Stop Dean Steams Full Speed Ahead in Iowa ...

[Samantha]

This thread is intended to be a thought-provoking question about who runs our party, develops our strategy and manipulates the results. Once you have arrived at your answer, think further about these questions: how much does the collective preference of the Democratic base count as opposed to the will of those who control this party; and, if you are idealistic enough to think the sheer will of the Democratic voters determines our candidate, are the following points mere coincidence?

There's has been an overabundance of rhetoric that many of the Democratic elite have been alarmed at the rise of Howard Dean. It has not escaped our notice that Karl Rove has pointedly said, "He's the one we want" (as if Karl Rove would actually reveal his political preference in an opposition candidate a year before the election). A public split has occurred between our former candidate, and actual winner of the popular vote, Al Gore, and the Democratic Leadership Conference. The latter is a Democratic think tank gently moving the party to the right for some time now. The DLC encouraged its membership to speak out against a Gore run in 2004, thus discouraging a candidate who previously garnered 74 percent support among Dems, to not run.

Outstepped several prominent DLC'ers to run in his stead. Expecting that one of these would seize the nomination and carry forth the Clinton political flag (which fortunately or unfortunately, depending on one's perspective, Gore allowed to drag on the ground), the more conservative element of our party has watched in distress as Howard Dean took the lead. The reception of his sprint to the top of the heap has been met with the following reactions.

It has been announced that 49 percent of the press coverage on Howard Dean has been negative. This came out of CNN's own corporate lips yesterday. Anti-Dean ads running in Iowa have some suspicious financial backers. Republicans? Talking heads of a known Clinton persuasion repeatedly drip, drip, drip the angry, hothead labels when discussing Dean. He cannot win against Bush* is another familiar refrain.

The Clinton element of the party (Hillary in 2008), the media, Republican shenanigans, conservative Democratic elite -- these all comprise components of Stop Dean. These are the same elements that contributed to eliminating Gore, who some argue had the best shot at taking out Bush*, having done it once before. Eliminate Gore, eliminate Dean, keep eliminating until we get the one WE want.

And what about the Lieberman, Clark supporters -- will they function as a component of the Stop Dean forces in play in Iowa by joining with, for instance, the Kerry camp, Monday night? Someone is developing this type strategy to manipulate these results, count on it.

Two questions:

As I pose these questions, I can't help but wonder. If a voter in Iowa can change his or her party affiliation until 5:00 Monday, how do Democrats know Republicans aren't doing exactly this to derail Dean in favor of a candidate their private pollsters tell them will actually lose to Bush.*

Is all of your political passion focused on your candidate of preference, or do you ever stop to wonder: do we have some of that same Renquist mentality within our own party, the mentality that dictates we the people are just too stupid to make this all-important decision so the elite among us must do it for us?

This is the heart of my question, and it's a very sincere question.

Comments?

[LuminousX]

1. Your post is thought provoking

And I can't formulate a valid response at the moment so I will just relay to you that my gut is the type of party switching tactics you mention involve too few people to truly have a significant effect on the process. I can't offer you any numbers at the moment though, just my gut feeling.

[NewHampster]

2. Well said Captain Obvious

Really. thanks for putting into words what should be so obvious to smart people.

As a great man once said.

"Forgive them father for they know not what they do".

[windansea]

3. I sincerely doubt

that private repub polls predict Dean as the strongest Dem candidate

many national Bush vs various Dem candidate polls do not show Dean as the stongest challenger

http://www.davidwissing.com/gen2004polls.html

[Samantha]

10. I put no stock in national polls

but believe it all boils down to power and control. Polls are distributed by partisan pollsters to manipulate the public into certain thought processes. In other words, polls are simply brainwashing tools. The outcome is pre-determined, the pre-published polls just allow us to think the process occurred naturally.

I believe whoever wins the Democratic nomination stands a very good chance of defeating Bush.* Several scandals lurk beneath the surface, and depending on the combination of if and how they erupt and the public's reaction to these scandals, give the Democratic candidate, whoever that might be, a lot of leverage. Control that candidate, and you have an excellent chance of controlling power in Washington, D.C. the next four years. I do not believe elements within our own party and the Corporate world will leave that to voting chance, do you?

[On the Road]

37. Established Power is Not Comfortable with a Grassroots Candidate

because the candidate's power comes directly from the electorate.

As much as Dean is a centrist and a DLCer, the thrust of his campaign has been not only outside the party structure, but against the party structure.

Dean is fighting the establishment of BOTH political parties. None of the others is fighting the concerted efforts of even one party. Dean has already been "Gored" by the media, and it's distressing to see how many people many on DU, of all places, who have bought into the phony criticism.

I do think Dean is above criticism. But I do believe he has been the target of special attack, and that those attacks derive just as much from his stated opposition to political power as his status as the front-runner.

The grassroots has got to come through now for Dean. He has by far the best nationwide team. We'll see if it works.

[Samantha]

44. You are right on, and it's nice to see you are still posting here

Looks like a College Park political junkie is responding to the thread of another College Park political junkie -- and we are in total agreement.

I was thinking last week of the political statement people like to make in reference to Bush* dancing with the people who brung him. The political problem for Dean -- as far as the political power brokers' perception go -- is that it is the people who are carrying him along, not the special interests. Regardless of whether one is or is not a Dean proponent, acknowledgement must be made that if elected he would definitely work in the best interests of those who put him there in the first place if he expected to receive a second term. Playing to the interests of the people won't play well in Corporate Political Peoria.

[incontrovertible]

56. the presumption of polls as "brainwashing" is naieve

What is brainwashing about asking someone "On a scale of zero to five, with zero being the most unfavorable and five being most favorable, where would you personally rate Candidate X?"

All credible pollsters publish the questions they asked, along with their sample size and methodology. That's the only reason they're given credibility in the news media.

I regard the dismissal of all polling data out-of-hand as fraudulent with the same intellectual credibility that I give the supposition that "They" control every syllable written in every newspaper, or spoken on any news program. I've been in those newsrooms in both media. Trust me - "They" don't.

[Samantha]

58. I didn't say all polling was fraudulent

I suggested a lot of polling was manipulative.

Following the 2000 elections, some Republicans laughed at manipulating the polls that were published that calendar year. Did they make this up? Following Bush*s selection, an article printed in the Washington Post said Bush* was retaining Republican pollsters. Pollsters should be apolitical if their polling results are published by so-called apolitical entities.

If you are asking me to believe politicians and parties do not retain certain pollsters in an attempt to achieve a desired result, I am sorry, I just don't believe that. That is not to say every pollster in the business is a crook.

Fortunately for me, I don't need your approval of my intellectual credibility so perhaps we should just agree to disagree on this issue.

[incontrovertible]

60. you said you put no stock in national polls

Polls are distributed by partisan pollsters to manipulate the public into certain thought processes. In other words, polls are simply brainwashing tools. The outcome is pre-determined, the pre-published polls just allow us to think the process occurred naturally.

You didn't say "a lot of polling," you said "polls," and the implication was clear that you believe "polls" to be "brainwashing tools."

Following the 2000 elections, some Republicans laughed at manipulating the polls that were published that calendar year.

What Republicans, and which polls? If any elected Republican made a credible claim to have manipulated the result of a Gallup poll, this would be investigated relentlessly by the news media, to the ruin of Gallup as anything but a push-poll market research corporation.

If you are asking me to believe politicians and parties do not retain certain pollsters in an attempt to achieve a desired result, I am sorry, I just don't believe that.

I'm not asking you to believe that, because that would be wrong.

Yes, both the Democrats and Republicans retain their own private pollsters, and have for decades. Their results are clearly identified as such in credible news reports (e.g., not an RNC press release). This does not mean that Zogby and Gallup are "brainwashing tools" merely because they conduct polls whose results you, or I, or anybody else, might not appreciate. As an exercise, note any difference between what some political group or candidate reports as the result of their "private polling data," and that reported by a credible pollster - and see which one turns out to have been right. The RNC was predicting a landslide in 2000 - Zogby, and only Zogby, caught the last second dip that correctly predicted the Gore squeakby victory.

That is not to say every pollster in the business is a crook.

Then there are some national polls in which you do put stock?

[Samantha]

63. This is a thread about whether StopDean is in play in Iowa

Please do not change the subject.

[incontrovertible]

79. okay then, to stay on-subject

I'll repost what I previously posted on the thread entitled "Kerry also leads 2nd-choice" (sic):

Game Over, folks. Here's the real deal about this poll - the combined favorable / unfavorable ratings:

Overall opinion - Howard Dean
Very favorable 31%
Somewhat favorable 36%
Somewhat unfavorable 16%
Very unfavorable 13%
Not familiar 3%

Favorable: 67%
Unfavorable: 29% (incredible - he's history)


Overall opinion - John Edwards
Very favorable 38%
Somewhat favorable 36%
Somewhat unfavorable 5%
Very unfavorable 4%
Not familiar 17%
Not sure 1%

Favorable: 74%
Unfavorable: 09% (would be higher due to IWR if familiarity was higher)


Overall opinion - Richard Gephardt
Very favorable 34%
Somewhat favorable 41%
Somewhat unfavorable 14%
Very unfavorable 7%
Not familiar 3%
Not sure 1%

Favorable: 75%
Unfavorable: 21% (knee-jerk IWR one-issue voter reaction)


Overall opinion - John Kerry
Very favorable 40%
Somewhat favorable 39%
Somewhat unfavorable 7%
Very unfavorable 6%
Not familiar 7%
Not sure 1%

Favorable: 79%
Unfavorable: 13% (knee-jerk IWR reaction again)


The Dean Express has been derailed. Not only is he going to lose Iowa, he's going to come in third, then second (at best) to Kerry in New Hampshire, and then out.

Yeah, yeah, I know, "polls," and GOTV, and youthful Internet campaign full of vigor, and etc. Seen it before, did it myself in '92. Bottom line, the establishment has spoken, and Dean has been stopped. I didn't like it when it happened to Jerry, either, but reality is what it is.

Kerry's the nominee, and Clark will be crushed in New Hampshire.

You watch.

[janx]

67. Polling is definitely manipulative--no doubt about that.

That anyone can even pretend to know what will happen in the Iowa caucus process should be proof of that.

[Dagaz]

4. This is all about the Clintons

You are 100% right that the Clintons are behind the stop Dean movement. This is all about Hillary running in '08 so this year's candidate must lose. I really feel that this is all about the DLC (Clintons) vs Dean.

[QC]

8. Do you have any evidence for this?

Since the "sabotage 2004 so that Hillary can run in 2008" theory is such a popular right wing talking point, a favorite of William Safire (who apparently originated it), Limbaugh, Hannity, and others, I tend to be a bit skeptical of it.

Can you point me to some evidence that the Clintons are deliberately throwing the 2004 election?

[Samantha]

14. Safire suggested it MONTHS after I posted it

here at the Democratic Underground.

[BobbyJay]

17. Safire was on MTP two weeks ago saying GOP insiders WANT Dean

because they think Bush will defeat him handily in a general election. He was giddy over the fact that Dean was getting loads of press and airtime. He was genuinely happy at the fact that Dean is/was the frontrunner.

[Samantha]

25. Why do you think a truly Conservative talking head and columnist

would publicly reveal his genuine feelings about an opposition candidate at this stage of the game? He was attempting to manipulate the public perception of Dean. He was ACTING.

[BobbyJay]

38. lol okay

It is whatever you want it to be, I guess.

[lancdem]

9. If I hear one more person spout this conspiracy theory

I'm going to scream. This is the kind of stuff Limbaugh's saying! What are Dems doing buying into it? In other words, if Dem primary voters don't pick Dean, it's because some "forces" are out to stop him? That's an insult to Dem primary voters who may decide to choose someone else. Dean is not entitled to the nomination. No one is. It has to won the hard way.

[AntiCoup2K4]

12. I've heard that allegation before, and I promise you this.

If we do NOT win in 2004, assuming there even IS a 2008 election, I will absolutely not, under any circumstances support Hillary or any DLC candidate. Excellent summary, Samantha. The DLC has done as much to destroy our party as Rove or the corporate media have. The 2002 election and the current petty attacks are more than enough proof.

[Democrats unite]

15. Long live the DLC been a member & supporter for...

2 years now. Not a finer organization!

[not systems]

41. What about that Al From guy?

I heard him on the radio and started feeling almost green
and I've been a Dem from day one.

[Samantha]

48. I saw him on CSPAN recently and felt the same way

His haircut is from the eighties and so is his political philosophy. It's difficult to imagine but Al Gore helped Al From write the press release announcing the formation of the DLC. This was about 1990, I believe. This organization was formed to help the party and its base form a closer relationship. At that time, you will recall, many Southern states were turning Republican.

I believe it started to unravel as the 90s progressed and Clinton adopted some of the Republican platform -- NAFTA, welfare reform. When faced with the realization that by moving the base to the right as opposed to championing traditional Democratic values, the control mechanism of the DLC kicked in and decided it was more important to win than to promote traditional Democratic planks. As the Country became more divided, it moved more and more to the right, and left the base behind. It was inevitable that a complete break between this entity and a liberal like Gore would erupt. The fact that some liberals remain within these DLC walls makes a statement within itself.

I believe this is why Al Gore has endorsed Dean. Dean promotes the values the DLC was originally organized to endorse. And he definitely is in touch with the party base ....

[Samantha]

18. Thank you for your comments

My desire is to keep interested persons in watching the process -- zealously. Watch the process and analyze what happens. Think about the causations.

I think you will do that.

[PatrioticOhioLiberal]

75. Just a quick question

When did Clinton (who we all tout...erm most democrats would be more accurate I suppose...as a great Democratic 2 term president) become the enemy?

[PatrioticOhioLiberal]

77. Just a quick question

When did Clinton become the enemy?

And who are the people that feel he is?

[PatrioticOhioLiberal]

78. Oops, sorry

I guess that is two questions.

[Samantha]

83. I don't think Clinton is the enemy -- Bush* is

Clinton is a very adroit politician who some see as the leader of the party. As an ex-President, some think it would be inappropriate for him to endorse a candidate. There is obviously a split within this party as to the direction Dems will take: The Clinton element is the New Dem element (read DLC). Those who depart from the theory the party should be moving right seem to be falling behind the Gore component (anti-DLC; anti-Bush; anti-war; pro-base; classic Democratic platform). Dean, Kucinich, Mosley-Braun, Sharpton, Graham seem to have fallen on the left side of the split; Gephardt, Kerry, Edwards, and Lieberman supported the Iraq resolution and have voted with Bush* many times. At random moments, Hillary Clinton has described herself as a New Dem.

I think what we are looking at is a pure, raw stuggle for control of the party; and each Dem will be looking with his or her vote to condone one or the other philosophies.

[Samantha]

5. Let me just say this to both of you

I have deliberately avoided expressing any preference for a political candidate at this site this election because I preferred to sit back and watch. Many of us have had a gut feeling this election would be manipulated, and I wanted to keep my eye on the bigger picture as opposed to allowing my passion for a specific candidate to obliterate my focus on the mechanics of the process.

I believe the Iowa caucus projected outcome has changed too dramatically too fast for it to be coincidence. I believe it is being manipulated right in front of our eyes. We are failing to observe the signs because we are focused on specific political personalities, and if we continue to do this, we will lose the prize, just as we did in 2000.

[lancdem]

11. Changed too dramatically to be a coincidence?

Actually, this is not unusual at all for Iowa. Because it's a caucus and not a primary, getting a handle on who's on top is very difficult.

