Dean Quits Race

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-02-18 01:41pm

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4300993/

SyntaxVorlon · Post by **SyntaxVorlon** » 2004-02-18 01:43pm

GOOD. Now the work can begin.

Darth Raptor · Post by **Darth Raptor** » 2004-02-18 01:47pm

Reality set in.

YEEEAAARGH!

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2004-02-18 01:48pm

Hooray!!

Alex Moon · Post by **Alex Moon** » 2004-02-18 01:51pm

*does happy dance*

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-02-18 02:45pm

Damn, I'm going to miss his rants, but this is for the best. The less divided the Democrats are, the more likely their chances are to kick President Bush to the curb.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2004-02-18 03:14pm

What have we proven here?

We've proven that the media have become the ultimate kingmaker. They can make or break a presidential campaign solely by how they choose to spin a candidate. They've gone beyond reporting political news and are now making it up whole-cloth, to benefit or damage whichever politician catches their respective fancy at the moment.

Kerry will probably win the presidency not because his campaign is good or because he's the best candidate for president (a question yet to be answered), but because the media loves him.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2004-02-18 03:34pm

Iceberg wrote: Kerry will probably win the presidency not because his campaign is good or because he's the best candidate for president (a question yet to be answered), but because the media loves him.

At the moment they do. However, taken as a whole, the media have a pack mentality and once one member turns on him, the others soon will.

Personally, I think Dean was more electable than Kerry. Kerry has a nice long liberal voting record in the Senate for the Repubs to attack. A record that keeps you winning in MA won't necessarily play in the rest of the country.

The election is Bush's to lose, and so far he's doing a good job of losing it by alienating his base.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-02-18 04:13pm

We've proven that the media have become the ultimate kingmaker. They can make or break a presidential campaign solely by how they choose to spin a candidate. They've gone beyond reporting political news and are now making it up whole-cloth, to benefit or damage whichever politician catches their respective fancy at the moment.

Oh, bullshit; Dean could never make the case to the Democratic base that he was the man to beat Bush, and he's got no one but himself and his big fat mouth to blame.

The Dude · Post by **The Dude** » 2004-02-18 04:51pm

The bitching about the media since Dean's campaign derailed is pretty ironic considering he was the media darling right into January, and it was only once actual Democrat voters had their say that it started to go downhill for HD.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2004-02-18 05:02pm

The Dude wrote:The bitching about the media since Dean's campaign derailed is pretty ironic considering he was the media darling right into January, and it was only once actual Democrat voters had their say that it started to go downhill for HD.

What crack are you smoking? Damn near every media report published about Dean since the very beginning of the campaign underscored an editorial message of "dangerous, angry fanatic" - regardless of what Dean himself was saying.

theski · Post by **theski** » 2004-02-18 05:10pm

*starts skating in a frozen over hell* Damm Iceberg and I agree .... The media was biased against Dean from the start...

The Anti-Dean Media
By Lerxst

No, its not just your imagination...the media has been out to get him:

Howard Dean received significantly more criticism on network newscasts than the other Democratic presidential contenders, who were the subjects of more favorable coverage, according to a study released Thursday.
More than three-quarters of the coverage of Dean's foes by the nightly news programs was favorable, while a majority of attention to Dean was negative, the Center for Media and Public Affairs found.

The study by the Washington-based media watchdog also found that network attention to the campaign was down by 62 percent compared to the last race involving an incumbent president, in 1996.

Researchers examined 187 stories broadcast on the ABC, CBS or NBC evening newscasts in 2003, looking at elements including quoted remarks about candidates and how they were depicted in profiles.

The study found that 49 percent of the coverage of former Vermont Gov. Dean was positive, compared to 78 percent of the rest of the Democratic field, collectively.

http://econ4dean.typepad.com/econ4dean/ ... an_me.html

Damm it I wanted him to win the Nomination....

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-02-18 05:11pm

BOOT TO THE HEAD!

Eh, I don't care that much. I just don't want Bush again.

Post by **Dalton** » 2004-02-18 05:45pm

Iceberg wrote:
The Dude wrote:The bitching about the media since Dean's campaign derailed is pretty ironic considering he was the media darling right into January, and it was only once actual Democrat voters had their say that it started to go downhill for HD.
What crack are you smoking? Damn near every media report published about Dean since the very beginning of the campaign underscored an editorial message of "dangerous, angry fanatic" - regardless of what Dean himself was saying.

Speaking as an employee of a national cable news network, I do have to say that this is the truth. I have seen so much negative shit about Howard Dean and heard his Iowa speech dozens of times - sometimes in one single day.

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2004-02-18 05:47pm

Except that he was the media's baby before the Caucas. Then he lost, fucked up, and they let him have it.

Selective memory is a bad thing.

