Substitute Sanders for Dean, 2015 for 2004...you see the same media battle all over again.

[madfloridian]

Last edited Sat Oct 17, 2015, 12:46 AM - Edit history (2)

On edit to clarify: It's the "same battle", the candidates are different, much different. It's the battle that must be fought when the media starts coming out with talking points we know are not true.

Substitute BernieBots or Sandernistas for Deaniacs. We are once again considered the insurgents, sort of on the outside looking in. We are not really considered seriously at all. Yet.

You have two candidates who have taken chances by questioning party policy, irritating the party establishment....but most of all ticking off the media with justified criticism.

It's that ticking off the media that's going to be a deciding factor from now on.

Once again we have a campaign that is using the power of the internet and all the new resources it provides now that were not available in 2004.

Once again we have a candidate who is calling out the media. He's a stronger candidate, and the internet forces have grown. Will it be enough?

I found this article I remembered from 2004 on the media and Howard Dean's campaign. It reminds us that the power of that media can make a campaign and then suddenly destroy it.

When Old Media Confronted Howard Dean

Subtitle:

‘Dean scares the institutional media out of their wits … because of what he and Internet democracy say about them.’

The Howard Dean campaign (much more than Dean himself) has come to stand for the possibility of an Internet democracy. From the beginning there was no separating the “political” and “media” tracks of the Dean campaign’s offensive. Didn’t he say early on that he was running for President because the alternative was to spend the rest of his life yelling at the TV set? Dean began his campaign with a bold exercise in definition—a job of critical journalism that big news organizations don’t perform these days. His defining thrust was against the war in Iraq, in which even before it began the traditional media were embedded. He sounded an antiwar alarm that the institutional media had muffled. Millions of people knew intuitively that his warning was wise; millions more know it now. In large dimensions and small (like his chippy defiance of “Meet the Press” moderator, Tim Russert), Dean’s campaign was a critique of the somnolent self-satisfaction that runs through our housecat press. And lots of people loved him for it.

...What happened to Dean in Iowa and New Hampshire was not as much about politics as it was about an assault by commercial media on the very idea of a self-willed, self-defining citizenry. Dean scares the institutional media out of their wits—not because of who he is or what he might do as President, but because of what he and Internet democracy say about them. And because Dean is their worst nightmare, they tried to crush him like a bug.

Much was made then of the concept of blogging. There was no Twitter back then. Facebook had just been launched early in 2004. You Tube didn't launch until 2005.

Days before the New Hampshire primary, author and syndicated columnist Richard Reeves made the shrewd observation on our “The Blogging of the President: 2004” broadcast that something fundamental had changed since John F. Kennedy and television exalted each other in 1960. Since then TV networks have discovered that American audiences are more interested in football than in politics. Sure enough, as the Democratic candidates headed out of New Hampshire, the media were conditioning us to understand that everything that happens in the Super Bowl is more important than almost anything that is at stake in the presidential campaign.

It’s a dismal moment in American media—just the right time to be developing a real conversation on the Web. The revolution will not be televised, but maybe it will be blogged.

For Howard Dean it was death by media, as one South Florida paper called it.

So far Bernie Sanders' coverage has been relatively neutral, but at least twice during the debate he called out the corporate media.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

[Baitball Blogger]

1. The Youth vote might turn the tide.

But, you would have to hit every demographic. From Gen X to the Milleniums.

[CincyDem]

20. The youth will turn the tide if...

...they actually vote.

I hope they can realize that voting in 2016 for a candidate committed to moving forward (that would be just about any democrat except maybe webb) will have profound impact on their lives for the next 30+ years.

I was 28 when Scalia was appointed and never in a million years could I then have told you what a scourge he would be on the country. I knew Bork was trouble, as I recall, but at that point in my life - I didn't know chit about the Supreme Court. Today, as the Federalist Society has made it their mission to pack courts up and down the hierarchy with right wing activist judges who claim to have the ability to see into the hearts of the founders...today, this is a 50/50 election. 50% about how we'll repair the social safety net to care for the least viable among us. 50% to ensure that we repair the judiciary to ensure we can move forward without the anchor of rabid, irrational conservativism trying to hold on the a long gone past.

Youth - they got to vote to make a difference. I have confidence in their judgement as a generation - if they actually vote.

[Baitball Blogger]

26. It has been done before.

Required adverts in all the right places. Bernie has an edge with social media.

[liberal_at_heart]

34. In generations before the Millennials parents have had enough money to help their kids out.

I think this may be the first generation where parents can't help the kids out and therefore the kids are feeling the pinch for the first time just like the rest of us are. They know this election affects them, but just like many of the people in the country it is the economics they are most worried about not the Supreme Court. The cost of college and wages are the issues college kids care about right now, so if Democrats want the youth vote they need to address these issues. Bernie certainly is addressing them. He wants to pay for college the same way we pay for K-12. That will inspire a lot of youth voters. He is also for a $15/hr minimum wage. That also will inspire a lot of youth voters. Hillary just wants them to work harder. I doubt that is going to inspire too many youth voters.

[CincyDem]

38. yeah - I get it. And I'll take their voting participation any way I can get it.

As Jim Carville said - it's the economy, stupid.

At the same time, we get an "R" in the WH appointing 2-3 solid fundamentalists in their late 40's...we (along with he next generation) are going to get f'ed in ways we haven't even imagined. we'll look back at the economic issues of today like the "good ole days".

[liberal_at_heart]

41. Economic destruction of this country happens under both parties. It just happens

slower under the Democrats. A slower destruction just isn't good enough for me anymore.

[CincyDem]

45. I agree.

Oops - didn't mean to leave the impression that the we need to accept the war on the 99% that is being waged by both parties. More overtly by Republicans but yes, both parties have their fingerprints on the destruction of the middle class and upward mobility that has been a national treasure for centuries.

You're right that we need to do something about that and it's an issue with both parties.

[Agschmid]

2. As far as I know, Dean is for Hillary.

[madfloridian]

3. Yes, he is.

He went back to his centrist ways after the campaign. I guess he had a right to make the money while he could.

[artislife]

31. He was defeated by republic media

And the party gave him conditions to coming back into the fold.

[madfloridian]

75. Seems that way..

and he apparently follows them.

[Uncle Joe]

4. I believe this is one reason that Schultz scheduled the Dec. 19th debate not only on a weekend but

opposite a prime time NFL Football game between the Dallas Cowboys and the New York Jets.

ays before the New Hampshire primary, author and syndicated columnist Richard Reeves made the shrewd observation on our “The Blogging of the President: 2004” broadcast that something fundamental had changed since John F. Kennedy and television exalted each other in 1960. Since then TV networks have discovered that American audiences are more interested in football than in politics. Sure enough, as the Democratic candidates headed out of New Hampshire, the media were conditioning us to understand that everything that happens in the Super Bowl is more important than almost anything that is at stake in the presidential campaign.

It’s a dismal moment in American media—just the right time to be developing a real conversation on the Web. The revolution will not be televised, but maybe it will be blogged.

Thanks for the thread, madfloridian.

[madfloridian]

5. Same tactics in many ways as 2004

I have a lot more I could add that is similar, but rehashing the 2004 campaign is hard for me.

[Uncle Joe]

8. Well on the bright side, the Internet is much stronger today than it was in 2004.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251687966

The Democratic debate as energized Bernie Sanders supporters as the Democratic candidate raised an amazing $3.2 million in three days this week all from small donors.

According to the Sanders campaign:

And in a remarkable turn of events, there has been a record surge in online donations this week. More than 97,800 contributions poured in totaling some $3.2 million since Tuesday, when the first Democratic debate was held in Las Vegas, through mid-afternoon on Thursday. The average donation $32.28.

(snip)

[madfloridian]

14. And so many more resources.

[karynnj]

44. Dean's problem in Iowa was not that Kerry had more money -- he didn't

Dean had more money, more endorsements - including Al Gore's - and far more media support. Kerry won by winning over Iowans face to face. The Des Moines register polls show that he slowly, but surely inched up so that be the weekend before the caucus he was pulling ahead. (As it was a rolling average - he likely was clearly ahead that weekend.

Now, he did have some help that last weekend. Dean got angry at an elderly heckler and yelled back at him. Bad enough, but the channel news stations had that and a huge Kerry story. He was reunited with the guy that he saved in Vietnam - and his campaign surprised him by bringing him to an already scheduled Kerry event. That was one of the most compelling events that I have seen in my life. The contrast was stunning. As someone then on the fence between them, it was the final push to make me adamantly pro Kerry.

