A radical view of Kerry and the election

I post this only to give another perspective on amercian politics as it pertains to the election, a perspective that is too often ignored. Perhaps it can give valuable lessons to the current political atmosphere.


Dissecting the Electable Mr. Kerry

It is hard to pin down John Kerry. You can slice and dice all his positions. You can lay them down on the table and compare them (inch by inch) with the notorious and hated wartime president.

But that approach doesn't get to the heart of the matter--which is that people are told to think that only two things really (supposedly) matter:

First, John Kerry is not George W. Bush.

And, second, John Kerry is electable, meaning he can (potentially, conceivably) beat George W. Bush.

And for some people, those two points settle everything. They have convinced themselves that it doesn't really matter if Kerry even agrees with them on important matters. They want the policies of Bush gone, gone, gone--and believe this can only mean getting themselves (and everyone else) to want Kerry in, in, in.

Let's get into why this logic is so dangerous and what this John Kerry campaign really represents-- starting with why he is considered "electable."

Who Decides Who Is "Electable"?
Millions of people just hate George W. Bush--his war, his Bush doctrine, his exposed WMD lies, his "homeland security" alerts, his crude catering to zillionaires, his rightwing religious madness, his strutting swagger and arrogant smirk.

And by last December, this gave rise to an "angry" candidacy within the Democratic Party. Howard Dean never proposed actually pulling out of Iraq--but he tapped into the mood and wowed the "Democratic base" by ripping into Bush and the lies that launched the Iraq war. And right before the primaries, the conventional wisdom was "this guy may have a lock on the nomination."

A prominent conservative columnist, Fred Barnes, spoke for a determination in the larger political establishment (of both political parties!) not to let this go down ( Weekly Standard , Dec. 18, 2003):

"The antiwar, Bush-loathing, culturally liberal left now has the upper hand. Its dominance will likely culminate in Dean's nomination. This is an event to be feared. Why? Because it will harm the Democratic party and lead to a general election campaign brimming with bitter assaults on the very idea of an assertive, morality-based American role in the world. And all this will play out as the war on terrorism, and the outcome in Iraq, hang in the balance. Gore's lurch to the left and Dean's likely nomination mean trouble.. For themselves and their party, and because others haven't the moxie to step forward, it's time for the Clintons to take on Dean."

Similar messages were suddenly heard everywhere--including within the Democratic Party. The gatekeepers of this political system simply decided that this was not the year to ALLOW such "bitter assaults" to have a voice within highly funded, TV powered, official discussions of this presidential election.

And, while all those who had put their hopes in a Dean candidacy watched, overnight, suddenly, it was over. Someone pulled the plug--and Dean was history. The Democratic Party apparatus "took him out" before the primaries even got started. The media climbed fully on board--and ran Dean's "I have a Scream" speech until he became a national joke.

Dean was simply not allowed to make it into the primaries.

How was this explained to the people? Everyone was told that Dean was just not "electable"--unlike the lumbering Senator John Kerry. And, equally overnight, the electable Mr. Kerry became the assumed nominee.

All this happened at the end of the Iowa caucuses, before a single vote had been cast. The primary votes of the Democratic base did not choose the Democratic nominee. Those primaries were used to confirm the pick of the party establishment and media .

What "Electability" Looks Like
"In the stump speech he delivers virtually every day, Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.) stirs the Democratic faithful by railing against current trade practices and slamming President Bush's policies on education, civil liberties and Iraq. But the Democratic front-runner does not mention how he, as senator, supported the president on all four issues, helping cement in law what he often describes as flawed government policies."

Washington Post, Feb. 24, 2004

A year ago, as the U.S. prepared to go attack Iraq, Senator Kerry rushed to defend this government's web of lies and threats. He said: "The President laid out a strong, comprehensive, and compelling argument why Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs are a threat to the United States and the international community."

In the end of August 2004, two days before he announced his candidacy on an aircraft carrier, John Kerry told Meet the Press he had voted for the Iraq war because "I supported the notion that we must as a country hold Saddam Hussein accountable."

His stand remains that this was a necessary conquest done in a flawed way: "And so I'm running because I'm angry at the mismanagement of how we worked with our colleagues in the world and how we, in fact, have conducted the war."