[On the Road]

30. TV Ads

Thursday's hardball, I believe, had a very good segment on Iowa and the different TV ads. Kerry's rise, then just being noted, was attributed to a wave of TV ads which tested extremely well. Kudos to Kerry for the ads.

The question at this point is how well the polls reflect the caucus-goers. Lots of disagreement and controversy on that question. One Dem analyst said that Dean and Gephardt were the only "hard count" candidates, and that gave them an edge. Both claimed roughly 40,000 supporters in a field which is usually not much more than 100,000, and in which a certain segment votes undecided.

[Jerseycoa]

6. Sorry

I can see you are sincere in your questioning, but this is just politics. It's how it works. You assume that "the collective preference of the Democratic base" is for Dean, when it's not so. The rest of us are in there, too, and we do not want Dean. Why do you expect our "political passion" for our candidate to be any different than your own?

And if you're worried about how caucuses can be manipulated, tell it to Tom Harkin, who endorsed Dean in exchange for a promise to continue the caucus system as it is. There is a dichotomy in the Dean campaign that wants political innocence as it plays politics as usual.

[Samantha]

16. I make no such assumption

I think the collective preference of the Democratic base at this point is an unknown commodity.

I think the political passions of most DU'ers is different than mine at this point because I have expressed no preference. I determined that I would force myself to sit back and watch this election as opposed to getting grounded with a political preference because I believe the election will be manipulated. So to the extent I can, and for as long as I can, I intend to sit back and observe.

[GinaMaria]

7. good questions

As someone who is undecided, I've thought that the people who run the Democratic party most likely have a preference for one candidate over another. It's only natural they would be moved by someone who's platform is most like their own. It's difficult to determine how much they would attempt to push their candidate. It might be more a matter of networking. Who knows who best. Dean would be more of an outsider, then again so would Clark. I don't have a clear sense of how much their personal prefs come into play. The DLC is definitely to my right.

As for the pubs skewing the primary, I think one thing. They are organized. Think about that coma woman and their goal to usurp the judiciary in Florida and give more power to Jethro. My guess is that instructions or suggestions are filtered through churches. Can't say for certain as I don't hang out in right wing churches, but it's my guess. It's a thug mentality that drives it. I'm not sure what the solution is, except do your best to GOTV.

[BobbyJay]

13. Actually, this is nothing more than a SLAP in the face of the supporters

of the other three major candidates in Iowa (Edwards, Kerry and Gephardt). You're suggesting that because three other candidates are polling in a stratistical dead heat with Dean in Iowa, that there must be some sort of conspiracy involved? It sounds like sour grapes. Start a poll on DU of the 4 Iowa candidates, see who wins. Are WE all a part of the conspiracy too?

It's really annoying (and disrespectful).

[Samantha]

21. You are very wrong

I am more interested in thinking about the election than fighting over it. I have done more than my fair share of just that (fighting) here at DU, but obviously this thread is meant to encourage voters to observe the mechanics, listen to the rhetoric and ask themselves when the process unfolds, was this a truly legitimate result.

[BobbyJay]

22. No, all the voters are fake <sarcasm>

[kerry-is-my-prez]

43. C'mon. Do realize how silly this sounds. What do you think - that the rest

of of poor schmucks are "brainwashed" into voting for Kerry, Gep, or Edwards. I thought that Clark was the DLC "ringer." It would be much better for Clark to have Dean or Gephardt win NOT Kerry or Edwards.

[YellowDawgDemocrat]

19. I have a more simplistic take on Iowa

Negative ads don't work in the heartland. Obviously they backfired on Dean and Gephardt. But, I do agree with your basic assertion. The DLC wants certain "safe" candidates to get the nomination.

I've said all along that Mcaullife and co. were not about to go down without a fight. Dean did some of his own damage, but the lion's share has been a steady drip of smears at the last minute by ??????

[Samantha]

23. Let me ask you this

When you hear someone like Candy Crowley (not sure how her name is spelled, CNN commentator who has a crush on Bush*) talk about how Dean has stumbled, do you truly think the incidents much ballyhooed in the press over some of his off-the-cuff remarks have been signficant enough, or controversial enough, to deter people from voting for him. I don't.

[ModerateMiddle]

27. taken individually, no

but it's more a matter of the overall sense that Dean cannot control his mouth. And that his positions on some things are not very ingrained in him, but rather a matter of "strategy" and "tactics".

Consider for example his highly touted "I am going to stay above the fray" stance of last week. His campaign made that new position public. Then after the weekend, he changed his mind. Why? Because things had changed and he was slipping in polls. He declared that he was tired of being a "pin cushion" and that he was going to "go after everybody". Oh, and there was that "sit down" instance over the weekend - it didn't play well, and confirmed a LOT of folks' suspicions or questions about Dean's temperment.

So, Dean decides to "go after everybody" on Monday, after that public declaration of "remaining above the fray". But by Wednesday or Thursday, after Harkin tells him folks don't care for the negative, he dons the sweaters (earth tones anyone?) and allegedly pulls the negative ads and says he's going to be positive going into the last days before the caucuses. Except that Kerry is creeping up, surging some say, so Dean can't resist taking a jab at Kerry. So much for remaining positive.

(Dean's public dissing of the other candidates for their votes, while standing on a stage with a senator who has endorsed Dean but cast those very same votes - the cognitive dissonance wasn't lost on Iowans.)

