Does this election remind anyone of Dean/Clark and the primaries?

[DancingBear]

For these reasons:

1) The pundits, after deciding Dean/Clark was not who they wanted, began to attack relentlessly.

2) No matter what the polls showed, Dean/Clark was always "losing ground" or "trying to make himself heard" or "complaining."

3) When Dean/Clark had anything to say, the press made sure they were "busy" with other things.

4) The more the pundits did so, the more money Dean/Clark received, and the more those committed to them worked.

The parallels are striking, aren't they? Thankfully, in this case, we have only one candidate and the media to focus on, as despite all media rumors to the contrary we are one together bunch of Democrats.

Let us hope that Kerry can do what Dean/Clark could not, and let us hope that those backing these two men come to the polls in WAVES.

This just in - unbiased professional journalism is deader than Babe Ruth.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

1. I am betting that Kerry will do what Kerry did.

eom

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. and gore in 2000

repeat after me, Gore won in 2000 the popular vote

[boxster]

3. I think it's merely an extension of the same process.

The Republicans and the media knew that this was going to be a close race, regardless of who the eventual Democratic nominee would be.

So, to them, it made sense to begin the attacks as early as possible. In their minds, if they could effectively smear a couple of the more likely candidates, they could end up with a jumpstart in the general campaign should one of those candidates win the nomination.

[Mz Pip]

4. One similarity

Dean was declared the candidate before even one vote was cast. Some pundits are talking like Bush has already won. I thought that Clark was pretty much ignored. The press seems to be ignoring Kerry except for swiftboat/flipflops/ BS.

The pundits have been wrong before. I'm expecting them to be wrong this time, too.

MzPip
:dem: