Dean was "unstoppable." What happened?

Randi Rhodes (liberal radio talk show host) contends that it's the media (and DLC) who wanted Dean stopped. Randi said that "journalists on the ground" knew all along that Kerry/Edwards were in the lead in Iowa, but the media pushed the Dean-being first, was ALL they talked about. It was a lie. He was ahead, until the media began relentlessly saying HD was the front-runner. This is a lie that made other candidates attack HD. They attacked him because he was the "frontrunner", and so we have HD being attacked relentlessly, and the rest is history. Iowa lost.

And just who is the media? The thugs (Rove and Co.) and they played very slickly.

Dean is not going away.

Basically said "Dean has a huge lead, but will probably end up imploding before long" or words to that effect.

Des Moines Register ran a propaganda poster of a front page the Sunday before the caucuses.

I will support Clark or Kerry if they get the nod. But make no mistake, the right leaning media and the Bush machine fear Dean because he's not politics as usual. Just look at the non-stop hysteria over a yell at a pep rally.

And if Dean were so likely to "implode," why didn't he implode for five terms as Govenor.

If we hadn't had a Dean, we wouldn't have the other johnny come latelies with Dean's message. He was the one that took Bush on and showed Bush was vulnerable. Back him or not, give the man his due.

...election. Had he run one more year, he probably would have lost.

He didn't implode, but he definitely had a steady leak that nobody bothered to patch.

If so, that WOULD have been difficult to do. He took over as Governor when Snelling died and was elected 5 times after that before he left to pursue higher office.

As far as "probably would have lost"...I suppose everybody's entitled to an opinion.

...was a good thing. Personally, I didn't want to lose in a landslide AND give the repukes a filibuster-proof Senate.

nt

And Evan Byah WINS, doesn't he? And he caucuses with the Democrats, doesn't he? And he won two terms as Govenor is a VERY Republican state, didn't he? And he's a good, solid Democrat, isn't he?

Beleive it or not, some us want to WIN.



Oh...And chew on this for a while...

He's on the short list for a Vice Presidential nomination. :bounce:

The guy I saw on TV two nights ago saying that he was right to have voted for the war and that WMD may yet show up in Iraq. Yep, a "good solid democrat" alright -- in Bushworld.

And a man of conviction. Just because you don't agree with him, that doesn't make him a "Bad Democrat".

Colon Bowels claimed to the UN that they conservatively estimated 100 to 500 TONS of chemical weapons.

Maybe they thought Saddam had them in his mouth, that's why they were shining the flashlight in there.

And if the war is such a necessary thing, Evan, why don't you go over and help fight it?

How did Karl Rove get Dean to scream like that???? mna, these White House guys are slick, manipulating the good doctor like that!

If you like, I'll stand-up and repeat my timely and pointed question, with it's cynical undertones and cryptic nuances.

race tightened and the media and DLC may share some of the blame. It could be different factors coming together.

strategists did something brilliant with Dean.

They knew Rove was going to push him, and that the media was going to help them, so they went with it, rather than fight it.

he breaks?

Embracing the push just helped put a magnifying glass on his bad qualities.

Had the dems resisted, the debate would have ingnored his polices, and would have been about personality and old dems vs new dems, and shit like that. People might have missed the truth.

Had it seemed like the entire Dem party was against Dean, his anger then might have seemed justified.

That's what happened.

Or are all those Iowans simply brainwashed?

...don't you know?

They are just afraid that Howard can't win.

Or the don't like some single issue about Dean.

Some don't like his death penalty stand.

Other's don't like his gun record.

Me I like Dean but don't like his death penalty stand.

I do like his honest energy as a candidate.

Go Dean!!!

Dean was the frontrunner, and became the target of everybody for months. Then Gephardt went on Kamakazi mode to take out Dean, which drove both their negatives up. Dean started to feel the heat and the campaign overreacted by calling the supporters too many times and trying to keep people with them. On top of that Edwards and Kerry spent time courting the insiders and used them to get out the vote, plus Edwards deal with Kucinich, and negative ads run by other groups aimed directly at Dean, and everything added up to Dean coming in third place. People didn't switch to Dean because after all the mud thrown, inevitably some of it stuck.

Well done!

Especially the part about "Called the voters too much". I have NO DOUBT that the Deaniacs irritated more than a few swing voters into voting AGAINST him. I've seen Dean supporters here and I know for a fact that their basic tactics wouldn't play well in Indiana...And Iowa is very similar to Indiana.

And on a side note...I thought those red winter caps were more than just a little Jim Jonesish.

All of them?

as many voters, as that the undecideds bought into the negativity hype.

That's what Dean is not. He's not politics as another form of big business. He's not a kind, caring tv personality. He's a popular movement--and that scares the hell out of the long term string pullers.

His campaign was ALWAYS a long shot. I don't know why or how he ended up with "front runner" status . . . He never called himself the front runner.

But, bias is alive and well.

You can bitch slap me all you want, but this is my biggest issue with you, in fact, Will. I love just about everything you have to say on behalf of the Democratic Party - and all of the efforts you have made on behalf of several candidates (positive threads, stories at truthout, etc).