This is more than just the undecideds deciding. Deans support is slipping. And there is a reason. When people are looking for a fight out of a Dem Party that hasn't had much fight in it, Dean looks very good. But when people start thinking the Dems might actually win - they think of who they might be electing and who might actually BE President, and they don't see Howard Dean in that role.

The vast majority of the Democratic Party does NOT want Howard Dean to be the candidate. But that group has been split up until now, allowing Dean to look very much like he was going to run away with the nomination. But the fact is that the PEOPLE, the ones with the constitutional power to elect their nominee and ultimately the President, do not want Howard Dean to BE President. But the group of people who don't want Dean aren't limited to the "establishment" or the DNC or the DLC. They are we the people. I am one of those people. Many others here at DU number among those people as well. While Dean has had a "plurality" in many polls up until now, he has NEVER had a majority. The majority of support has gone to the "not-Dean" candidate.

There are some who obviously believe that Dean is the ONLY one who can a. take this country back; b. change Washington; and c. save us all.

There are many of us who don't buy it.

[Samantha]

32. You make some good points but I slightly see some things differently

The Republican voter who criticized Dean for being too harsh on Bush* I thought was out of line. I thought Dean handled him very well -- and when I saw that, I thought he might have the stuff to deal with Rove. I know the press played this in a negative light; I frankly disagree. That very characteristic is one I think any candidate the Dems chose to run must have in order to survive an election contest with Bush.* So while it might not be a "nice" characteristic, it certainly will be a necessary one if one is to succeed in the election. I think I am trying to say we can't take a cat to a dog fight.

I don't pretend to know what the majority of Dems want at this point -- my gut tells me it's not Lieberman, which many of the polls placed first for a long time. It just might be, as I posted on another thread earlier tonight, that in order to gain any party unity, a combination ticket must be chosen, for instance anti-war for #1, pro-war for #2 (some might prefer the opposite). Somehow, a seamless way to unite all Dems must be found if we are to defeat Bush.*

[ModerateMiddle]

36. Could you show me

where the press reported this with any kind of slant at all?

I know the press played this in a negative light;

I read what happened and responded with my own comparison of how Kerry handled a similar situation in one of his appearances. I think I saw one article that had something about Dean's "temperment" mentioned in the headline, but for the most part, it was "just the facts".

[Samantha]

50. Candy Crowley mentioned it yesterday on CNN

she's assigned to follow Dean at this time and she's definitely pro-Bush.*

Tonight on the CapGang, the political pundits mentioned a string of incidents in which he shot himself in the political foot -- this was one of the incidents they discussed. What exactly did they expect Dean to say to a Republican who thought he was too harsh on Bush* -- you're right? Quite frankly, Dean has been pretty critical of Bush* but not enough, for my tastes.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

46. The rest of us saw something different. I saw someone who's abrasive

and has a bad temper. Truthfully - I prefer people who have a bit of gentility.

[Samantha]

53. Edwards is looking very much like a really nice guy

and judging by all the trial experience he talks about, he's got to have a lot of fighting spirit in him. But I just typed these words above in another response, "we can't take a cat to a dog fight." The moment I typed that out, I knew what we had to look for, a candidate that can jump into a really nasty dogfight and emerge a winner. That's how dirty this election is going to be (well actually, probably far worse), and nice guys finish last.

So hopefully you will find your nice candidate, and they will have a fighting spirit as well.

[beaconess]

33. Beautiful

Thanks for saying so well what many of us are feeling.

[isbister]

20. Dean did more than anyone else

to stop Dean. Dean's record is a heck of a lot closer to the DLC than Kerry's is... so vote for Kerry.

PS- Many of Clark's supporters seem to have Kerry as their second choice, party politics or no.

[nomaco-10]

24. I said the exact same thing about 10 days ago...

The powers that be don't want Dean, the DLC, the Clintons and the corporate media and last but not least, the repubs, proving the old saying, "politics makes for strange bedfellows". It saddens me to the core of my democratic soul to say this, but he will not get the nom.

The media has vilified him and portrayed him as some lunatic fringe, ultra leftwing liberal with an out of control temper, and nothing could be further from the truth. Howard Dean has become another casualty of the dirty business of politics. I for the life of me, don't understand why decent people even bother to get involved in the business of politics. I know your answer will be for the noble reason of making the world a better place, but I don't buy it, join the peace corp., volunteer at a homeless shelter, devote your life to finding a cure for AIDS or cancer. Spare your friends and family the embarrassment and scrutiny of some journalist accusing you of being mentally unstable, your wife as unsupportive and horrors of horrors, you have green shag carpet in your home.

I don't know if we'll ever see another president elected in this country like Abraham Lincoln or George Washington. They won't be like us, they will all be spawned from dynasties, reared from birth to take over the reigns, they will have corporate ties and dealings with lobbyists, they will all have Rhode Scholar attached to their resume and attachments to odd sounding fraternities. And this my friends is the future of leadership in America.

[Samantha]

29. This is the type of response I hoped to get -- thank you

You obviously bared your political soul and told us what you really think. I too think the process is tained, and I often wonder how many here at DU are idealistic enough to think it is the collective magic of numbers falling a certain way that propel a person into the Oval House.