I have seen both of them with small crowds - Kerry is by far the more compelling.

[Uncle Joe]

48. It's not just a matter of money but in the people having an increased capability to counter

corporate media propaganda, the so called "Dean Scream."

The same would hold true when Kerry went up against Bush the Least and was swift-boated, without any significant opposition to corporate media brainwashing.

[karynnj]

52. The Dean scream followed Dean coming in a weak third after he was supposed to win

Before the scream he got 18% to Kerry's 38% in Iowa. The story if not for the scream would have been mostly Kerry -- and why Dean failed to do as well as expected. It was the first time people actually voted.

Kerry was then lucky that NH, where he was well liked already was next. Many who were undecided or for Clark, who imploded, moved to Kerry. Winning both NH and Iowa gave Kerry substantial momentum. he was fortunate that Dean opted not to contest the 7 states that all voted together a few weeks later because they were not promising for a New Englander and Trippi had wasted the huge amount of money Dean raised running the campaign in Iowa and NH. When Kerry won 5 of the 7 states, he was very much the front runner.

I do agree that the media condoned a character assassination by never asking the liars for proof or pointing out that the entire official Navy record that Kerry had on his web site was incredibly positive.

[Uncle Joe]

59. The Dean Scream was corporate media character assassination as well and it definitely damaged Dean's

ability to do well in New Hampshire.

It didn't help his ability to raise campaign funds and stay competitive in the race.

Aside from that, all the other candidates turned on Dean en masse during the debates before Iowa, in large part because Al Gore had endorsed him over Leibermann.

On January 19, 2004, Dean's campaign suffered a staggering blow when a last-minute surge by rivals John Kerry and John Edwards led to a disappointing third-place finish for Dean in the 2004 Iowa Democratic caucuses, representing the first votes cast in primary season. Dean's loud outburst in his public address that night was widely rebroadcast and portrayed as a media gaffe that ended his campaign.

According to a Newsday editorial written by Verne Gay, some members of the television audience criticized the speech as loud, peculiar, and unpresidential.[45] In particular, this quote from the speech was aired repeatedly in the days following the caucus:

(snip)

Senator Harkin was on stage with Dean, holding his suit jacket. This final "Yeah!" with its unusual tone that Dean later said was due to the cracking of his hoarse voice,[47] has become known in American political jargon as the "Dean Scream" or the "I Have A Scream" speech.[47][48] Comedians and late-night comedy show hosts such as Dave Chappelle and Conan O'Brien satirized, mocked, and popularized the sound bite,[48][49] beginning a media onslaught that many believe contributed immensely to his poor showing in the subsequent races.[50]

Dean conceded that the speech did not project the best image, jokingly referring to it as a "crazy, red-faced rant" on the Late Show with David Letterman. In an interview later that week with Diane Sawyer, he said he was "a little sheepish ... but I'm not apologetic."[51] Sawyer and many others in the national broadcast news media later expressed some regret about overplaying the story.[52] In fact, CNN issued a public apology and admitted in a statement that they indeed may have "overplayed" the incident. The incessant replaying of the "Dean Scream" by the press became a debate on the topic of whether Dean was the victim of media bias. The scream scene was shown an estimated 633 times by cable and broadcast news networks in just four days following the incident, a number that does not include talk shows and local news broadcasts.[53] However, those who were in the actual audience that day insist that they were not aware of the infamous "scream" until they returned to their hotel rooms and saw it on TV.[52] Dean said after the general election in 2004 that his microphone only picked up his voice and did not also capture the loud cheering he received from the audience as a result of the speech. On January 27 Dean finished second to Kerry in the New Hampshire primary. As late as one week before the first votes were cast in Iowa's caucuses, Dean had enjoyed a 30% lead in New Hampshire opinion polls;[citation needed] accordingly, this loss represented another major setback to his campaign.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Dean

[redstateblues]

63. I admire Dean but his scream

Was weird and unpresidential. He shot himself in the foot

[Uncle Joe]

64. Whether you liked it or not, the corporate media did the shooting and there was no excuse for it,

even they recognized it after the fact, when the damage was already done.

[karynnj]

76. If you consider that a corporate media "shooting", it was of a wounded candidate

The REAL problem that night for Dean was not the scream, as embarrassing as it might have been, but the fact that he placed a very weak third.

