Dean supporter’s take on tightening race

[Don Claybrook]

The Iowa caucus looks to be very, very tight. New Hampshire looks like a horse race between Dean and Clark. I’ve seen Dean people blame the media. I’ve seen non-Dean people reply that this is sour grapes. I suggest that there’s an amalgam of factors at work.

I do firmly believe that large portions of the mainstream media are trying to dissuade people from voting for Howard Dean. I believe that most of these same people were trying to prop Dean up when he was an unknown longshot. I think the Tom DeLays and the Karl Roves of the Republican Party were actively trying to push Dean for awhile, but now they’ve seen the genie escape the bottle and they want it back in.

I watched Hardball last night, which is not a normal practice of mine. But I do keep up with the reputations of the various villains who appear on Hardball. So I wasn’t too surprised to see Frank Luntz, (Republican) pollster spinning that hapless group of voters just as hard as he could. At one point, he gave them all an either/or choice: should the voters go with a candidate who displays anger at GWB, or should they go with a candidate who talks about what his particular policies will be? That’s a false choice, and it’s clearly meant to denigrate Howard Dean. The world isn’t binary, nor are voters and candidates binary. Every one of the candidates has displayed anger at the Bush administration, and rightfully so. Every one of the candidates also has a whole series of platform planks. Voters aren’t limited to one choice or another. But left with only 2 choices, it’s very difficult to raise your hand in support of the anger at Bush option.

And last night’s Hardball was one example among many. The media tried to pump Dean up, and now they’re trying to take him down. I think they’ve had some measure of success, too.

But that’s not the entire story. I think that some of the other candidates are rising in the polls due to their own efforts, both positive and negative. I’ll never understand the Gephardt votes, but I can’t deny that they’re there. I think that John Kerry’s longevity in politics and solid liberal credentials are beginning to help him. Apparently he’s also changing his approach so that he’s not so wonkish but speaks in a way more suited to the voting public. I happen to like the wonkish approach, but I don’t guess I’m the average voter. And I think that Edwards has claimed the high road votes, the moderate votes. He’s apparently staying with a positive message, and some segment of the population responds to that. Wes Clark is definitely on the rise, and I believe that’s largely due to the bet-hedgers who believe that Bush isn’t beatable. I know I’ll have angry Clark supporters telling me that’s not the case, that he has many liberal credentials that aren’t war-related, etc. And they’re probably right. But I do believe that his newer converts are largely from the camp that thinks Bush is unbeatable in matters of defense and security and that we’ll need to “out-military” Bush in order to win.

As has been pointed out by lots of people, whoever wins the nomination will need to be ready to deal with an onslaught of paid professionals in the media and in the Republican Party. All those Hardball folks and other journalists will begin talking about the candidate’s fatal flaws. If Kerry wins the nomination, the Hardball “journalists” and “analysts” who were last night praising his depth of experience will find plenty of negative things to say about the man.

It’s going to be a really tight race. May the best candidate win. But just as soon as it’s decided, let’s close those ranks around that candidate, because he’ll need all the help he can get against The Machine, because that machine will immediately focus on destroying him.

[Jack_Dawson]

1. I agree to close ranks

around whoever wins the Democratic nomination. I've run across many posters on DU who don't feel the same way, which is frightening. Any non-vote for a Dem is a vote for Bush.

[janx]

2. A lot of these pundit types stand to lose should Dean win.

And they're scared to death.

Our media is so corrupt that people who pretend to be giving us unbiased information are simply paid shills. Luntz is a perfect example, but there are many others.

They know that Dean knows this. He has spoken out about the corruption in the media.

[Jack_Dawson]

3. Are you kidding me?

The media has been :puffpiece: 'ing Dean for the past two years. The only reason they're only just now reporting anything negative is because of his downward movement in the polls.

[Maddy McCall]

5. Dean has said some stupid things, too.

If they were waiting to draw blood, he gave them great opportunities. This isn't what we need in a Bush contender.

[janx]

7. Two years? Hardly. The only reason they started covering him at

all was because of the grassroots momentum that they finally could not ignore.

I realize that you don't support him for the nomination, but you can't deny that.

[Nazgul35]

13. Past two years?!

where have you been?

The media wasn't even paying attention to Dean until the summer money primary...than they were laughing at him and his supporters...until the the amount of cash raised came in at the end of September.....

And the negative reporting started long before his "downward movement in the polls" as has been shown in the independent study others have cited around here....in fact, the downward trend is because of the negative press....

If anything, the party should thank Dean for taking all the pot shots for the last four months while other candidates got a free ride....as long as Dean was out in front, the emdia didn't even look into the records of the other candidates....

Dean is battle tested.....are any of the other candidates.....or will we find that out at the worst time....during the general election?!

[MoonAndSun]

4. Great post, Don.

We must, and most of us will, fully support the eventual Dem candidate. It will be the only way we can defeat bush*. We have to all work together for the good of this nation and her future generations.

[Southsideirish]

6. The media is insidious - 'never realized how much til this race.

They are lazy as hell and want the story to write itself plus they are 100% into the "herd" mentality - terrified to break ranks with their peers.
With a few exceptions they make me want to wretch.
They "made" Howard in the beginning of the summer as he was new and different ("man bites dog"). Then they got tired of him being the front runner for so long - and decided to tear him apart - fun for them. This has been going on since the fall -all over the place, radio,TV, and print. They have bloodied him pretty badly and I only hope to hell the good people of Iowa will see through the crap that came "over the transom" to these lazy asses via the other candidates, the Clinton's and the RNC, and see Howard for the great and terrific person we know he is. He is the only one who can beat Bush - we know this. If by some hideous quirk of fate he doesn't get the nomination then when Bush and his money and attack machine defeats the Dems in November - the whole world will know that Howard should have been the nominee - it but it will be too late.
I love Howard because he is such a fighter - the rest are wimps and/or compromisers, in my opinion.

[janx]

8. Yes, they've been very comfortable--

but they're in for a shakedown. And I'm going to relish watching every minute of it.

[cthrumatrix]

10. I tell people this all the time -- just keep fighting -- the Dr. can and

will do it.

And the media is what they are told to do...

[HFishbine]

9. How abotu this Iowa voter's

masterful grasp of what's going on:
---------

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I just—I‘m not comfortable with the way Dean vacillates on issues.

LUNTZ: What—which—what in particular?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, he‘ll say, for example, that, I voted for this at this point about the Iraq war. And then I changed my mind. But he doesn‘t really try to explain it. He tries to defend it.
-----------

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3979318/

[LittleDannySlowhorse]

11. My take is really

just that a lot of the undecideds --- and there were a lot of them --- are now deciding and spreading out among the candidates. I expected that and never believed for a minute that Dean (or anybody) had anything in the bag. As elections draw nearer the race usually tightens in almost every case I've ever seen, except of course in the races where one candidate was pretty much clearly going to win from the outset. We have had no such situation this time, and we won't in the general election either, no matter who's running.

I hate this horse race shit, personally. Puts me on edge.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

12. Good post Don

I'm not sure what the media role has been, but I will admit there has been some "demonzing" of Dean supporters such as culminated in the "latte ad". A lot of it is spin, buzz, and a little self-fulfilling prophecy in the negativity.

Re: Kerry- I think there's a fair chance that whoever these journalists were on hardball could actually genuinely find things to praise in Kerry- there's certainly a lot there.

[jsw_81]

14. Don't worry about Dean

Even if he should come up short in Iowa (which was NEVER a must win state for Dean), he's still going to win New Hampshire plus several, if not all, of the large states where he's built an outstanding grass-roots organization. The other candidates simply don't have the money to compete with Dean in delegate-rich states like California, New York and Florida where expensive TV ads are crucial if you want to win. When all is said and done, Dean will be nominated in Boston this summer. Just watch.