On his campaign website, John Kerry puts himself forward as the man to find victory in the occupation of Iraq: "What does it gain America to win a war and lose a peace? .What's needed now is leadership--to finish the job in Iraq the right way."

This is a position for pursuing the conquest and occupation of Iraq, defeating the Iraqi resistance and imposing a pro-U.S. government on the people.

On February 27, 2004, with his nomination increasingly secure, Kerry made a self- defining speech on issues of war and empire. Kerry insists he is the best man to carry the aggressive U.S. global offensive to victory.

Kerry said, "I do not fault George Bush for doing too much in the War on Terror, I believe he's done too little" (which should send a shiver around the world!).

He insisted the U.S. military does not yet have enough troops or equipment: "As President, I will add 40,000 active-duty Army troops."

He said he would "strengthen the capacity of intelligence and law enforcement at home." He calls for heightened intervention of U.S. agents into international banking channels to seize the funds of forces hostile to the U.S.

So what is his criticism of Bush's "doctrine of unilateral preemption"? Only that it has not, so far, succeeded in involving other imperialist powers in the invasions, threats, and offensives of the last years. In fact, Kerry insisted that (as president) he too would be willing to launch war unilaterally and pre-emptively. The Washington Post (Feb. 28) wrote: "Kerry appeared to outline his own preemptive doctrine in the speech."

And on Iraq? Here is what he said:

"Whatever we thought of the Bush administration's decisions and mistakes--especially in Iraq--we now have a solemn obligation to complete the mission, in that country and in Afghanistan. Iraq is now a major magnet and center for terror."

Later, in a debate in Los Angeles, he said pulling out of Iraq would be "disastrous."

Here is how the Washington Post explained the larger meaning of his stand (Feb. 29):

"President Bush's decision to run as a `war president' created a temptation for the Democratic Party to go down a misguided and ultimately self-destructive path. The opposition party might have decided to cast itself as the party of peace: to question whether the United States is at war, to accuse Mr. Bush of inflating the danger of terrorism for political gain, to demand an early withdrawal from Afghanistan, Iraq and other overseas engagements. Some Democrats have indeed succumbed to those temptations. To his credit, Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.), the leading candidate for the Democratic nomination, has chosen a different path. In an address Friday, he accepted the premise that the United States faces a fundamental threat--and accused Mr. Bush of being too soft in response.. The United States is at war; the threat is existential. The debate he proposes to hold with Mr. Bush is over how best to meet that threat."

What "Electable" Means
"Electable" means that the official gate-keepers of the U.S. political system have decided that this election will not be a referendum on the occupation of Iraq. They decided this before a single primary ballot was cast.

"Electable" is not about "what the voters want." It is about having a candidate that is acceptable to the U.S. ruling class , who THEY conceivably might allow to hold supreme power on their behalf and in their interests .

And this year, there was one clear stand that defined "electable": To be "electable" a Democrat had to be "believable" as the next commander in the U.S. drive to more fully and directly dominate the world.

This definition of "electable" means that "criticisms" of occupation details are being allowed--but that the overall righteousness of the U.S. crusade must remain unquestionable and the existence of a so-called "fundamental threat" must be assumed.

It reveals a consensus within the ruling class--a determination to press ahead with their offensive, and not allow this election process to give an opening to doubts and opposition.

It means that the Democratic nominee will now likely be a U.S. senator who directly voted to give Bush war powers to attack Iraq, and who voted for the police-state Patriot USA Act. Kerry can't even say the U.S. government lied to the world about the invasion of Iraq--without immediately portraying himself as a fool who was duped by the liars.

The Republican machine of Karl Rove, of course, will not accept Kerry as "electable"-- but will unleash a mounting "shock and awe" campaign against him and his past. It is a sign of the extremism of U.S. politics that even a John Kerry will soon be attacked as virtually treasonous, unpatriotic, and dangerously soft.

For now, one crucial defining fact is being locked in place:

Any vote next November (including any vote for Kerry) can be (and will be) portrayed as a vote for a "muscular" global policy of threat and war.

This is how the electable Mr. Kerry got this fast-track to nomination. This is how his "message" is being shaped and launched.

That is the game that has now been imposed.

And the question is:
Who will reject the straitjacket of that framework?