If anything, you could make the case that Dean's scream hurt John Kerry and maybe Edwards. It gave the media a bit of tape to play endlessly and talk about. Had it not happened, they would likely have had to speak of the far less amusing topic of why did John Kerry win when NO ONE inside the beltway gave him any likelihood of winning or why did Dean's enthusiastic internet support not translate to caucus goers in Iowa.

Consider the media, never fond of John Kerry, had to look at why he won. He did not have the support od the Democratic establishment, the big money donors, or the media. He was wealthy enough - even though just for him there was an often reported "rule" that Teresa could not contribute more than any random person - that he could self fund briefly in Iowa. Even so, he had FAR less money than Dean to spend in Iowa.

I have met several people who lived in Iowa then. Their explanation was that as people saw one candidate after another, they often shifted their allegiance - however, for almost all of them if they met Kerry and shifted to him; they stayed with him. One to one, he was an excellent retail politician - nothing like the aloof, patrician image the media assigned him. This should have been no surprise give his person history - from his incredible leadership of the 1971 protests to winning the Democratic nominations for both Lt Governor and Senate from the party and media favorites.

To me, NOT wanting to speak of that or repeat the wonderful coverage of when Kerry was reunited with the former marine/Republican law official he saved in Vietnam. Because he called the campaign so near the caucus and volunteered (and the person answering the phone was smart enough to understand that this was a big deal), they had him come at the end of an already scheduled Youthbuild event where he surprised Kerry. Both of these things are 180 degrees from the image the media wanted to assign Kerry. (It was also something the left of the Democratic party did not at that time want to see -- maybe because many were angrier at him than at anyone else for his IWR vote. Even though he did speak out as Bush abandoned the UN effort and ignored that the inspectors were finding nothing. It might have been that they held him to a higher standard than others because of who he is.)

[liberal_at_heart]

7. traditional media is fading anyway. Traditional media and the DNC are behind the times

and are out of touch. People will be searching the web and tweeting about the debate while watching the football game. Times are changing and they can't stop it.

[madfloridian]

9. Way too many go by what they see on "the news".

I find myself often surprised by who is NOT online yet.

[liberal_at_heart]

13. If it weren't for social media we wouldn't be talking about police brutality and economic

justice. It has more of an impact than people think.

[madfloridian]

18. That's true.

[tech3149]

58. Therin lies the rub

I have had the discussion too many times regarding broadcast media and the paucity of real news and broad discussions of important issues.
You have to understand that terrestrial broadcast media is the lowest common denominator. It is the resource that is most available to those with the least resources to explore the alternatives.
As much as I argue against it, most progressive talk shows are willing to walk away from terrestrial broadcast for internet or satellite because of the major resources needed to counter the two decades of consolidation of ownership and conservatives forward thinking to make the most of it. Just think of all the progressive radio stations that were killing in the ratings that suddenly changed to the 5th or 6th sports or religious station in the market.
If you don't have a pot to piss in owning a radio or TV is much more possible than paying some monthly subscription fee that might be many more times the cost of some receiving device.
If we want to consider ourselves a society that is inclusive we can't limit inclusion to only those who can pay.

[Uncle Joe]

10. I agree, liberal_at_heart.

[ladjf]

19. You are making a very significant point.

I believe that the dichotomy of the recent debate results between the Corporate interests and the people's opinions as shown by the multiple INTERNET polls that favored Sanders may well be representing an example of the power of the INTERNET beginning to challenge that of the Corporate Media. It might not take us to the "Promise Land" this time around, but it's a start.

Same could be said for the efforts by the "Occupy Wall Street". They were getting the public's attention. And then the "Arab Spring" which seemed to have gotten it's power from the INTERNET.

[madfloridian]

56. I agree for sure the DNC is behind the times.

Obama got rid of Dean quickly as chair. He waited until he was out of the country in Samoa on party business....and he used the DNC facilities to appoint Kaine as new chair. Dean did not even know it was happening.

[BeanMusical]

65. +1 They are dinosaurs.

[fadedrose]

6. Same as 2004

Not so good. You mean the Republicans are going to win again?

[madfloridian]

11. Hope not...it's the "same battle". Hope it has a different winner.

[Robbins]

33. Yep

If Clinton is nominated.

[StrongBad]

12. I was there in 2004 and supported Dean

Although I was pissed at the media at the time, in retrospect there was no big conspiracy. People voted for who they wanted and that was Kerry.

