I supported Kerry from the start last time but Dean swallowed up the coverage. He looked like a lock

[bigtree]

I was extremely discouraged in the weeks leading up to the Iowa primary. Even that night I had a dread that Kerry was going to be trumped by Dean and even, probably, knocked down to third. I got that from all of the coverage of the race (and I do some reading).

But, we all know the rest of the story. Kerry prevailed in the end.

I offer this because we seem to be locked into a contest which the media has handicapped by these early polls. It is a truth not stated often enough that most voters haven't yet begun to focus in on the election at all outside of whatever they can tolerate from the press. And I don't think most Americans have the tolerance we have here at DU for the coverage of the poll-driven race.

In the coming months, each candidate and their supporters will have the opportunity to present their candidate, anew, to the majority of those Americans who will cast their votes in the next election. Our party has a definite advantage with the opposition already defined by their support and kinship to the present lame-duck loser.

The best thing we can do to shake the race up is to present our candidates and their positions to those voters as often as we can. The worst we can do is to become discouraged or resolved to the present media configuration of our own primary. Here's looking ahead to the beginning of the actual voting.

[gateley]

1. Thank you for this excellent post! I had just posted on a thread that this

is NOT a done deal, but a process. I'm supporting Biden who is one of those is being overshadowed by the Dream Trio, so I find your message inspirational and encouraging. I know it will be equally so for those supporting Kucinich, Dodd, Gravel and Richardson.

Thanks again for your voice of reason. Best of luck to us all!

Rec!!!

[bigtree]

4. Biden was impressive in the debate.

I've seen him at what I consider his worst, and I think he's presenting the right tone in opposition to the administration. I'm not as convinced of his policies and I'm outright opposed to some, but my interest in even that opposition is also a reflection of how formidable I believe he would be as a leader.

edit: I'm solidly in the Richardson camp, mostly because of his Iraq position coupled with his foreign policy experience.

[gateley]

9. Imagine a scenario where Clinton, Obama and Edwards weren't in the mix.

I think the remaining candidates ALL have the qualities and experiences to make a good, if not great, president.

It took me a while to settle in with Biden, but prior to that at one time or another, i leaned toward each one of the others including Richardson. They each offer something unique. When I watch the debates, I can't help but thinking that if I were the one elected president, I'd certainly recruit most of the others to help me with their valuable experience and intelligence. They all sincerely seem to like and respect one another (except maybe for Clinton and Edwards). Wouldn't that be a Dream Team, or am I being naive? :7

Several people have disagreed with Biden on different issues or policies. Some of the issues have been emotionally charged and controversial, plus he's been around so long that's bound to be the case. (I disagree with some of his decisions as well, but obviously hold the belief that he could go a long way to heal our country.)

Thanks for the post and the kind words about Biden. And as I said in the previous post, good luck to us all!

[blondeatlast]

2. How quickly we forget. A necessary reminder, that is exactly how I remember it.

I was undecided pretty much until Iowa but leaning toward Kerry.

Don't let the RRR spin machine IN the media win. It's wide open--especially if yellow-dogs like me haven't decided.

K&R.

[ChiciB1]

3. The DIFFERENCE Between Kerry & Dean Was "Name Recognition" & Dean

didn't have it, Kerry did! What I heard at the end of the "round-up" after the debates when Tweety was talking to Chuck T. & "Stretch" was that Edwards could win Iowa AND NH and still won't win! WHY? They said that D.C. HATES Edwards and that "the powers that be" just won't let it happen. When pressed by WHO they were talking about, neither would say exactly who, but hinted that Tweety probably knew. While they praised Edwards and said he was the "populist" of the group, their final thoughts really disturbed me!

So much so that I was unable to go to sleep until almost 3:00 PM after I decided I needed to take 1/2 of an Ambien! What made me so mad was the fact that even THE DEMOCRATS will pull the same crap that THE IDIOT -- DECIDER has in every election he's been involved in. THEY will decide that IT WILL be Hillary and that's that! Don't know how this works, but it DOES seem to be something that has been effective when it comes to winning the WH!!

I posted this 3 times last night before I just had to leave and focus on something else! I happen to think this is just plain "dirty pool" and don't know what to do about it. It won't stop me from supporting Edwards, but it sure HURTS a lot!

Hillary even acted like The Idiot last night, saying "I'm not going to answer that question" and MSM says that she's running for the GE and so it's what she's going to do from now on. And that laugh is really grating on my nerves... maybe it's cackling! Sorry for the negativity here, but I don't appreciate having ANY candidate ANOINTED, and so early to boot! You can bet good money because of her performance last night that we will be seeing a lot more of Big Dawg pretty soon. He can seal a deal, but I DON'T like it one bit!!

[bigtree]

6. I feel a little blowback in the air

There are plenty of unresolved misgivings about the administration of the Big Dawg to make his re-emergence a potential liability.

[ChiciB1]

8. WE Shall See!!! n/t

[gateley]

16. Wait! You're doing just what you're accusing the MSM of -- making statements

of what will happen, which as the OP reminds us, none of us can tell.

I refer to your mention of Bill Clinton being able to "seal a deal" but I'm one person who has never liked or trusted him. Granted I'm in the minority, but there have to be others like me.

And regardless of whether THEY like it or not, there's more of us than there are of them. We just need to be vigilant and call them on their scummy tactics when we become aware of them.

Don't give up!

If I recall, I recently had a similar 'conversation' with you on this same point. It pains me to see you buying into the crap and assuming it's a done deal. It's not! Hang in there! There's so long to go until D Day don't expend all of your angst and frustration yet! :)

Just follow your beliefs. Fuck what others say.

[ChiciB1]

18. I'm Trying... Really I Am... But Edwards Isn't Getting ANY Credit Even

today. I'm NOT giving up, I'm just jaded and cynical! What I've seen going on so far isn't exactly something that makes me want to stand up and cheer!

I've already donated more to his campaign quite a few times and probably will again!

It just stinks and I do recall your comments, thanks again!

[gateley]

23. I hate to say this -- really -- but initially I was going to respond to this with

"you're looking at it from your viewpoint -- an objective observer can see he's getting credit". But then I actually thought about it, and you have a point! He's not receiving much, and that's heartbreaking to his supporters. However, last night I was reading the MSNBC blog (the reporters who were covering the debate) and they all gave him LOTS of props and felt as though his showing and performance led the pack. And so it begins. When more people hear/read that, more people will pay a little closer attention, and ultimately, if he's the right choice for them, move on over to his team.

Edwards isn't in dire need of money at this point (like my poor guy!) so don't forget to focus on spreading the word and doing what you can on a person-to-person level. It's like everybody receiving the same YouTube video within a couple of days of each other. One sends it out, who sends it to two, who sends it to three...

And just keep posting wherever you go what you feel his attributes are and why you think he'd be the best choice and get people interested. I'm more inclined to listen to somebody I "know" rather than the MSM .

Again, keep on keepin' on. There's a lot of time ahead of us -- plenty of time for things to turn around and for miracles to occur.

[ChiciB1]

26. Thanks Again... And I Like Joe Too! He's A Boomer Like Me!

And I wish he was getting the credit he deserves too! I'm just fed up with the Hillary, Hillary, Hillary!

One more laugh out loud and it's time for me to SCREAM!

[karynnj]

30. In August 2003, Dean was simutaeneously on the cover of

three major newsmagazines. Kerry's name was recognized, but people did not know that much about him.

Actually, there were people who said that if Kerry came in 3rd or below in Iowa, he was dead. But if Edwards came in third that was better than expected. I bet, if we looked hard enough over a broad enough pre-primary time frame, we could find anything.

[madfloridian]

37. Two of the articles in those 3 mags implied he was not mentally sound.

I remember being proud to see the covers until I started reading the articles. A couple of people who had been supporting him said the articles made them decide he was not stable enough. This was well before Iowa.

One of those was my doctor who was persuaded by two of the articles.

[karynnj]

43. I think the three August ones were all positive

There were later stories asking if he was too angry.

[madfloridian]

47. It was mostly implied stuff.

But it was there.

[MrCoffee]

5. this post saddens me

because i was the 6th recommender. i didn't get it to the greatest page. :cry:

[goddess40]

7. Kerry prevailed because the party and MSM sabotaged Dean

MSM was afraid Dean could actually win and since he isn't at the beck and call of the DCC the power behind the democrats didn't want him either.

MSM saw Kerry as beatable because as a senator and a war protester they could distroy him and the DCC knew Kerry was under their control.

[bigtree]

10. I kinda remember that it was the MSM who held Dean aloft

until we actually voted. I trust that those those votes were more responsible for Kerry's success than any operative's manipulations.

Remember Trippi? He walked off with millions in donated money after Dean's campaign ran aground.

[hfojvt]

11. another thing I remember from debates in 2003

Was that all the other candidates went after Dean. In the Iowa forum I watched last week, they did not all go after Hillary even though she is the front-runner. There was alot of Dean bashing coming from a variety of sources leading up to the Iowa caucuses.

[_dynamicdems]

27. Maybe I'm cynical, but I think one or two of them are running for a position in a

Clinton Administration or perhaps the VP slot. And I don't think you can count Kucinich, Edwards or Gravel among them.

[WildEyedLiberal]

12. Are you kidding? The only reason anyone knew about Dean was because of MSM coverage

I wasn't following the race that closely and didn't even know about Dean until I saw him on the cover of Time, Newsweek, and Rolling Stone - all very positive pieces which made me think "hey, I should find out more about this guy." There wouldn't have BEEN a massive Dean movement without the MSM, and this "the MSM sabotaged him and wanted Kerry" garbage is purely fictitious.

[sandnsea]

21. Uhm,

the last 2 weeks before the election, there was a concerted effort to take Dean out. Not, however, for JK's benefit. Somebody else was in the primary that everybody tends to forget about.

[ozone_man]

28. The murder suicide?

You must mean none other than Dick Gephardt. :)

The point I caught on to what was going down was when watching the debate narrated by Dick Cavett, who seemed to be on the whole thing.

Anyway, we've all got the war we wanted and that these senators authorized.

Personally, I hope we can turn things around, but it won't be by voting for one of the war hawks.

[shance]

17. It was a 'coup' in and of itself was it not?

How many 'coups' have we had since 1963 anyway?

Anyone keeping count of all of them?

[Virginia Dare]

13. A LOT can happen, I'm taking nothing for granted....n/t

[blondeatlast]

14. The 2004 primary horserace is on!--AGAIN! Yours is a good point indeed,

but I'm gonna grab a pillow and a blankie anyway... :scared:

[BurtWorm]

15. Actually, the smart money had Kerry picked long before Dean became a threat.

Dean was only a threat because he actually excited people. I don't know if Democrats and the smart money can tolerate anyone too exciting in the general.

[bigtree]

19. I wonder if 'Clinton fatigue' will come back as Bill re-emerges?

a 'been there, done that' sort of thing . . . *those folks you describe can be turned around quicker than the electorate

[BurtWorm]

22. I don't know about the rest of America, but I'm feeling it.

;)

I want some new blood. I want a person for the age. We need an FDR. I need a whole lot more evidence that that person is HRC.

[gateley]

24. Please, God. nt

[karynnj]

45. which is why Kerry had to mortgage his house for money

[PATRICK]

20. An unpleasant

realization however you want to approach is the war for choice against the treacherous GOP media.
One unpleasant way of looking at it is this time they have their Joe Lieberman and she is viable. Not playing off liberals against each other as before, but an honest to goodness first choice of the entire corrupt establishment. She herself does not have to even BE that bad but simply fall into the assigned role to complete the picture. Until people actually vote, that is.

In 2004 Joe was a worrisome joke the media TRIED to hype dismally. That factor is now alive and well, front and center. We can think, or hope, that like Joe she will fade precipitously, but she has more, is better and our fears about no chance Joe are nothing compared to the temptations to despair now...despair shared by the general electorate no matter what the polls seem to indicate under MSM guidance.

Bitterly one reflects on the fear in 2004 about which liberal could win, and the steady hand won the confidence. Now we have a deliberate DLC cipher floating over the shoals of long cultivated prejudice against her. The desperate win situation has risen like a demon out of the ashes of 2006 hopes and GOP horrors. The real battle for democracy is relegated to this contest alone because in 2008 there is only the task of defeating actual fascism, not a healthy American "choice" at all. In this battle for the soul the same forces can hope to remove more choice, more chance at defending democracy. This is the only shot Dems will get in championing democracy for the nation.

A weird primary system beset by jingoistic corporate hounds and Lord knows what tweaking fraud in the individual states. In this contest there is less democratic choice than in 2004, the same interference, the same worries, and the same herding of the voters toward GOP wishes. If everyone running is by dint of permission of the hated rulers of this fraudulent establishment, with Junior's blessing, then humanity has already lost its democratic choice... no matter how good Hillary is or intends to be. If this sounds like demonizing the Clintons it is only in recognition of the highly evident process swallowing them up whole should their ambitions succeed. Another compromising presidency under siege when so much more was necessary...and possible. Or even another mad GOP reign of terror.

[EFerrari]

25. Differences. Dean had popular support, Clinton does not.

Dean was taken out by the DLC and the press. Clinton will not be.

Apples and oranges.

[bigtree]

29. voters 'took Dean out'

Dean was a press darling until we actually voted.

[EFerrari]

31. Then you must have missed that whole concerted press campaign

to tank him.

And, btw, I wasn't a Deaniac.

[bigtree]

34. Even Trippi admitted that the efforts by the other candidates did him in

"It's gotten tighter; it's gotten a lot tighter," said Joe Trippi, Dr. Dean's campaign manager, as he tried to manage his campaign through its first actual electoral test. "The hammering that we've been taking has taken a toll."
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/18/politics/campaigns/18DEMS.html?ex=1389762000&en=82601d75c2d21bbd&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND

You've left out all of the events which led up to the caucus, like the actual words of Dean (on tape) knocking the Iowa caucus being used against him by the Kerry campaign.

But the bottom line is that voters made the choice in the end. I know folks don't want to deal with that, but whatever influences determine that support at the polls have to be managed successfully by the candidates. Dean made some glaring missteps which caused voters to switch off of him. Don't forget, it was that same media machine which had him on three major magazine covers while they were busy writing Kerry off.

[karynnj]

51. Also shortly before the cacuses there was one day that deservedly

changed the dynamics.

Kerry had an event with Youthbuild, an organization that Kerry had worked with for decades that helps under piviledged kids both finish high school and get construction type jobs. His campaign had been called by the guy he saved in Vietnam, who he had not seen since then - asking if he could help. They got him to Iowa and at that event Kerry had a reunion with Rassmann, a Republican cop from Oregon. This had to be the best campaign event ever - Rassmann told the crowd the story of how Kerry saved his life. Kerry said that "anyone would have done it" It was like out of a 1940s movie.

On the same day, Dean yelled at a heckler to "Sit Down".

These two items were constantly played on cable TV. What do you think this did for people still on the fence between them?

[EFerrari]

53. That Iowa thing was manipulated, remember?

They turned down the audience and turned Dean up.

The corporate RW media loves to set our people against each other. Sure, the voters made a choice based on the information they got. :shrug:

But, also, I have to give kudos to Mr. Kerry for his tenacity. That's one thing about him I really admire, concession speech or no concession speech.

[Jim Sagle]

39. DLC hogwash!

[bigtree]

46. typical PDA response!

darn those pesky voters and their ideological indifference

[Jim Sagle]

52. More DLC hogwash!

[bigtree]

32. pre-Iowa news account (NewsHour)

January 16, 2004, 2:55pm EDT

POLLS SHOW TIGHT RACE LEADING UP TO IOWA CAUCUSES

The race for the Democratic presidential nomination in Iowa could be a very close four-way contest according to recent polls that show former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., Rep. Richard Gephardt, D-Mo., and Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., bunched at the head of the pack.

On Friday the Des Moines Register called the race a "virtual tie."

Kerry has enjoyed an especially strong surge in recent days according to the polls, daily gaining ground on his rivals and moving to first place in one poll and a near tie with Dean for first in another.

Whatever a candidate's poll popularity, however, many experts say the key to winning in the Hawkeye state will be on-the-ground organization, considered crucial to score a victory in the caucuses, which require voters to gather in small groups, debate, and then vote by literally "standing" for a head count.

According to reports from Iowa, Gephardt and Dean have the best on-the-ground operations. Gephardt won the caucuses in 1988 and enjoys strong labor union support. Dean has raised more money than the other candidates and, until recent days, has led decisively in the polls.

An MSNBC/Zogby poll of 503 likely voters taken Jan. 13-15 showed Kerry in the lead for the first time with 24 percent, followed by Dean (19 percent), Gephardt (19 percent) and Edwards (17 percent). The Zogby poll's margin of error is +/- 4.5 percent.

"We're essentially in, as far as I can tell, a four-way tie here," Dean, who had for weeks been the front-runner, told the Des Moines Register on Thursday. Dean seemed to remain confident, however, telling the Register, "Our base is strong."

Meanwhile, Kerry sounded cautious about his apparent surge in an interview with the Register. "What matters is Monday," Kerry said, adding that he will "spend the next four days talking about what matters. I have the credentials to do it."

more: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/iowa_01-16-04.html



Iowa Caucus results (votes)

1,963 of 1,993 precincts reporting - 98%

Wesley Clark -- 3
John Edwards -- 954
Richard Gephardt -- 318
John Kerry -- 1,128
Dennis Kucinich -- 39
Joe Lieberman -- 0
Al Sharpton -- 0
Uncommitted -- 15

http://desmoinesregister.com/extras/politics/caucus2004/resultssummary.html

[MazeRat7]

33. Spot on.. I posted a similar comment earlier today...

your exactly right.. early on it was Dean all the way if you listened to the MSM.

MZr7

[madfloridian]

35. "swallowed up coverage"? Here is the 527 Democrats set up....

to "bring Dean down"....their own words.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/1526

[bigtree]

36. who do you think actually saw that ad and was influenced by it?

show me proof of that. I haven't seen any. Polls showed other factors went into Dean's collapse and Kerry's ascendancy.


Donkey Rising on the Iowa entrance poll: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/primaries/pages/epolls/IA/index.html

Polls have persistently showed that repealing all of Bush's tax cuts, including those for the middle class, is an unpopular position, even among Democratic voters. Of course, this was Dean's position....but it was also Gephardt's position, in spades. He not only wanted to repeal all of Bush's tax cuts but he proposed to spend all the savings from repealing the cuts on a very, very expensive $2.3 trillion health plan. Target practice for Karl Rove, in DR's view.

Then there's the Iraq war. Sure Americans tend to be critical of the way the Iraq war has been motivated and conducted by the Bush administration and are very worried that the war's overall result might not be worth the casualties and money it is costing. But they also see the vanquishing of Saddam Hussein as a very good thing and support the way we used military force to do that. A muddled position kind of like.....well, like that of John Kerry and John Edwards, the winners of the Iowa caucuses.

The Iowa entrance poll results cast further light on the role of the war in caucus voting. Caucus voters overwhelmingly said (75 percent) said they disapproved of the war in Iraq. These voters unsurprisingly gave little support to the most pro-war viable candidate (Gephardt, 9 percent) but also gave only 24 percent of their support to Dean, the anti-war candidate. They gave most of their support to the "muddlers"--34 percent to Kerry and 24 percent to Edwards (probably understated, since Edwards fared better in the final causus results than he did in the entrance poll).

The poll also shows that the ability to "beat Bush" was a significant determinant of the caucus vote--26 percent selected this trait as the most important quality guiding their choice of candidate. These voters gave two-thirds of their support to Kerry (37 percent) or Edwards (30 percent).

In fairness to Dean, slightly more voters (29 percent) selected taking strong stands as the most important quality determining their vote and, of these voters, more voted for Dean (31 percent) than for Kerry (26 percent) or Edwards (23 percent).

But other bright spots for Dean were few and far between. Those who described themselves as very liberal were more favorable to Dean (32 percent) than any of the other candidates. So were those who selected the war in Iraq as their most important issue (14 percent of caucus-goers). Finally, those who chose their candidate more than a month before the caucus favored Dean over Kerry by a slim 32 percent to 28 percent margin.

http://www.emergingdemocraticmajorityweblog.com/donkeyrising/archives/000365.php

[madfloridian]

38. Wait....I take Teixeira's word for Dean's loss? Much more to it than that.

Did you watch the segments of the C-Span video? No, I did not think so.

Dean's campaign was not a machine. It was a campaign filled with hope and enthusiasm.

But in Iowa Kerry had the Vilsacks behind him, and the Dean campaign did not play the caucus game very well. Especially when Kucinich told his folks to go with Edwards at the end.

But what some folks don't think about. When Dean was part of a debate series in Canada in the 90s...would have to look it up...he had harsh words for the caucus system and Iowa in particular.

I believe it was CNN that found the tapes and brought them into the public eye just before Iowa.

His words about the caucuses being riddled with politics, though true, had a lot to do with his demise.

Also our daughter and her husband got phone calls push polling them that Dean had performed abortions and his wife was Jewish...would that make a difference.

It was a campaign of ordinary people. Not a machine.

[bigtree]

41. no. the post is about the polls. DR gave a good interpretation,

. . . especially about the 'mushy middle' on Iraq which reflected most voters opinions at the time.

I remember that Kerry was made fun of at every turn in the media, and then ignored until he hit a stride in the polls before Iowa (right as the majority of voters were actually focusing in).

Whatever support Dean was able to manage in the months before Iowa (whether a media creation or from the internet crowd who gave him,and ultimately Trippi, all of the money) he lost as voters focused in on the full range of candidates. Gephart was the first favorite in Iowa, I believe.

I think the early coverage might have done Dean in by allowing all of the attention focused on his foibles while virtually ignoring Kerry's. Whatever the case, the campaign was transformed WHEN PEOPLE ACTUALLY VOTED.

[madfloridian]

44. When IOWA actually voted.

Then the rest of the states sort of fell in line. Remember FL and CA were big Dean states, Kerry was a blip in FL until he took Iowa. Both states had late primaries...ours was March 9th.

So a vast number of people for Dean never got to vote.

I notice there seem to be implied blame toward Dean for taking attention from others. Isn't that what politics is about, what campaigns are about?

Kucinich people many of them never have forgiven Dean for getting to be known as the anti-war candidate. Others are still angry that he "swallowed" attention.

I think that is rather petty myself. It was an awesome campaign that brought many people into the party.

Why be petty about it now? He is keeping in his proper place, now, so all should be happy.

[bigtree]

49. I'm not being petty. I've been drawn into the Kerry/Dean battle all over again

My original point about the potential fluidity of a media-settled race still stands.

[madfloridian]

50. We agree on that.

Very much.

[book_worm]

40. By the fall of '03 the coverage by the media of Dean was largely negative

furthermore the establishment didn't want him. Kerry was an establishment candidate. He surged in the weeks before Iowa. Iowa was not a complete surprise. The days after the Iowa vote the media didn't let up with the infamous "Dean Scream" which was much ado about nothing--but was the big political story in the week before the NH primary. So we got Kerry whose big talking point, especially of his supporters on DU, was how "electable" he was...

[bigtree]

42. Kerry was virtually ignored until right before the Iowa caucus

while Dean had to endure front-runner scrutiny.

The point I'm making, which is the point of the post, is that these front-runners can fall fast, whatever the reason -- media, attacks from the other candidates, or whatever. When voters actually voted, the race was transformed from conventional wisdom into reality.

[Cha]

48. Yep, that's good to be reminded of..

I was a Dean Supporter all the way but he lost out to Kerry I got behind Kerry cause I wanted those damn bushits outta there.

Anything can happen from here on out..don't even think there's an inevitability by the front runner just because the corporatemediawhores want it to happen.