What will now happen to the "hate factor"--the justified anger of millions?

Will it be smothered within the strict imperialist boundaries that define the Kerry campaign?

Or will this rigged game get disrupted--by powerful defiant resistance in the streets and many other arenas of public life?

Will that righteous anger find its own voice in uncensored ways?

Will the great crimes of these last years and the great crimes of coming moments be forcefully repudiated and fought?

Will we forge a powerful, lasting, rising political force together that really opposes the ugly crusade and climate of modern America--and that refuses to be shut up and shut down by the deadening imperialist arguments about "electability"?

Dissecting the electable Kerry:
http://rwor.org/a/1232/kerry.htm

Then and now; the evolution of Kerry:
http://rwor.org/a/1232/kerryside.htm

Voter turnout low for presidential primaries:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-03-09-voter-turnout_x.htm

[Lexingtonian]

1. Ha ha ha, very funny

Yet another dreary Far Left position piece. Oh no, Kerry doesn't obey The A Priori Righteous Dogmatism of Us Clairvoyants! Oh my, the voters rejected The Outsider Candidate again- how shocking that inexperience and inability and unfamiliarity with the apparatus of state, only ideas how to damage it further, was yet again not rewarded at the ballot box! And lastly, How Dare They think our All-Important hate-laced behavior is not the best basis for an enlightened politics?

Yes, we're going to keep ignoring this 'perspective'. The Dean Candidacy is over- its basis failed, get used to it.

2. assumptions

If you read the article carefully it is not an endorsement of Dean over Kerry. Rather it is an analysis of what happened and why. The point is that their was no democracy involved in this supposedly democratic process. I gave you a link that shows that around 7.9% of the voters in the united states actually voted in the democratic primary. Out of this group less than half voted for Kerry. In effect you have 3-4% of the VOTERS (not all the people in the U.S.) deciding the nominee, but even this is giving to much to the system as the decision was made clearly before a single vote was cast as in the night after the Iowa Caucus. How can you even begin to believe that your support of Kerry had anything to do with this? What did the 2000 and 2002 elections mean to you? What does the revelation that electronic voting is corrupt mean to you? The only conclusion I draw from these facts as well as the quantitative data relevant to the "democratic process" is that our votes DO NOT count. More than that, if you look at history, they never did.

[mobuto]

13. Um

The fact that turnout was low does not mean the process isn't democratic. If Dean had gotten more people to the polls than Kerry, he'd be the nominee. Ditto for Clark, Kucinich, Gephardt and all the others.

31. correction

I quoted incorrect numbers. The article I was talking about said that 7.2% of American voters participated in the presidential primaries through March 2. That is in BOTH primaries combined, republican and democrat. The democratic turnout was 11.4% the third lowest in history. While republican turnout was 6.6% the lowest in history. My point remains that there is an insignificant minority making all our political decisions today and that is not democratic. To those who suggest that the answer is to get more people to vote, I say that the system is designed so that most people won't vote and even if they did it would be meaningless as seen when realizing that the nomination was decided in Iowa where there were no votes cast.

[G_j]

4. fall in line

only those familiar with the "apparatus of state" need apply, only the "apparatus of state" is "electable"
"get used to it, get over it, get with the program"

[Guaranteed]

16. Dean has 11 years of successful, executive experience.

Kerry has ZERO.

Dean was an OUTSTANDING candidate. Dean **schooled** Kerry and the rest of the Democratic Party, showed them what real leadership is. No, Dean did not fail- his message lives on, and John Kerry calls it his platform.

[G_j]

3. sad

I cringe when folks call others "sheeple".

interesting analysis

You dare mention the ruling class? I guess you want four more years of *.
<sarcasm>

[Mairead]

5. nice try, but it doesn't matter

Before the primary campaigning even started, they took out Kucinich. Dean's conservative record was good enough to get him a look-in--the ruling class thought he'd play ball. But Kucinich? No way! He'd already nailed his colors to the mast. So he not only didn't get a look-in, he barely got the pretense of attention.

Pity that some people are so partisan that they'd rather eat shite than own up that they've been fed a plateful.

'We won! We won!'

'Yeah? What'd "we" win? And who's "we"?'

[Iverson]

6. an answer or two

I do not believe that the electability argument is inevitably imperialist. However, I agree that it is a weak argument to make.

"Who will reject the straitjacket of that framework?"
Well, to some extent people like me. That meant a sudden shift from mainstream to unacceptably far left, but c'est la vie.

"What will now happen to the "hate factor"--the justified anger of millions?"
It will be appropriated for partisan purposes, of course.

"Will it be smothered within the strict imperialist boundaries that define the Kerry campaign?"
Setting aside any disagreement with your terms, I predict that that will not happen until the day after the election.

"Or will this rigged game get disrupted--by powerful defiant resistance in the streets and many other arenas of public life?"
No, the defiance in the streets and elsewhere will be weak, even in the case of another war of aggression.

Cheers.

[SerpentX]

7. I take it you'll be posting the radical part later on

Because all I see here is the same rhetoric, naivete, and misrepresentations I've seen since Iowa. Not only do you ignore the fact that many people like John Kerry and are able to understand and forgive his vote on IWR, you continue to flog this 'electability' thing as if it were the only reason people voted for him. The polls asked "What's the most important reason?". They didn't ask "Are there any other reasons?", so don't try to read your personal dislike into the results.

Personally, I like Howard Dean. He's smart, he's an excellent motivator, and he's got a lot of guts. If he were the nominee I'd support him as strongly as I do Kerry. But the primaries are over and he's not going to be the nominee. If you can't get over that, it's alright by me, but please, spare us the monotonous diatribes. The media didn't get Kerry the nomination, Kerry got Kerry the nomination. I don't know why you think Democratic primary voters are suckers, but if that's what you believe, maybe it's time you found a party that appreciated your moral and intellectual superiority.

32. electability

"By media consensus, the race for the Democratic presidential nomination is over. Why? Because John Kerry has won 12 of the 14 primaries and caucuses held so far. And why has Kerry won these contests? Not because voters agree with him on the issues. The reason, according to exit polls, is that voters think he's the candidate most likely to beat President Bush. There's just one problem: The same polls suggest this may not be true."

The rest of the story has all the numbers related to the question of electability: http://slate.msn.com/id/2095311/

[xchrom]

8. it's the low voter participation

that bothers me the most.
i cannot understand the american mind right now. let alone the lack of guilt of so many dead people for a lie.
i really do think that people see something else is running their lives and they cannot find a voice for it.
you've gotten some comments here from folk who think you've bashed kerry -- and of course you haven't. but their respose exemplifies the very disconnect you are talking about -- what is the status quo today? what do the powerful really represent? how do mr and mrs joe 6 pak really feel about being an american and what if any are those responsibilities?
what does kerry running for prez mean?
perhaps those questions sound foolish -- but not to me.
btw -- i fully intend to vote for kerry -- but i try to really understand what i'm buying.

[Disturbed]

9. The Oligarchy and the Two Party System

It's defintely the choice almost everytime between choices that aren't what I really want. I don't much like Kerry's stance on many issues but I loath Bushco.

[emulatorloo]

10. I dunno, sounds like Repug talking points put through the Nader Filter

Quite frankly I believe the characterization of kerry just does not square w reality. I am especially taken with quoting Kerry out of context:

"Kerry said, "I do not fault George Bush for doing too much in the War on Terror, I believe he's done too little" (which should send a shiver around the world!)."

Oh yes, I am "shivering" that Kerry wants to focus on more money for first responders where GWB guts budgets, making harbors safer, focusing more on law enforcement rather than nitwitish wars w strawmen, actually *working* with our allies rather than trashing them like GWB does etc etc.

[asthmaticeog]

11. Typical

asthmaticeog's corrollary to Godwin's Law: If someone questions the "Kerry as noble redeemer" script, someone will quickly smear the questioner by invoking the GOP or the name "Nader."

Looks like you scored a twofer, which is a shame, since you do make some valid points about the war on terror. But that Kerry quote you cited, taken in conjunction with his stated commitment to sending 40,000 more troops to Iraq - not to the war on terror, but to Iraq, mind you - should damn well give one pause.

[emulatorloo]

12. corollary to Godwin's Law or not, that is just how it feels to me

"Nader" was just shorthand for me for an obstinate viewpoint that insists Kerry is just the same as Bush in the face of a lot of evidence to the contrary. "Noble Redeemer?" not hardly. "Just The Same?" - only from a perspective a millllllion trilllllllion miles away.

Typically the strategy is to misquote JK and draw the worst conclusions. I see a lot of that in the piece cited. They are the same strategies I have seen in right wing pieces too, and Bush campaign attacks on Kerry.

I also believe that no matter the sincerity of the author of this article, this kind of stuff *is* and *will be* exploited by the GOP to demoralize dem and potential dem voters into voting third party or staying home.

Anyway, thanks for you comments. . .I respect them and I hope you can see what I am saying.

33. This article is beyond republican talking points

This article questions the very legitimacy of the system something republicans would never do even if it was to damage Kerry or the democrats. If they were to push this analysis they would ultimately be shooting themselves in the foot by helping to radicalize americans against the charade of electoral politics.

[emulatorloo]

14. My Definition of "Electability?" Electibility = BRASS BALLS

Sorry for being so crude, but in my decision making of which candidate I was going to caucus for in Iowa, "electability" was a factor. Had nothing to do w what the "gatekeepers" told me.

It was one factor of many, and it was not contradictory to who I felt would make the best pres.

To me electability meant - who is going to be the best campaigner.
who is going to get the message of the democratic party out most effectively to show people that the message of the repub party is fantasy and not in their best interests.
who is going to be the TOUGHEST campaigner, who will take no crap from Rove et al who will punch back punch often and punch first.

I saw most all the candidates several times, and I saw all those qualities in Kerry.

ON EDIT spelling I am sure I missed a few. . .forgot about that spell check feature

[Guaranteed]

18. LOL you're kidding yourself.

I'm sorry, but we both know that that was NOT Kerry. That was Dean. The LAST phrase I'd EVER use in describing Kerry is "BRASS BALLS." LOL YEAH RIGHT.

[mobuto]

19. Then you're not paying attention

Kerry's been going after Bush much harder than Dean ever did.

[emulatorloo]

20. No I am not, I looked at Dean and Kerry, they were my top two and I

made my decision on things I saw, research I did and observations I made, and impressions I got from the two of them at speeches/rallys. I don't want to go into details because I do not want to seem to be bashing Dean, who I really like. Dean is tough no doubt about it. But given what I saw I felt that Kerry would be tougher in the long haul against the republican mean machine. So far, so good.

[RichM]

15. Very sound analysis. (The hostility of Democrats is hilarious!)

The silliest type of squawking from Democrats is the outrage shown for the idea that Kerry's nomination was engineered by party & media elites. These people want to portray primaries as a validly structured democratic process. According to them, we live in a true democracy; voters are reasonably informed & not manipulated; voting results must be interpreted at face value, with no skepticism.

This is a colossally naive view of the US political system. It's what what the system wants people to believe, not what is. It bears the same relation to reality as your high-school version of history, & the "mainstream media" version of current events.

The reason Democrats have such trouble seeing the truth of the article's analysis is that their worldview is entirely inside the framework of the US propaganda system. They accept its assumptions unquestioningly, & aren't even aware of doing so.

Zinn's "Peoples' History" shows that the 2-party system has always functioned by offering 2 "choices," both of which are pre-selected to be acceptable to elite interests. Chomsky's propaganda model sets forth the related point that the media serve elite interests by setting the boundaries of debate within a narrow range. This is EXACTLY what the Kerry nomination reflects. He is acceptable to the elite, and so is Bush. The range between them is limited to narrow questions like "Should we share the looting of Iraq with imperialist rivals" or keep it all for ourselves. Off the table entirely are the all the fundamental & truly important questions about the war.

The fact that a filthy rightwing mouthpiece like the Washington Post was so enraptured with Kerry's LA speech should be enough to alert Democrats that something is amiss.

[mobuto]

17. Are we talking about the same election?

Yeah, this is the kind of fauning press coverage Kerry was receiving. Boosted by the media my ass.

MARSHALLTOWN, Iowa — Democrat John Kerry shook up his foundering presidential campaign Monday, firing his campaign manager as the Massachusetts senator, once the party's establishment candidate, struggled to make up ground on front-runner Howard Dean.
Trailing Dean in the current measures of the race — fund raising, opinion polls, crucial endorsements — Kerry replaced campaign manager Jim Jordan with Mary Beth Cahill, chief of staff to Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass.
...
Democratic strategists have blamed Kerry more than his campaign, saying he is known to be a candidate who doesn't take advice well or likes to split his staff into competing camps. Indeed, his presidential campaign is layered with high-priced advisers, some of whom have duplicative roles and are roughly divided into two factions: those based in Washington, where Kerry has been a senator for 18 years, and others from his home town of Boston.

The departure of Jordan marks the second time in less than two months that a high-ranking official has left the Kerry camp. Communications director Chris Lehane resigned in September over differences in the direction of the campaign, and later signed on with rival Wesley Clark.

Jordan's firing raised the specter of other departures.

In a conference call Sunday night, Kerry enraged much of his staff by mispronouncing the name of a top staff member at least once, and could be heard eating as he broke the news of Jordan's firing, which he called a "one-day story." Stung by his attitude, several aides said they were considering quitting the campaign.
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,525037096,00.html

[RichM]

24. Your article is from Nov 11. It was after this, that the elites decided

Dean was unacceptable to them, & that something had to be done to destroy him. The main comments Dean made to upset them were in December - the one about "not safer with Saddam captured," & the one about his intent to break up media monopolies.

Aside from this chronology problem, you are not properly appreciating how the propaganda system works. It's not as simple as you're making it, with a few negative articles meaning "the media hates this guy." Even Bush himself has gotten some negative coverage. What is important is the ferocity & sustained character of attacks.

[mobuto]

25. Kerry was dumped on for nearly a year

as the press went nuts over Howard Dean. I think its you who don't understand how the press works. Everybody's afraid of missing a story that their competitor is getting, so if the AP prints that Dean has momentum and is attracting support by the mile, Reuters will pick up on that too. Similarly, if the AP is reporting that Dean's gaffes are costing him support, Reuters will dump on him. Same thing with the Wash Post and the NY Times, ABC and CBS. This kind of lemming coverage is a real problem, but its not coordinated and, in the end, its the voters who make up their own minds.

There is no "Elite" and it doesn't decide anything.

[RichM]

27. You're the guy who believed Colin Powell's 'WMD' speech at the UN,

right? You announced, "I'm convinced!", after Powell sat there and lied through his teeth for 2 hours in front of the whole world. Have you learned nothing from being so wrong?

There is no "Elite" and it doesn't decide anything.
- This is just a ridiculous comment. You're welcome to believe it if you want to. It's perfect for someone who habitually swallows US propaganda whole.

The idea that there is indeed an elite is crudely summarized by the expression "Money talks." The existence of advertising, of the PR industry, the whole history of propaganda as a crucial instrument of US policy since the WWI Creel Commission -- all of this can only be understood via a Chomsky-like model of media function, in which mass opinion is guided within limits set by elite interests.

[DuctapeFatwa]

21. Now where's that Stand Up and Cheer Icon? The mods should get us one

Thank you. :yourock:

[mountebank]

22. Dean represented returning power to people.

Which was of course totally unacceptable.

Bickering over significant, yet ultimately narrow differences in ideology of Left and Right is acceptable to a corporate elite that can switch allegiances as quickly as they can change the name on their contribution checks. But to tell the people "You have the power" is a dangerous threat to the interests of the elite.

I was no big supporter of Dean (nor is the original post an endorsement of Dean, obviously, though it's funny to see most replies dismiss it as the ravings of a bitter former Dean supporter), yet there is no question he was preaching a shift in the power structure.

This was the best, most thoughtful post I've seen on DU in a long time.

[mobuto]

23. Dean represented returning power to the people

however those people failed to vote for him in sufficient numbers and thus Kerry is the presumptive nominee. That's the way democracy works.

[mountebank]

28. Over-looking the role of media and elite in shaping opinions.

While I don't disagree with what you said, I think you miss an important part of why the tide turned against Dean. It wasn't really because his idea of returning power to people was rationally analyzed and rejected by voters, but rather because of the way he was portrayed as unelectable by the opinion-shapers. See original post for details. Again, no Dean supporter am I, but it seems pretty clear that Kerry's surge was no referendum on Dean's ideals, but merely on his image as portrayed by the media and pundits. I'm not sure I would call that system truly democratic, since democracy is based on the informed decision of voters.