It's tempting to allege there are nefarious forces beyond ones control, but to do that one must believe that Dem voters are gullible enough to listen to and follow whatever the MSM tells them. I don't believe that and subsequent elections (i.e. Obama 2008 & 2012) verify that.

[madfloridian]

16. Please do NOT use the word "conspiracy" toward my posts.

Thank you. That word is tossed about here like crazy.

[ladjf]

21. I disagree with the thesis of your post.

It appears as though you aren't very familiar with some of the events surrounding Howard Dean's demise or perhaps you
have an agenda that causes you to see it the way you do.

Of course, you could use the same argument against me. One of us is wrong. It might be you or me.

[StrongBad]

23. I mean the "Dean Scream" was bullshit and harped on by the media incessantly.

But I just disagree that negative media coverage alone caused Dems to change their minds. I think it's simpler and more realistic to accept that most Dems legit felt more aligned with Kerry.

But you're right this is speculation in either case and not really provable one way or the other.

[ladjf]

28. I agree with you on one point, which is that rarely does one source of attack account for the

complete defeat of someone. It usually takes an array of attackers, some stronger and more significant than others.

[wyldwolf]

15. Dean was on Morning Joe earlier this week...

Said he waited too long to try and move back to the center in 2004.

[madfloridian]

17. His first move was to support a longer wait for generic drugs.

Didn't wait long either.

[senz]

25. Yeah, I was sorry to see him get beaten down.

[Armstead]

29. He was never that radical.....I donlt know what he means by the fucking "center"

Shows what a shitty political climate we're in these days.

[madfloridian]

39. I tend to agree with you, Armstead.

He is backing away from so much. And on any given day you can surf the news media and hear almost the same talking points. Almost the same adjectives.

[corkhead]

22. Dean was ahead of his time. For Bernie, the time is nigh

[madfloridian]

40. Sounds good to me.

[jfern]

24. No offense to Dean, but Sanders is a much better candiate

[madfloridian]

27. And more sincere with decades of practicing what he preaches.

[ladjf]

37. Dean is a smart guy and a dedicated American. I admired him immensely when he was

running for President and I still admire him. Sanders though is a bona fide genius with regard to the logic of Constitutional Democratic Government. And to add his credits, he has an encyclopedic knowledge of America political history which he showed a few years back during a Democratic filibuster. We are most fortunate to have such a qualified candidate running for office.

Mrs. Clinton is a smart, experienced politician. However, some aspects of her life since she and her husband vacated the White House trouble me. That's just my opinion and I am a distrustful person. She may be as "politically clean" as anyone in public life.

[Demeter]

53. why do people say that?

Hillary isn't smart, she isn't clean, and she sure as shooting isn't experienced, meaning a fully functional expert with useful training.

She's an amateur, and she's really bad at it. Most people in the Presidency were amateurs, but the good ones had some kind of ethical and political underpinnings that keep them on the path to a better nation. Hillary isn't, and won't be.

Don't believe me, listen to her own words. She confessed as much on the debate.

[ladjf]

55. We just disagree to some extent. While I do think she is intelligent and a rather

savvy politician, I wouldn't trust her with the family fortune or the financially welfare of the U.S.

The last honest President was Jimmy Carter. If Bernie gets elected , he'll be the second.

[Capt. Obvious]

30. Who is the Haitian man boobs candidate this time?

[madfloridian]

36. Please don't go there.

[Todays_Illusion]

32. Not all that similar and this is not 2004 and Bernie Sanders is not Howard Dean.

[madfloridian]

35. I edited to clarify.

[karynnj]

42. Except Dean was a centrist and Bernie is a Democratic socialist

At a Burlington Democratic event, Dean spoke of having voted for the Democratic incumbent - while his wife voted for Bernie when he first ran for mayor,

There is a stronger resemblance between 2016 and 2000 -- then to 2004. The entire establishment backed Gore as it now backs Hillary. I suspect that going into 2004, the powers that be almost did not care who won the nomination. With Bush in the 60s in approval ratings throughout 2002, favorites like Clinton did not run.

I know you think the powers that be killed Dean and favored Kerry. However, the fact that Kerry, unlike Dean, had NO media support worth speaking of and was getting very few big donor contributions - leading him to loan essentially all he personally had because he KNEW he was gaining support face to face in Iowa.

