Dean Quits Race

[Companion Cube]

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

The 'YEARRGH!' one? Yeah, i'd like to see that one too.

[Dalton]

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?

*reads own words* Why no, I do not appear to have said that at all.

2. If all the commentators had to do to give Dean negative press coverage was play a frickin' sound byte of Dean speaking,

Again and again and again and again and AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN......

don't you think that Dean's responsible for that?

I'm not denying this.

3. What would a politician have to do to make replaying his mistake reasonable?

I can't parse that question for some reason.

If he made an openly racist comment, would that be worthy of pointing out?

Why yes, even if their comment isn't even racist in the slightest - Remember the Confederate Flag comment? Al Sharpton sure got on Dean's ass about that and it was BIG news at MSNBC for at least a WEEK.

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?

This analogy doesn't work. You are comparing a war cry to a violent attack.

Dean's speech obviously didn't resonate with people at all.

It certainly resonated with his supporters.

You can try to blame the media for showing his speech over and over again,

Which I haven't done. I merely made a comment on the amount of times the media replayed Dean's speech.

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?

I find it odd that there was a problem with it in the first place.

You cannot blame the media for displaying the truth,

And I'm not trying to.

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.

No, seems like a wolfpack attack on Dean (and his own bad choices) was responsible for that part.

b. The media didn't do much with the speech except play it

Many, many times over many, many days.

I watch MSNBC for at least eight hours daily. I've seen it many, many multiple times, but perhaps I'm just biased here.

and let viewers decide on the matter. You similarly can't blame the media for the public's wildly negative response to the speech.

And I'm not trying to. I think you're just taking a bit of commentary I threw out there and assumed I was saying something that I wasn't saying.

[Master of Ossus]

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?

*reads own words* Why no, I do not appear to have said that at all.

What were you saying when you posted this:

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

Seriously, why is horrible in quotes if you agree with that assessment of the speech? It's either not good, or it's reasonable, or it's good. There's not a lot of gray area, here.

don't you think that Dean's responsible for that?

I'm not denying this.

But you're claiming that the media is largely responsible for Dean's downfall, when in fact all it did was relay what he had actually done.

If he made an openly racist comment, would that be worthy of pointing out?

Why yes, even if their comment isn't even racist in the slightest - Remember the Confederate Flag comment? Al Sharpton sure got on Dean's ass about that and it was BIG news at MSNBC for at least a WEEK.

Sharpton was (is?) a desperate candidate. Frankly, he's kind of a loser, so it strikes me as being no surprise that he's going to hound the front-runner, whoever it happens to be. Front-runners get a LOT of media attention during the primaries. Everyone goes into the primaries knowing that's going to be the case. You can't blame anybody but the candidate themselves if they do things that don't get them re-elected.

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?

This analogy doesn't work. You are comparing a war cry to a violent attack.

The principle is the same. In both cases, the person's actions and attitudes are shown by the media. In both cases, it is their own actions that lead to their public downfall.

Dean's speech obviously didn't resonate with people at all.

It certainly resonated with his supporters.

Who? The two of them in Washington state? Dean's popularity dropped off MASSIVELY after the speech. It wasn't resonating with his supporters, and it CERTAINLY wasn't resonating with average Americans, who deserted his cause in droves. If merely PLAYING the speech was enough to get them to do that, the speech obviously wasn't working well.

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?

I find it odd that there was a problem with it in the first place.

Are you suggesting that this is expected to be reasonable conduct for a candidate in a presidential election? His speech would have been REALLY bad, even if he hadn't ended it with his little war-cry. The war-cry made it such a perfect target for pundits that it went down as one of the worst speeches in recent history.

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.

No, seems like a wolfpack attack on Dean (and his own bad choices) was responsible for that part.

WHAT wolfpack attack on Dean? There WAS NONE prior to Iowa. Only after he lost the caucuses and MASSIVELY damaged his popularity base with his speech did the attacks begin.

b. The media didn't do much with the speech except play it

Many, many times over many, many days.

Again, so what? If it had been a great speech, what would you have said about their playing it several times? Politics is a game of mistakes, and Dean made a bad one. It was exposed, and shown to the public. Repeating a great speech isn't going to dilute the message. Do people make fun of King's "I have a dream" speech because they've heard it so much? Had Dean's speech been a good one, nothing the media could've done would've damaged him as badly as what actually happened. CERTAINLY playing the speech over and over again wouldn't have done anything.

[Iceberg]

It's not just replaying the speech over and over again - it's doing so with the "angry Dean" editorial slant. Content is only half of a media report, and not even the important half - the important half is how what's being reported on is editorialized.

[Joe]

Commentary? That video speaks for itself, no commentary is necessary to draw the "crazy Dean" conclusion from it.

[Howedar]

So anyone who ever yells is automatically crazy? Give me a friggin break. The man was excited. It was a stupid thing to do, but calling him "crazy" is a bit silly.

[Hamel]

I've made fun of Dean many times over his speech and even I can admit that it wasn't as fucking outrageous as some people made it out to be

Too excited? Yes~ The scream of a raving lunatic? Nope

[Master of Ossus]

So anyone who ever yells is automatically crazy? Give me a friggin break. The man was excited. It was a stupid thing to do, but calling him "crazy" is a bit silly.

He's not crazy, but it was a shockingly stupid thing to do. I don't need someone who can't control his impulses in charge of the United States, thank you very much.

[Master of Ossus]

It's not just replaying the speech over and over again - it's doing so with the "angry Dean" editorial slant. Content is only half of a media report, and not even the important half - the important half is how what's being reported on is editorialized.

Okay, NO ONE who looks seriously at that video will conclude that it was an intelligent thing to do. However it's been editorialized wouldn't have mattered if Dean had made a serious speech rather than piddling his chances away with that monstrosity. None of the other candidates have done anything anywhere near that stupid (with the possible exception of Sharpton and his knee-jerk "throw money at it" responses to everything and his rabid personal attacks against everyone in sight) while they're on the campaign trail. The media can't hurt you if you don't do anything wrong, and pointing out how a candidate screwed up is a perfectly legitimate way of informing the public.

Moreover, the VAST majority of times I've seen the clip, it hasn't had any commentary. IT SPEAKS FOR ITSELF. There are VERY few people who look at that video and conclude that Dean is a reasonable guy to have in the White House, with or without editorials on the manner.

[Master of Ossus]

Check out what Dean just sent to his supporters.

You folks are the best! I hope you will all keep active both in our new
enterprise as we develop it, and also in the short term. We can still
send delegates to the convention, and we should. If you are in a state
with district, and state conventions, please make sure everyone goes, so
that we send all the delegates we are entitled to. If you are in a state
that has not yet voted, be sure to vote. We'll have a great time at the
convention.

Thank you all for how hard you have worked, and how much money you
raised. And thanks for getting involved. It feels a hell of a lot
better to try and lose than not to try at all. In any case I have to
say that I don't really feel like we have lost. We only lose if we
quit. There is an enormous amount of power in numbers, and we can still
change this country (and that is exactly what we're going to do!).

Many thanks,

Howard Dean

That's a MUCH better statement than the one after Iowa. That's what he should have done after he lost that state, and then maybe he would still be in the hunt.

[Dalton]

1. Are you saying that the speech was reasonable?

*reads own words* Why no, I do not appear to have said that at all.

What were you saying when you posted this:

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

Seriously, why is horrible in quotes if you agree with that assessment of the speech? It's either not good, or it's reasonable, or it's good. There's not a lot of gray area, here.

"Horrible" is in quotes because that's how you described it. I did not think it was horrible. And I agreed that the speech did damage his campaign, not that I agreed with your personal assessment of it.

don't you think that Dean's responsible for that?

I'm not denying this.

But you're claiming that the media is largely responsible for Dean's downfall, when in fact all it did was relay what he had actually done.

Many times, along with lots and lots of commentary from all the usual pundits about how bad it was.

If he made an openly racist comment, would that be worthy of pointing out?

Why yes, even if their comment isn't even racist in the slightest - Remember the Confederate Flag comment? Al Sharpton sure got on Dean's ass about that and it was BIG news at MSNBC for at least a WEEK.

Sharpton was (is?) a desperate candidate. Frankly, he's kind of a loser, so it strikes me as being no surprise that he's going to hound the front-runner, whoever it happens to be. Front-runners get a LOT of media attention during the primaries. Everyone goes into the primaries knowing that's going to be the case. You can't blame anybody but the candidate themselves if they do things that don't get them re-elected.

Yes, but you can blame others for blowing things way out of proportion.

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?

This analogy doesn't work. You are comparing a war cry to a violent attack.

The principle is the same. In both cases, the person's actions and attitudes are shown by the media. In both cases, it is their own actions that lead to their public downfall.

Yes, but one case is obviously a bad move while the other case is something taken and blown far out of proportion.

Dean's speech obviously didn't resonate with people at all.

It certainly resonated with his supporters.

Who? The two of them in Washington state?

The group that he was speaking to, maybe?

Dean's popularity dropped off MASSIVELY after the speech. It wasn't resonating with his supporters,

You mean the cheering crowd that was in front of him as he gave it?

and it CERTAINLY wasn't resonating with average Americans, who deserted his cause in droves. If merely PLAYING the speech was enough to get them to do that, the speech obviously wasn't working well.