The Dude · Post by **The Dude** » 2004-02-18 05:50pm

From the actual CMPA report:

Dean’s coverage improved dramatically in December, when nearly one-third of his 2003 coverage occurred. Twenty-eight percent of all on-air descriptions of Dean were positive through the first eleven months of the year, while his coverage spiked to 59 percent positive in December, the month he received the endorsement of former Vice President Al Gore.

So:

1) Throughout 2003, Dean had a large lead and was the undisputed front-runner.
2) At the end of 2003, Dean gets Gore's nod and a massive upswing in the positivity of coverage follows
3) Dean's lead slips dramatically in January; he comes a distant third in Iowa

Given your claim of a) generally negative press for Dean and b) a causal relationship between that press and his electoral performance, how does this compute?

Son of the Suns · Post by **Son of the Suns** » 2004-02-18 06:08pm

Well he certainly was interesting, but I doubt very many moderates would vote for him.

Symmetry · Post by **Symmetry** » 2004-02-18 07:51pm

Damn, this always seems to happen to my favorite Democrat. I'm hoping for Edwards now, but...

muse · Post by **muse** » 2004-02-18 09:00pm

I have nothing to add..except YEEAAAARG!!!!!

Darth Raptor · Post by **Darth Raptor** » 2004-02-18 10:01pm

I wonder if Dean's endorsement would do Edwards more harm than good.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-02-19 01:20am

Dalton wrote:Speaking as an employee of a national cable news network, I do have to say that this is the truth. I have seen so much negative shit about Howard Dean and heard his Iowa speech dozens of times - sometimes in one single day.

There were lots of negative media messages about Dean, just as there were about many of the other candidates. The fact of the matter is that the Democratic Party hasn't really presented a candidate that the media is too excited about. However, Dean did enjoy some support in the media until he lost Iowa to Kerry and made his now-infamous speech, and honestly his "Yeargh" speech is one of the worst speeches in the recent history of US politics. To say that the media is responsible is to over-simplify. The media can't do anything if you don't do anything wrong. Dean's speech was SO bad that it became an OBVIOUS target for everyone and their grandmas to attack. It didn't even need commentary: it was just awful through-and-through. If a baseball player charges the mound and seriously injures a star-pitcher, are you going to say that the media is responsible for his bad image? Of course not. It's the player's fault for attacking the pitcher. When Dean burned himself in Iowa, HE was responsible for the speech, and while his supporters will doubtless place the blame elsewhere, Iowa made it clear that his message wasn't being heard and that he simply couldn't recover from setbacks along the way. Had Dean lost Iowa but made a good speech afterwards, that speech would've received fairly little coverage but Dean would've been in the race. That's not what happened, and now he's regretting it.

Sarevok · Post by **Sarevok** » 2004-02-19 01:32am

Deans fall is surprising. Throughout last year Dean was hyped as the leading Democratic candidate. If anything this demonstrates that opinion polls are not always a good indicator of the actual thing.

Daltonator · Post by **Daltonator** » 2004-02-19 05:56am

Oh yes, Dean was quite popular pre-Iowa - but after he lost, and after he made that speech (which was designed to rally his supporters, mind you), he got pounced on like an injured gazelle and torn to shreds. It didn't help that his "horrible" speech got replayed ad infinitum and is still a target for derision.

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:Except that he was the media's baby before the Caucas. Then he lost, fucked up, and they let him have it.

Yes, fresh blood. Might be related to that comment regarding news media that I heard about.

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:Selective memory is a bad thing.

I'll choose to let this particularly obnoxious comment slide.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-02-19 11:24am

It didn't help that his "horrible" speech got replayed ad infinitum and is still a target for derision.

1. Are you saying that the speech was reasonable?
2. If all the commentators had to do to give Dean negative press coverage was play a frickin' sound byte of Dean speaking, don't you think that Dean's responsible for that?
3. What would a politician have to do to make replaying his mistake reasonable? If he made an openly racist comment, would that be worthy of pointing out?
4. I asked previously if a baseball player who injured a star pitcher by charging the mound could blame the media for his bad publicity. Can he? How much responsibility does he have for his own image?

Dean's speech obviously didn't resonate with people at all. You can try to blame the media for showing his speech over and over again, but really if all they have to do is load up a tape of him talking to his followers then don't you think there was a problem with the speech? You cannot blame the media for displaying the truth, and while you may not like the commentary regarding Dean after Iowa, you must admit that:

a. Dean received fairly good press just before his Iowa defeat, which indicates the media wasn't really responsible for that.
b. The media didn't do much with the speech except play it and let viewers decide on the matter. You similarly can't blame the media for the public's wildly negative response to the speech.

Ubiquitous · Post by **Ubiquitous** » 2004-02-19 03:32pm

Is there a video online of this imfamous speech? I want a laugh.