[mobuto]

29. I disagree with you on the cause, rather than the result

I'm not going to deny for a minute that negative media coverage hurt Dean in the last few weeks of the campaign. But knowing people in the news business, and knowing how these decisions are made, I really don't think there was a concerted effort to dump on Dean. Rather, the news media, in its lemming craze seized on one theme and repeated it ad nauseam. That's how it always works, for all sorts of stories. Everybody's afraid of being scooped by someone else.

[mountebank]

30. Never would have happened to Kerry or other elite choice.

I agree with you - the media on the most basic level are lemmings, and most of the reporters and newsroom guys certainly have no political agenda, they're just clueless shits. Yet - you have to look at how the story redounds, who decides to run front-page stories of the Dean scream, the endless punditry on cable news. The simple fact is, the media would never have skewered an Establishment candidate like that. Sure - a little run of bad press here and there, e.g. "Kerry's candidacy not performing as well as expected," etc. But not the sustained character assassination we witnessed with Howard Dean. It can't be explained simply by lemming behavior, though it plays a part. And it doesn't imply smoke-filled backrooms where the media and corporate elite peruse their talking points in tandem. The media elite, individually as editors, pundits, rich people, look at Howard Dean and see a threat. So they attack. It's simple economics, no conspiracy required.

[Mairead]

36. What's rather funny, in a certain way, is that Dean might not have

represented anything of the kind. Given his record, it might have been nothing but 'campaign promises', i.e., hot air. Things he would have 'come to his senses' about after election.

I say that because we see what happened to someone who without doubt did and does represent the People: Kucinich. Right from the very start he was stepped on by the media mouthpieces of the ruling class. A guy with a stunning record and an important peer-approved position, whom Clinton and Gore personally urged to seek national office, was dismissed by Media Inc without a second look.

But whether Dean had a genuine change of heart or was just letting on, he paid the same price: the rulers decided to take no chances and effortlessly pulled the rug out from under him. Sic transit Dean.

[mountebank]

37. I'm skeptical of Dean too.

But mostly on his policies of Left and Right. It's pretty clear he is middle of the road, perhaps even slightly right of the dividing line, and he veered Left for the primaries. On that part: hot air all the way. But I don't know; I feel like he really believes in this libertarianism he was preaching: you have the power, and all that. It was the most powerful, and dangerous, part of his message, I thought. Anyway, I have a hard time believing he'd be so foolish as to preach it knowing how quickly it gets you put down by the Establishment.....

[Mairead]

39. "I have a hard time believing he'd be so foolish"

I get the feeling that his background actually made him a little naive (I'm sure he's less so now!!). He'd never been denied anything in his life, and I bet he was taking it for granted either (if his later campaign persona reflected a real change to populist insurgent) that the popular base he had meant he couldn't be touched or (if it was only 'hot air') that the rulers would understand that it was 'just talk'.

[rdfi-defi]

26. good analysis

the original post is not about kerry/dean, so after people get their shorts in a twist, go read post 15.

nice work

[John_H]

34. LOL! This is my favorite "Waaaahhh. Nobody voted for Dean" piece ever.

Now, we all know that you are far, far superior to your average Dem voter, who unlike you, is susceptable to the manipulation of The Party Insiders......er...wait: Could it be that they understood something you didn't--that Dean, a consumate raise-money-from-Pfizer insider, was yanking our chains with the outsider BS; that Chimp would have beat him soundly; and that in a "wartime" election the former governor of Vermont was a lost cause?

No? I didn't think so.

35. This is not a pro Dean article

I shouldn't be surprised that you would think it was. Only a superficial understanding of the article and the posts about it would lead one to believe that it is bashing Kerry because Dean lost. What it is really saying is that the process is crooked. The entire voting scheme is BS. If you want the article written by the same people that criticizes Dean here's the link: http://rwor.org/a/1225/dean.htm

[mountebank]

38. Did you read the article?

And if so, how could you have missed the point so obviously? Can someone not mention Dean, even to make an objective analysis, without being falsely branded a sore loser?

Perhaps you are such a partisan to your causes and prefered candidates that you see everyone else through the same lens.

This was clearly not a Pro-Dean article.