How about playing the speech over and over so many times that the people get sick of media overexposure?

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?

I find it odd that there was a problem with it in the first place.

Are you suggesting that this is expected to be reasonable conduct for a candidate in a presidential election? His speech would have been REALLY bad, even if he hadn't ended it with his little war-cry. The war-cry made it such a perfect target for pundits that it went down as one of the worst speeches in recent history.

Yes, I know. I just find it odd that a candidate who actually shows enthusiasm instead of the usual stuffed-suit seriousness is derided as a red-faced lunatic.

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.

No, seems like a wolfpack attack on Dean (and his own bad choices) was responsible for that part.

WHAT wolfpack attack on Dean? There WAS NONE prior to Iowa.

Didn't say there was.

Only after he lost the caucuses and MASSIVELY damaged his popularity base with his speech did the attacks begin.

No...I don't agree with that. I think the speech was just supplementary to the attacks in making his popularity plummet, not the sole cause of it.

b. The media didn't do much with the speech except play it

Many, many times over many, many days.

Again, so what?

I had to listen to it every time

If it had been a great speech, what would you have said about their playing it several times?

Would have been equally sick of it, probably, but I've never heard a great speech replayed many times.

Politics is a game of mistakes, and Dean made a bad one. It was exposed, and shown to the public. Repeating a great speech isn't going to dilute the message. Do people make fun of King's "I have a dream" speech because they've heard it so much?

Was it replayed twelve times in a single day?

Had Dean's speech been a good one, nothing the media could've done would've damaged him as badly as what actually happened. CERTAINLY playing the speech over and over again wouldn't have done anything.

Had Dean's speech been a good one we wouldn't be having this conversation now and the hooplah over it wouldn't have lasted past the second day.

[0.1]

You know, if Dean acted more like the letter he wrote than his rebel yell, he might have actually won a few more primaries. The odd thing is, he might have had a much better shot at the White House if he was a bit more reserved, took a more Libermanesque stance on the war, but really rail against the other candidates as special interest and Washington insiders.

On the other hand, I was watching coverage of the last set of primaries, and it just struck me that something seem to be screwy. Is Bush deliberately trying to throw the election? The counters to the charges that the Democrats are making are just totally ineffective and utterly asinine. And given how few of those counters got put up, it's like the Bush camp has no clue what they're supposed to be doing.

Traditionally, the incumbent goes on the offensive as the primary season end. But given how fast the democrats are solidifying, I find it strange that the republicans aren't even making a whimper about anything. Bush's team could say a lot that isn't based on just negative ads, and they aren't putting out jack. I find that strange. If I had to bet now, I'd say even odds that Bush is gonna lose the White House come November.

[Daltonator]

Ossus: I'm withdrawing from this argument; I've decided that since I work for MSNBC I don't have the objectivity to discuss this.

[Shinigami]

http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=2096

Iceberg seems to be the only one here that saw through the smoke-screen. Dean didn't really do anything to ruin his campaign, except challenge the status quo. From the start, he was labelled as "angry", "unstable", and "unelectable". On average, everything about Dean was depicted in a negative light. In the few instances that the story was positive, the negativity towards Howard Dean far outweighed it. If you think this man to a "nutcase", "crazy", "too angry", "unelectable", or even just unlikeable, ask yourself why. What brought you to that conclusion? I know most people won't admit that their wrong, but in this case, the majority of America fucked up.

[Stormbringer]

Dean didn't really do anything to ruin his campaign, except challenge the status quo.

And try and run his campaign for people that largely don't vote. Trying to appeal to the younger set doesn't work. You can have a lot of support but with out votes that doesn't mean shit. It's sad, but its true. So much for the internet revolution...

As for negative coverage, bull shit! There were plenty of positive stories (remember the Dean worshipping over earlier this year?) but as things got closer he came up under the scrutiny of the media. He got the same treatment as the other candidates then: hard knocks.

If you think this man to a "nutcase", "crazy", "too angry", "unelectable", or even just unlikeable, ask yourself why. What brought you to that conclusion? I know most people won't admit that their wrong, but in this case, the majority of America fucked up.

I didn't think he was crazy or a nutcase. But I did and still do think he was "too angry" and "unelectable" and might I add "too far left" and "too free with the purse strings" and "too naive" as well? And I got there simply by listening to him. He spent too much time preaching and pandering to the angry left for him to have a serious shot Turns out I was righter than I knew.

You can rail against the majority all you want, but Dean simply lost.

[Shinigami]

Dean didn't really do anything to ruin his campaign, except challenge the status quo.

And try and run his campaign for people that largely don't vote. Trying to appeal to the younger set doesn't work. You can have a lot of support but with out votes that doesn't mean shit. It's sad, but its true. So much for the internet revolution...

As for negative coverage, bull shit! There were plenty of positive stories (remember the Dean worshipping over earlier this year?) but as things got closer he came up under the scrutiny of the media. He got the same treatment as the other candidates then: hard knocks.

If you think this man to a "nutcase", "crazy", "too angry", "unelectable", or even just unlikeable, ask yourself why. What brought you to that conclusion? I know most people won't admit that their wrong, but in this case, the majority of America fucked up.

I didn't think he was crazy or a nutcase. But I did and still do think he was "too angry" and "unelectable" and might I add "too far left" and "too free with the purse strings" and "too naive" as well? And I got there simply by listening to him. He spent too much time preaching and pandering to the angry left for him to have a serious shot Turns out I was righter than I knew.

You can rail against the majority all you want, but Dean simply lost.

First, I have to ask exactly what does "unelectable" mean? Nothing. It's a bull-shit buzzword designed to control what you and I think. If a candidate is running for office, and people can vote for him/her, then they're "electable". Second, appealing to the youth is much smarter than you give credit. It got him as far as it did, plus you're talking about a reasonably large group of people whose vote can and always has been a deciding factor. Aside from that, Dean supporters varied in age like any other politician's. Not a very good point to try and make. Third, if you think Dean recieved the same treatment as any other candidate, you've obviously not been paying attention. Anyone who had picked a newspaper in the past month can tell you Dean suffered a media assault. As the front-runner, Dean was constantly raked over the coals. Kerry on the other hand, has barely been a blip on the radar. Sure, there's been an occasional negative story. However, the average American can't name one as they don't recieve the same amount of attention as Dean did. Stories like the one about Kerry's alleged affair are almost entirely forgotten. Why? They were only mention a couple of times. On top of being a different kind of candidate(the only other being Kucinich), the media hated him(and Kucinich). Everything the man did or said was misconstrued or deliberately misinterpreted. Might I add, repeatedly. The "I have a scream" speech(as it's been dubbed by the mainstream media) was replayed over 600x on CNN alone. How does that equate to the treatment of the other candidates?

To be completely honest with you, your entire post was inaccurate. The fact that you threw in the "electability" element says enough. I'm surprised you didn't go for the "un-presidential" shtick too. Truth is the majority is stupid. There's no denying that. Individually, we each are ignorant about something. The masses take this ignorance and amplify it by 100 fold. When you factor in the fact that people are being misinformed on a regular basis, you're left with no other answer. Howard Dean got fucked over.

[Stormbringer]

First, I have to ask exactly what does "unelectable" mean? Nothing. It's a bull-shit buzzword designed to control what you and I think. If a candidate is running for office, and people can vote for him/her, then they're "electable".

Actually, it's a reasonable term. It's a way of decribing some one that doesn't have the necessary support or funding or other assest to get elected to office. It's a fair enough term.

As for it being though control, put down the tin foil hat.

Second, appealing to the youth is much smarter than you give credit. It got him as far as it did, plus you're talking about a reasonably large group of people whose vote can and always has been a deciding factor.

Actually, it was a dumb move as the turn out numbers showed. Youth have never been a key group in elections and for good reason. If you say different, back it up.

Aside from that, Dean supporters varied in age like any other politician's. Not a very good point to try and make.

The break downs and his own campaign plan disagrees.

Third, if you think Dean recieved the same treatment as any other candidate, you've obviously not been paying attention. Anyone who had picked a newspaper in the past month can tell you Dean suffered a media assault. As the front-runner, Dean was constantly raked over the coals. Kerry on the other hand, has barely been a blip on the radar. Sure, there's been an occasional negative story. However, the average American can't name one as they don't recieve the same amount of attention as Dean did. Stories like the one about Kerry's alleged affair are almost entirely forgotten. Why? They were only mention a couple of times. On top of being a different kind of candidate(the only other being Kucinich), the media hated him(and Kucinich). Everything the man did or said was misconstrued or deliberately misinterpreted. Might I add, repeatedly. The "I have a scream" speech(as it's been dubbed by the mainstream media) was replayed over 600x on CNN alone. How does that equate to the treatment of the other candidates?

You realize that any front runner takes hard knockes right? You're an idiot if you don't think that. Dean's annointing by the media came around and bit him on the ass.

And if you think that the media was out to get Dean why do you think they did all those articles and peices praising him for so long came from?

To be completely honest with you, your entire post was inaccurate. The fact that you threw in the "electability" element says enough. I'm surprised you didn't go for the "un-presidential" shtick too.

What in it was innacuarate? So far you haven't shown it and instead have come off as a Deaniac loon.

Truth is the majority is stupid. There's no denying that. Individually, we each are ignorant about something. The masses take this ignorance and amplify it by 100 fold. When you factor in the fact that people are being misinformed on a regular basis, you're left with no other answer. Howard Dean got fucked over.

You're not wrong, it's the rest of the world. Fuck, you are a loon.

[Howedar]

And try and run his campaign for people that largely don't vote. Trying to appeal to the younger set doesn't work. You can have a lot of support but with out votes that doesn't mean shit. It's sad, but its true. So much for the internet revolution...

I'm actually not sure if this is true or not. Dean quit campaigning in Iowa a bit early, which helped to cause his loss (whether it was completely responsible or only slightly we'll never know). After that, he goes YEARRRGH and everyone laughs and finds another candidate.

Aside from lackluster campaigning in Iowa, I don't think we ever saw Dean's youth support either way. They left before they had a chance to vote, generally.

[Shinigami]

Actually, it's a reasonable term. It's a way of decribing some one that doesn't have the necessary support or funding or other assets to get elected to office. It's a fair enough term.

As for it being though control, put down the tin foil hat.

This is a prime example of why I stopped coming to this site. You're not articulate enough to prove your point, so you fling insults. You're entitled to your opinion about the term "unelectable". However, it's always used to discredit a candidate. The explanation for why this term is used to describe anyone is always up for individual interpretation. Plus, it devalues the American vote by painting us into a corner. You're not afforded the chance to vote for an "unelectable" candidate, even if they seem the best person for the job to you, as they're loss is already foreseen. I'll get to that later.

Actually, it was a dumb move as the turn out numbers showed. Youth have never been a key group in elections and for good reason. If you say different, back it up.

I take it you meant when I refer to Dean as a different kind of candidate. I'll get to that. On the other hand, your outlook on the "youth vote" is a little silly. If it never matter(s/ed), then why does every politician in every campaign make an attempt to claim it? The youth vote matters in the long haul, you know this as well as I do. As for Dean being a different kind of candidate, it's kind of obvious. He's not really a politician by trade(I said that before, neither is Sharpton technically). He's married, but his wife had her own career(he got some heat for that, I don't get why). He legitimately said what he felt on issues, and didn't waver based on public opinion(the same can't be said of Lieberman, Kerry, Gephardt, or even Edwards). Plus, those who supported him did so because they really believe in his platform. That's enough to make you stand out this year. Much of Kerry and Edwards' support comes from the ABA crowd. They aren't really concerned with what he has to say as much as they are with whether or not said candidate can beat Bush. That's why it still hard for the majority of people to distinguish between Kerry and Edwards.

The break downs and his own campaign plan disagrees.

Again, Dean's support wasn't much different from any other candidate. Aside from that, his campaign plan didn't really need to focus on any other age group. Nobody's really does. Older generations in this country will vote. Period. They understand the value of it, something most people my age could stand to learn......

You realize that any front runner takes hard knocks right? You're an idiot if you don't think that. Dean's annointing by the media came around and bit him on the ass.

And if you think that the media was out to get Dean why do you think they did all those articles and pieces praising him for so long came from?

That's an interesting skew on the truth. I think it's clear that the media was not too favorable of Dean. Only someone with a clear bias would say otherwise. I made it clear in my previous post, the bad heavily outweighed the good. I don't care who you're voting for, there's no denying that. On the other hand, Kerry hasn't suffered the brunt of a media assault yet. I know it has to happen sooner or later, but it won't be as bad as what Dean was put through. He wasn't just attacked by the media, but every other Democratic candidate except John Edwards took a shot at him. Even Carol Moseley Braun came after him to a lesser degree. Kerry may eventually be targeted, but it won't be so bad as to threaten his campaign. Dean's was ultimately crushed by it.

What in it was innacuarate? So far you haven't shown it and instead have come off as a Deaniac loon.

I've been going along pointing it out. You started out wrong in this post too. *points to "tin-foil hat" comment*

You're not wrong, it's the rest of the world. Fuck, you are a loon.

I didn't say I specifically am right. If you weren't so dead-set on being an ass-hole, you would've seen that. I'll say it again(and slower), individuals tend to be smart on some subjects. However, not as well informed about others. This causes the large majority to be *gasps* wrong. How can the masses be right when most of them are either misinformed, uninformed, or just don't care enough. Large groups of people are rarely(if ever) right about anything. If you're willing to admit to that, you're far too deluded.