The question we must chronically ask ourselves is do we manipulate the process or does the process manipulate us. I think the latter. The only question is how do we get the entire process back? How do we expect to take our Country back if we can't take our party back?

This is what I hope we can talk about -- not a specific political personality but the process which propels our party and ultimately the election.

[BobbyJay]

40. Yes, ones that justify your conspiracy theories.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

26. In Iowa?

[neverforget]

28. The DLC is not some all-powerful organization. It exerts influence

but it doesn't tell people how to vote because it doesn't have that power with the voters. I would bet that most Democrats who are going to vote in the primary wouldn't know what the DLC is or what it does. Just my opinion....

[Dookus]

34. Haven't you heard?

They've harnessed the power of Bill Clinton's penis and are, as we type, directing the powerful cock-rays toward Iowa, forcing otherwise intelligent people to vote for someone besides Dean.

[not systems]

42. Wouldn't the rays cause a "rise" in Clark's numbers...

by the going wisdom on who Clinton supports?

[Dookus]

45. Clark's not running in Iowa...

after Iowa, they'll turn the awesome power of the cockray to New Hampshire (which is closer to Chauppaqua, thus making the cockrays more powerful) and THEN Clark will win NH.

Once Clark secures the nomination, he'll rip off his rubber mask to reveal that he's really Tom Delay.

[AntiCoup2K4]

82. Nah, Clark's too tall to be Tom Delay

And your obsession with the "cockrays" is just a little weird :wtf:

[Samantha]

57. I just think the DLC is as it stated publicly

We don't select who the party will run, but we do have a lot of influence over who that candidate will be.

This statement was published in The Washington Post more than a year ago when a Gore rematch was very controversial. It was obvious that much of the DLC did not want Gore to run (half did; half did not). I always thought it encouraged some people to issue the public remarks they made urging Gore not to run. Most notably, I think of Barney Frank, who said that Gore should get out of Kerry's way. Frank, of course, has no interest in Kerry's seat should Kerry occupy the White House.

Specifically, I am not a fan of the DLC because I think it promotes interests which do not reflect my own. Additionally, its leaders are extremely arrogant, much in the same manner as is Renquist, Scalia.

[beaconess]

31. Perhaps you don't realize it, but you're engaging in the same tactics that

Republicans often use to generate support in their ranks and justify their shortcomings.

Howard Dean consistently employs this tactic and I see many of his supporters buying into it. When Dr. Dean was on top, it was all his doing. But now that his numbers are slipping, the blamegame and fingerpointing are beginning.

Dr. Dean is declining because the DLC is picking on him, the media is mistreating him, other candidates are unfairly attacking him, the Clintons are conspiring against him, the pundits are trying to ruin him and the Republicans are out to get him.

And, of course, poor Dr. Dean hasn't done ANYTHING to contribute to his own problems. It couldn't possibly be that his message isn't resonating with Democrats outside of his own hardcore base. It's impossible that his approach has alienated some voters, even some of his own supporters. It is ludicrous to even consider the possibility that he has misjudged his ability to generate support in minority communities.

No, none of this is his own doing. He's just the helpless victim of a vast conspiracy to take him down.

Unfortunately for him, this tactic has serious consequences. One of them is that it only further alienates undecideds and supporters of other candidates who don't appreciate being told day in and day out that we're sellouts or gullible victims of conspiracies, simply because we don't happen to think that Howard Dean is the party's savior. Not a very good way to win friends and influence people and now that the rubber is meeting the road, this is coming to haunt him.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

47. Bingo! By golly - I think you've got it.

n/t

[QC]

51. Excellent post!! n/t

:kick:

[Samantha]

59. No, I am not engaging in any tactic except the one I openly stated

First of all, you assume I am a Dean proponent. I made some complimentary remarks about him in this thread, but that alone does not suggest I will vote for him. Quite frankly, I don't get into the business of encouraging people to vote for one candidate over another.

The tactic I openly stated I am advocating is that people observe the mechanics of the election process to watch for manipulation. If you consider that to be manipulative, so be it.

I am going to assume from your response you think the Stop Dean movement is a myth....

[Samantha]

62. The "tactic" of reading The Washington Post -- read their own words

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

This article starts out discussing Dean's comments about the Republican party seeking to divide the Country over "guns, God and gays." You have heard this discussion before. Rolls along to discuss Nixon's (hear that Pat Buchanan) dividing Americans against one another, stirring up racial prejudices "and bringing out the worst in people." That is the Repubicans "Southern Strategy" and they have used it since the days of Nixon.

but 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)

[tabasco]

64. Great post, beaconess.

Some Dean supporters have displayed immaturity in their zealous support of their candidate. It hasn't helped Dean here or anywhere else. I recall, two months ago, Dean supporters claiming that the nomination was in the bag, and it was time to unite behind Dean. This showed not only unfamiliarity with history, but disrespect for supporters of other candidates. We are united as Democrats even as we contend for our particular choice for the nomination. After we have a nominee, we ALL put our efforts into ousting Bush. Some of the Dean supporters seem like they will stay home and not vote if they don't get their way. I will vote for Dean or any Democrat that gets the nomination. Either one will be a drastic improvement in all regards over Bush.

[Leilani]

35. I think the problem is

that Dean supporters think this election is all about Dean, his supporters, & theur movement.

I, on the other hand, believe this is all about getting rid of Bush.He is too dangerous to this coutry to leave him in power for another 4 years.

So I think this is about winning the election. I am supporting Clark enthusiastically. But if he does not get the nomination, I will support someone else.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

39. Yes - the media has now turned on Dean - but it's not what you think...

btw - since when does the media take orders from the Clintons?

I have a few friends who are journalists - along with one friend who is an editor of a newspaper... We know that a lot of the media (a lot - not ALL) is biased on the Republican side - look at what they did in Gore vs. Bush. I think it's more a matter of "bias" - and that "colors" their views rather than it is a Machiavellian plot. I know some reporters and they said that ALL of the reporters - Liberal and Conservative - couldn't stand Gore (he didn't kiss up to them like Bush did) and he was aloof. THIS colored their reporting. They did have a bias. Reporters were groaning at EVERYTHING that Gore said or did - their knives were out.

I agree that the media has turned on Dean in the last few weeks but this was after several months of overwhelmingly postive coverage - he's been on the cover of at least 6 magazines (with positive articles - for the most part) Clark was on the cover of 2 with somewhat negative articles. The rest of the candidiates have been on none.

I think that all of a sudden Dean has pissed them off. I saw it start the day that the Dean workers leafletted the Clark rallys with negative flyers. This is what I've heard happened... The media was following Clark around (about 50-60 people). There was a lot of big crowds (he had a huge group of reporters following him around). There were huge crowds of people all cheering, excited, happy. The media are saps for this stuff. They decided that they liked this Clark guy. When they saw the Dean people leafletting - with negative flyers - the comment from many of the media was along the lines of "what jerks!" THEN comes the other 2 stories about "dirty tricks." One story was proven to be true... the other - we'll never know for sure.

As you know, NO coverage is even worse than absolutely none at all. Name recogniton will give a candidate several points alone over an "unknown" candidate.

Check out this graph: Dean has gotten almost 3 time the amount of media coverage than all of the rest of the candidates put together.

Now it's possible that all of a sudden in the last 2 weeks that they got worried about Dean and decided to print negative articles... but I don't think so.

I honestly don't think that they would rather have Dean in than Clark, Kerry or Edwards though...

I certainly hope you have better evidence than what you've stated above. I hate to see this sort of thing start up some sort of rebellion where all the Dean people flle the Dem Party - or turn on the other candidates. We don't need a replay of 2000.

[LoneStarDem]

49. I think you are on the money

Trying to get journalists into some vast conspiracy is like herding cats . Maybe at the level of the news director or senior editor there is some cherry-picking, but that is debatable. What I also think is happening is that at the level of campaign-media rep interaction (someone posted an article about this), there has been something of a sea change. Dean was partially getting so much coverage, the majority good, because he was running a wide open campaign with regards to media access. This was easy in the beginning b/c he was a long shot and didn't have alot to risk. But lately his campaign has been trying to clamp down on message, since as frontrunner he now has everything at risk. This has caused a cascade effect in which the media now feels marginalized, is more critical, the campaign tightens down even more, etc. Reporters are people, too, and their personal feelings will end up coloring their decisions.

[nomaco-10]

52. What journalists?

You mean the hacks employed by the multi media corps like FAUX? Those journalists in Iraq that have their film and copy ripped out of their hands when trying to report a story that the Pentagon doesn't think we should see and what about those loveable embeds, shilling for the troops and cheering on the invasion. By the way, tell me how you throw a war and never see a dead body? Go over to LBN and read a few of the stories of the dead Iraqi civilians that just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, whole families wiped out. Who's telling their stories in the mass media. No, we have Michael, Kobe and Laci crammed down our throats 24/7 intermingled with ads for lose weight, look younger and improve your sex life. We were sold out a long time ago. Why do you think people have turned to the internet?

[BobbyJay]

55. I agree with your post, but I don't think it has much to do with Dean

I think what's happening is Kerry and Edwards are surging because:

1) many of the 'undecided's' aren't undecided anymore

2) more Iowans are starting to pay attention

3) media scrutiny of Dean (being the frontrunner) because the caucus is coming up (the media wants a story).

[BobbyJay]

54. I agree - Dean has had media coverage OUT THE KAZOO

So somehow this means there is a grand conspiracy to tear him down? PLEASE

Like you said, Dean had about 6 months of nonstop positive news coverage. If anything, the media was instrumental is HELPING Dean get to where he currently is. Now that Dean has come down to Earth, it sounds like sour grapes from his supporters.

[Samantha]

69. By CNN's own admission

(announced two days ago) 49 percent of the coverage on Dean has been negative. All you have to do is listen to some of their commentators, i.e., Joe Klein, for a few minutes and you hear the tacit contempt in his commentary on Dean. It's subtle but it's there. There are enough Joe Kleins on the cable news networks to collectively influence public opinion on the subject of, for instance, Dean's demeanor. This, I feel, is a subtle component of the attempt of the press to StopDean.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

72. The negative has only been in the last 3 weeks. After several months of +

The media HAS been very instrumental in actually "lifting" Dean up the last several months. One candidiate should not be getting over 3 times the media coverage 8 others have gotten. THAT'S chould be the conspiracy.

