Why do you think the media killed Deans campaign??

[Dying Eagle]

I don't believe they did. The media declared Dean the democratic candidate before a single vote was ever casted. He spent his entire war chest on Iowa and NH. So he couldn't take a fighting shot at SC. I personally believe that the mis-management for his campaign staff killed his campaign. I also don not believe that the scream hurt him as bad as everyone has stated. I hope that democrats are smarter then that. Those are my thoughts. What do you think??

[eaprez]

1. Because

He was too outspoken about breaking them (the media) up -- so they took him out.

[Sly Kal]

3. BINGO

Everyone knows it. Don't expect anyone who is for Kerry to admit it.

[KissMyAsscroft]

2. They made him the "frontrunner"

but also tagged his ides as crazy and far left....

But yeah, the media doesn't want anyone that isn't an insider...

However, at the end of the day it's the public's fault for being a moron and Dean's fault for not being more media savvy (although I enjoy that aspect of his character)


At the end of the day, Americans want safe mediocrity...

[madrchsod]

6. i think devo said it best

"freedom from choice"

[Casablanca]

12. The voters could have made being truthful "media savvy". nt

[readmylips]

4. Dean critized the media and the old Democrat establishment...

Both forces very powerful and difficult to beat. On top of it, Dean was relentless against bush, and the media loves bush. Why? Bush has the big bucks to spend on media ads. All of it comes down to money. Dean himself, tripped a few times but it was nothing to the magnitude of bush's failures, a$$hold words, lies and thievery.

[bigwillq]

5. The media played somewhat of a role

They played into the fact that "they" felt the country needed a safer candidate. Dean spoke the truth and the country and the media wasn't ready for the truth.
Believe me, Dean made some mistakes but the country just ain't ready for Dean yet and the media had a lot to say that helped persuade the public to think the same way.
They support Kerry b/c he is the safer of the candidates in my opinion.
edit: spelling

[SadEagle]

7. Eh, your statement is a good example.

You stated that Dean spent the entire war chest in Iowa and NH. Actually, that's very much not true. Now, wonder where you got that idea?

[indigo32]

9. too true

eom

[Guava Jelly]

8. DLC was afraid Dean couldnt defeat bush

And honestly so was I.

[dansolo]

16. I think they were more afraid he could

Even if they lose, they still have their power. A Dean victory would have changed that dramatically.

[Meldread]

10. Here are my thoughts.

A variety of things hurt the campaign. The media was a large factor -- anyone who denies that the media makes and breaks campaigns doesn't know much about politics. Some was internal, but a lot had to do with his Iowa loss.

Dean was in the perfect position to win Iowa, but because of some mistakes he made going into Iowa the media was all over him as well as the other candidates. He and Gephardt basically blasted each other into oblivion.

However, I think the hammer was hovering over the final nail after the Iowa Howard Holler. The speech itself didn't hurt Dean; it was the media reaction to the speech. That is the clear difference. That is when the accusations of "it's over" and "Dean is not going to make a come back", etc. All of that took place. The hammer hit the final nail in New Hampshire when he failed to get that close second. The media used that to reinforce their previous statement of "it's over, Dean is finished". Then the issue of the fact he ran out of money -- that was the final straw and the coffin was sealed shut.

Combine that with Kerry's momentum, the media's constant report of Doom and Gloom, and the fact that Dean was basically out of money... the future looked bleak.

I firmly believe that if Dean had won Iowa things would totally be different now. It might be a close race between Kerry and Dean. However, the mistakes made in Iowa were fatal and the media's constant attack on Dean was basically the kiss of death. That is one of the reasons I hold Kerry in such contempt -- he used someone to sponcer that Osama ad in Iowa, the same dirty trick used on Max Cleland. If I was Max I would drop Kerry just based on that fact alone.

[Casablanca]

13. Blasted each other into oblivion? A convenient mantra ...

Candidates always blast each other, so the "relentless Dean/Gep sniping" that has been often harped about wasn't the issue.

Check this out for another view on what happened.

"How Democrat Fundraiser Scored Dean Knockout"

http://www.suntimes.com/output/sweet/cst-edt-sweet19.html

[dansolo]

17. More likely Gep's support went to Kerry

The DLC wanted to knock Dean out. I still find it suspicious that Gephardt's support in Iowa completely vanished.

[Samantha]

11. I think it was for several reasons

From an article in The Washington Post, read the words of our so-called party leaders:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A43916-2003Dec7.html

Here is the show stopper:

"Secondly, a large number of influential Democrats, many of them former high-level advisers to President Bill Clinton and state leaders, are growing increasingly concerned that Dean's antiwar, anti-tax-cut campaign could doom the party's chances of winning back the White House and Congress. If Dean can't quickly exhibit an ability and willingness to broaden his appeal, especially in the South, these Democrats may join together in a campaign to stop him, several said." (emphasis added)

I think the DLC contributed to Dean's demise. Further, several people formerly in the Clinton camp are currently media pundits. They were in a position to make derogatory remarks about Dean and totally influence a lot of voters.

Further, Kerry's brother is an attorney who represents several broadcast affiliates. That would give him a lot of influence.

If you look at his list of contributors (John Kerry's), Murdock is among them (hard to believe, but true).

Dean's statement to break up the conglomerates: Karl Rove reached out to Jack Welch and promised him if he supported Bush in the election 2000 campaign, one of his first acts if elected would be to relax the ownership rules currently restraining the number of affiliates one person or corporation could own. This prompted NBC and MSNBC to immediately negatively report on Al Gore. I believe the media would show no hestitation whatsoever in negatively reporting on Dean if it thought it was in its self-interests.

[retyred]

14. It's not polite to point

dean killed dean!!! No one within the campaign listened to the warning "This campaign will self destruct"



retyred in fla
“Good-Night Paul, Wherever You Are”
So I read this book

[no name no slogan]

15. What the media giveth, the media taketh away

IMHO a lot of Dean's popularity came after his appearance on the covers of Time and Newsweek. And, because he was different enough from most of the other candidates, he consequently received more coverage.

Looking back, Dean's campaign reminds me a lot of Gary Hart's 1984 campaign (NOT the '88 one, with the Donna Rice scandal). Hart was a (relatively) new up-and-coming pol with a lot of "new ideas" that didn't go well with the old-time party establishment types.

Hart was clearly different from the other players in the race-- especially Walter Mondale, an "establishment liberal" in the vein of Hubert H. Humphrey, his political mentor. Although Hart seemed to be the "change" candidate (much like his mentor George McGovern was in 1972), his "new ideas" were long on sloganeering but short on policy.

Hart's first sign of "collapse" came at one of the debates, where Fritz Mondale uttered the famous "Where's The Beef?" question in regards to Hart's platform. After that incident, the favorable media coverage declined, and his campaign dwindled. Eventually, the "safe" establishment Democrat (Mondale) was nominated, and we know the rest...

The Dean=Hart / Kerry=Mondale is about as close as I can come to an analogy for this year's campaign. Any other thoughts out there on this?

[Samantha]

18. I liked reading your thoughts on the subject but I think this is

pretty simple. The DLC announced pre-IOWA they probably would do something to Stop Dean (please read the Washington Post article). It was in the media's best interests for Dean to disappear.

In Washington, DC everything boils down to influence and money, particularly politics. Dean was going nowhere fast once he became a threat to the power-brokers and monied interests. It's as simple as that.

[arewethereyet]

19. he was DOA way before the scream

that just served to mark the moment that everyone came to realize it.

Dean killed himself.

His staff were, apparantly, thieves or just painfully stupid.

[George_Bonanza]

20. Dean was endorsed by two DLC magnates: Gore and McGreevey

Al From certainly had no love for Dean, but if there was full swing by the DLC to subvert Dean's Iowa platform, then how could they lose control of their two biggest proponents?

Perhaps, oh I don't know, Dr. Dean has a lot to be guilty of his own spectacular downfall? Such as his sealed records?

[Crunchy Frog]

21. I think that they built him up

because they really wanted him to be the nominee, because they believed that they would inflict an absolutely crushing defeat on him.

I believe that they sacrificed him in order to take out Clark, who they always regarded as the real threat to Bush in the general election. Once Dean was taken out, it made Clark irrelevant. They now will not get the crushing defeat of the Democrats that they had hoped for, but they will almost certainly win, which is ultimately all that matters to them.

These are my conspiratorial ramblings and I'm sticking to them.

[NightNurse]

22. Trippi Killed Dean. Ask him,he'll tell you!

Engage!:nuke: