had saved his life on an operating table?

Imagine if Dean, like Clark, had said, "We were making America safer. That's what lobbyists mostly do."

from poynter.org


ABC News political director Mark Halperin says the press has made two errors with Howard Dean. "I don't think we scrutinized him enough in the early part of the year ...and I think over the last month we've almost certainly made a mistake in giving him an incredibly disproportionate amount of the scrutiny. I do think looking at the sweater is actually a legitimate issue, and I'm not kidding about that. But I think, in general, he has gotten a disproportionate amount of scrutiny, and that's played too decisive a role here at the end."
> Halperin is "hands down, the second-most-influential TV producer (or first, depending on your source)," writes Verne Gay.

The Sunday Times had a piece from the People's Editor saying they had received reams of complaints from Dean supporters about their bad coverage of Dean as of the last few weeks. He did find a few instances of bias, out of what were probably many others.

I guess we should keep sending those complaints, maybe the papers will have to pay a modicum of attention to their haranguing.

too bad

a little bit. Stop worrying about everyone picking on your candidate. No candidate is superman and I'm sure they all have something they'd like to do over.

He made some statements in the past and they came back to bite him in the rear end. There was so much digging... by everyone... maybe the worst has come out and he's weathered it??? The key now is for him to stop shooting himself in the foot and/or when he does for him to stand up and admit he was wrong.

That pro-war enabler stuff just is not true for all of the other candidates. Repeating it doesn't make it so.

they voted FOR chimpy's war
--nuff said

I'm gonna stop right here right now or I'll say something I know I would regret someday. I just have to think about getting bush out of Al's house and worry about what went on here later. Get our country back, then I'll think about the other, not so pleasant issues.