But then there's the other stuff. I've seen a few "meltdowns" of your own here. And I've witnessed some pretty backhanded tactics against those you are not supporting.

I'm not saying the entire media is Rove & co - I'm just saying there's no such thing as a code of ethics in journalism anymore.

I'm looking forward to having this message deleted. It will be the first time for me - but you of all people should not be talking about the medias influence on a race. Period.

You know...That handy little excuse that leads to defeat even before the game is played.

I mean hell...Why even TRY? They're all against us anyway.

Sigh...

Including you.

Especially you.

Hell, it's probably ALL YOUR FAULT.

Or not. ;-)

*smooches*

Is that he peaked to soon...I don't think Sadaam's capture was anything close to a death blow... elsewise Bush would have maintained his bounce.

I think the Snipping between he and Gephardt allowed people to looke elsewhere. Cerainly a long time to the the convention he is by no means DOA.

'nuf said.

Dean had too much resting on his opposition to war. Iowans were not sold on this one issue.

Lessoned learned, don't mess with inside the beltway unless you're packing.

No one.

And even his embrace of Joe for veep couldn;t gett them off his back.

He was crucified by the press, had the election stolen in a coup, and the press loved it.

Or don't you remember all that?

Dean is getting the treatment now--but clark is starting to catch some too, i notice, and don't think Kerry is off limits either, by ANY means.

polls be more accurate even if the press was lying about the numbers for Kerry and Edwards? And, if that were the case, why didn't Dean or his campaign, say something about the media skewing the numbers?

Kerry and Edwards really were in the lead. But the media lied about Howard being in the lead. So that Kerry and Edwards, who were already in the lead, could win. Is that it???

I didnt expect Kerry or Edwards to do as nicely as they did, me and my friend both expected three-four people in Iowa to get 20%, and they were Kerry, Dean, Edwards, and Gep, I didnt expect Kerry or Edwards to get 30+. If Dean really was behind as is being suggested why were many people saying victory is immient. Those two had a nice showing in Iowa for a reason.

and did not reflect reality on the ground.
some of us never believed it to be true.
folks need to turn off their tv and start talking to their neighbors.
the horse race stuff is all a media creation in any event.

I wonder what happened?

alomng with more than a few DU dean supporters.

Indeed they did. I think New Hampshire voters and South Carolina voters may come to the conclusion.

I also remember the Titanic being called unsinkable.

Then again, I don't think the SS Dean is Sinking but still navigating through a field of ice bergs..

should have. He already has the faithful on board. About 5 weeks ago, he should have changed his presentation (not his stance) in order to appeal to a broader bloc. That's the truth.

Or maybe people just don't like him.

If Dean cannot recover, it will prove the supremacy of the corporatists in the Democratic party.

-the media don't like Dean and "Gored" him
-Gephardt trashed his own campaign to take down Dean
-Kerry did some heavy negative push-polling
-Dean really lost sight of his message

And make no mistake, Dean's campaign stumbled badly in handling all of the above. It was a big test and the Dean campaign didn't pass.

On to the next big test to see if we do better. I hope so! :-)

Mike

If it's true, it's certainly a shocking new development.

I put this theory right down there with the one about Bill and Hillary secretly manipulating the election so that she can run in 2008.

John Lennon once said, "Life is what happens while you're making other plans."

It was inevitable. Those who thought Dean was cruising smoothly to the nomination forgot all their history - and that includes many seasoned political commentators.

Conspiracy? Wake up and smell the coffee. It would have to have involved too many people. I can fight Ashcroft all day, and don't have to check under my bed at night to see if he's there too (of course if he is, he's flatter than a pancake because I have a waterbed).

The media are pack animals. They rush to report the same thing because they don't want their editors wondering why everyone else has it and he doesn't. That's the way newspapers work. It wasn't just RW commentators saying Dean was a lock, it was almost everybody. And now they all say he's toast. Wrong again. He might not come back. But he has more cash in the bank than the rest have raised, and organization in later states they are only now thinking about. So it's waaaaaay too soon to count him out.

and shows their power by beating them down.

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

since all the polls agreed with each other. And the newspapers are in on it. And I guess the folks who posted all first hand reports from the caucuses, they must be in on it, too. Basically, if you are not with Dean, you are in an evil conspiracy against him.

It's still far too early to tell what is going on with Dean. But the story may just be that Dean's support is passionate, but limited. He may ultimately have the undying love of 20 to 30 percent of the Democratic base. But that means that 70 percent of the base and 80 percent of the the country is indifferent or hostile.

Let's put it this way. If you take ten Dean supporters and compare them to twenty Kerry or Edwards supporters, the Dean supporters may have 10 or 20 times the level of passion and commitment. This makes it seem like he has a lot of support because they give more money, go to more rallies, knock on more doors, etc. And they got involved much much earlier. But, in raw numbers, Kerry and Edwards have more supporters. And in politics, the numbers matter more unfortunately.

This is just a theory for now.