[Samantha]

61. Exactly what evidence did I state above?

I would like you to know I live in the Washington, DC area, where politics is our local sport. I have been a political spectator for 30 years. I am not a per se Dean proponent. I am a member of DraftGore (which appears to be in the process of re-thinking its mission).

I do not have a horse in this race. I have heard Dean say that if he does not get the nomination, he will not run as a third-party candidate. I am convinced, however, there is a StopDean movement at work because of open remarks made to The Washington Post and candid remarks made in other press. If I even smell something which makes me think of StopDean, you will read about here. Why? Because it smacks of those same elements that went to work within the party to stop Al Gore. That kind of control has got to stop, especially in a party which advertises itself as the party of the people.

[emulatorloo]

66. A report from Iowa

I started this primary season very Dean positive, and I have been paying a lot of attention for a long time. For many months Dean was my first or second.

I have a very healthy skepticism of the media, etc.

We are lucky in Iowa to have a lot of opportunities to see the candidates and get to know them.

Dean fell in my estimation through my observation of him at events and in the debates. I listened to what he had to say and how he said it. I studied his positions. And at the end of the day I came to my own conclusion that he would not be the best candidate to beat GWB, nor would he be the kind of President that I would like to see lead the US.

Other candidates rose in my estimation through their behavior and positions at events and debates.

The point is that my first hand observations led me to where I am.

On Edit: Just a note to say will support Dean if he is nominated. . .

[Samantha]

68. And this is the way it should be

"The point is that my first hand observations led me to where I am."

Do you think, however, there is a StopDean effort in play in Iowa, or is this a myth? Did you happen to read the link I posted with the Washington Post article?

BTW, who are you now supporting?

[emulatorloo]

84. I am not seeing it

I did read your link, but I don't see an organized StopDean effort here. I am in a pretty pro-Dean area.

When I go to the caucus I plan to stand for Kerry. Second choice is currently Edwards, although there is a little play there in my mind.

Kerry is really connecting with people here, many said to me yesterday how moved they were by what he had to say at yesterday's rally.

[stickdog]

65. The media is THE enemy. Anybody who has lived through Bush's term

knows that.

[mikehiggins]

70. It's up to the voters, isn't it?

All this "Stop Dean" nonsense comes down to one fact: Bill Clinton has only one vote. Howard Dean has had two years to make his case to the voters. Monday the Iowa caucus will begin the process of telling him if he has succeeded or not.

Next week, the New Hampshire voters will chime in with their opinions.

Then South Carolina and the others, and so on until the voting is done.

When the dust settles we will know who the voters decided they wanted for their nominee. If Dean's message has resonated with enough of them he will have enough delegates to take the nomination. If not we will either end up with someone else, or headed into the convention to make the final decision.

That's the process. Dean and the people you think are out to "stop Dean" get the chance to make their case. Then the voters decide.

I would remind you that a very short time ago Dean led by huge numbers most everywhere across the board. He got the nod of VP Gore and all sorts of people were urging the rest of us to just sit down and stop rocking the boat. What has changed? Well, as time went on, more and more voters started paying attention and lots of them started thinking, well, yeah, Dean's in front but I really like this guy a little (or a lot) better. That's the nature of being the frontrunner in a contest like this, as well as being the focus of so much media attention.

If anyone "stops Dean" it will be the voters, and that's the way its supposed to work. If it ends up in a way you don't like, that is simple unfortunate.

[Samantha]

76. Do not assume I am a Dean proponent

"If anyone "stops Dean" it will be the voters, and that's the way its supposed to work. If it ends up in a way you don't like, that is simple unfortunate."

If I were to make a guess TODAY how this will end up, I would say "brokered convention." Of course, there is a lot of time between now and the Democratic Convention; anything can happen in politics at any time.

I assume from your post you think the components mentioned in my original thread are mythical; you idealisticly assume the end result will be the pure will of the Democratic voters. I believe there is a great deal of manipulation at work here to steer the voters in a direction the party elite prefer they go. If you disagree, we can both just sit back and watch to see what happens.

Thank you for your response.

[John_H]

71. "Republicans aren't doing exactly this to derail Dean...?"

I know that republicans are generally dopes, but why would they want to derail the guy the chimp can beat by ten points?

As far as lieberman and clark supporters getting their people out for someone other than Dean, wouldn't you if you were them?

"...the mentality that dictates we the people are just too stupid to make this all-important decision so the elite among us must do it for us?" What you mean is let the political operatives running the Dean operation win, right? Sorry. That ain't going to happen.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

73. Clark is NOT doing anything in Iowa. All "energy" is on NH & SC, etc.

I work on the campaign and beleive me- we are NOT going to use resources on Iowa for ANOTHER candidate. And if we did - it would be to help Dean and then possibly Gephardt - NOT Kerry or Edwards.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

74. Why would Tom Harkin (Mr. DLC) endorse Dean. And Bradley, Gore

and all the other DLC people who have done so....

[ecstatic]

80. If the media would go against Bush with the same venom they use w/ Dean

Bush would not have a prayer in 2004.

Despite the media's obvious failings, what saddens me is that many of us allow IT to control our opinions and minds.

[nomaco-10]

81. Yep, they pick our candidate just like...

they tell us what kind of mouthwash to use and what brand of sneakers are cool to wear this year. The sheeple listen intently to some soundbites and slogans and ureka, we have our next president.