Mom, He Hit Me: Dean's overhyped "attack" ads.

[unfrigginreal]

By William Saletan and Jacob Weisberg
Posted Monday, October 27, 2003, at 11:02 AM PT


"Did It" and "Iraq" were produced for the Dean campaign by Trippi McMahon & Squier.

From: William Saletan
To: Jacob Weisberg

Well, the Kerry-Gephardt machine is at it again. Two weeks ago, the New York Times outed the collaboration between John Kerry's campaign and Dick Gephardt's. Their common objective was taking down Howard Dean, who threatens to kill Gephardt in Iowa and Kerry in New Hampshire.

Last week, they struck again. Dean has two new ads on the air, one in Iowa and one in New Hampshire. The press is pouncing on him. "Dean's New Iowa Ads Attack Rivals," says the Washington Post. "Dean Becomes First in Campaign to Attack Fellow Democrats," says the Times. And look who shows up in the articles: spokesmen for Kerry and Gephardt. The Post quotes Kerry's campaign manager, Jim Jordan, saying, "No one here can remember any Democratic candidate going up with negative ads in October." The Times tells readers what transpired backstage: "an intense round of press releases, phone calls and e-mail messages from opponents' campaigns to reporters debating how negative the spots were. Mr. Kerry's staff quickly e-mailed the advertisements' scripts to reporters with the subject line 'Dean goes negative.' "

Do the ads live up to the hype? Hardly. In the New Hampshire ad, Dean says of Iraq, "The best my opponents can do is ask questions today that they should have asked before they supported the war." In the Iowa ad, he says of seniors' prescription drug costs, "Instead of fixing the problem, the best my opponents can do is talk about what was said eight years ago. … For years, the politicians in Washington have talked about health insurance and a prescription drug benefit, and all you got was talk. But in Vermont, we did it."

more...

http://slate.msn.com/id/2090319/

[seventhson]

1. Dennis really looked bad nitpicking at Dean in the debate over this

Dean should have made his his statement a little clearer - but it is much ado about nothing: no one is going to accuse Kucinich of supporting the war (though it is vague enough to seem like ALL his opponents voted for it when his point is THAT is the BEST his opponents can do -- meaning if you parse it that Kucinich's issues are not the best attack on Dean, whereas the Kerry's and supporters of the war are making this their BEST argument.

It is a little quirky language and Dean should be more careful so as to avoid such criticism.

If Dean had said the "best my SERIOUS opponents" can do or the "best my only real opponents can do" and qualified the word opponents to exclude Kucinich, Braun, and Sharpton - then he woiuld have looked like a shit too.

Hisd statement does NOT necessarily include Kucinich and therefore is NOT a lie as Dennis sauid in the debate.

But because it is vague enough to POSSIBLY include Kucinich I understand his getting hot: it just ain't that big a deal.

Those who care know Kucinich cares. But barking up the wrong tree is a waste of time. I think it was just not a completely well thought out statement. It clearly excluded Kucinich if you are knowledgeable at all -- and folks who are not knowledgeable won't care.

Oh well. Just my dumb opinion.

Mountain. Molehill. Whiney Kerry. What else is new.

[Punkingal]

2. dupe.....

I'm locking.....