You also ignore that it was Kerry who had the more liberal record - with only a terrible IWR vote for Dean to go after - in spite of the fact that Dean, if anything, was more aggressive in his comments in 2002 than Kerry was. In fact, Trippi ran the same campaign for Dean he later ran for Edwards. Versus Kerry the Trippi rhetoric fell apart. Kennedy was right when he defended Kerry from the Trippi nonsense.

[madfloridian]

43. I did come to learn that Kerry was more liberal overall.

But I still believe in the power of the directional mic and talking points from bosses.

Trippi did a lot of harm at times.

[jfern]

46. If Kerry had voted against the Iraq war, Dean wouldn't have done very well

[karynnj]

47. I read Trippi's book written after the Dean election

He is egotistical and he ultimately blamed Dean for essentially being a weak vessel for HIS message. (The revolution won't be televised.) He was behind many obnoxious attacks. The ones that hurt Dean the most were the disgusting attacks on Gephardt - a labor progressive, which Gephardt's campaign returned in kind. (sort of murder/suicide)

I suspect that the powers that be essentially conceded 2004 to Bush -- and I think it might have kind of scared them as Kerry actually began to do far better than anyone could have predicted even though he really had only the debates and his convention of unfiltered media coverage.

I agree with Bernie when he speaks of how the huge amount of money is allowing a small group of people to "own" our government -- they already own most of the media. This is not good. (speaking of that many Senators have long spoken of that - it was one of the main warnings in Kerry's farewell to the Senate speech (echoing his own comments from when he and Wellstone wrote legislation to reduce money in politics that was stronger than the McCain/Feingold bill from the same time period. My guess is that he cares just as passionately about this as Bernie - even though they are polar opposites in how they express themselves!

[div class="except"]
There is another challenge we must address – and it is the corrupting force of the vast sums of money necessary to run for office. The unending chase for money, I believe, threatens to steal our democracy itself. I’ve used the word corrupting – and I mean by it not the corruption of individuals, but a corruption of a system itself that all of us are forced to participate in against our will. The alliance of money and the interests it represents, the access it affords those who have it at the expense of those who don’t, the agenda it changes or sets by virtue of its power, is steadily silencing the voice of the vast majority of Americans who have a much harder time competing, or who can’t compete at all.

The insidious intention of that money is to set the agenda, change the agenda, block the agenda, define the agenda of Washington. How else could we possibly have a US tax code of some 76,000 pages? Ask yourself, how many Americans have their own page, their own tax break, their own special deal?

We should not resign ourselves Mr. President to a distorted system that corrodes our democracy. This is what contributes to the justified anger of the American people. They know it. They know we know it. And yet nothing happens. The truth requires that we call the corrosion of money in politics what it is: it is a form of corruption and it muzzles more Americans than it empowers, and it is an imbalance that the world has taught us can only sow the seeds of unrest.

Like the question of comity in the Senate, the influence of money in our politics also influences our credibility around the world. And so too does the difficulty, the unacceptable and extraordinary difficulty, we have in 2013 in operating the machinery of our own democracy here at home. How extraordinary and how diminishing that more than 40 years after the Voting Rights Act, so many of our fellow citizens still have great difficulty when they show up on election day to cast their vote and have their voice heard. That too is an issue that matters to all of us – because for a country that can and should extol the virtues of democracy around the world, our job is made more difficult when through long lines and overt voter suppression, and efforts to suppress people’s ability to exercise the right that we extol, so many struggle still to exercise that right here at home.

( video -
http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4344563/kerry-farewell-speech ; text - http://www.boston.com/politicalintelligence/2013/01/30/text-john-kerry-farewell-speech/66wezoYj7LAh6DjXJvsTFO/story.html I found links because there no longer is a Kerry Senate site or a johnkerry.com site. )

[madfloridian]

49. And...

I hate to say it and I could be wrong but I have doubts about one of Bernie's top folks. Probably just me.

Trippi was about Trippi, not Dean.

It was quite a time, though. I learned a lot about politics, but here I am again. Bernie just caught my attention.

[karynnj]

50. The good thing about Bernie's campaign is that he is dynamic enough

that HE defines himself. He is Bernie and I suspect that no one will ever really change him. I don't think there is anyone in the Bernie campaign who has the role that Trippi managed to carve out in both the Dean and Edwards campaigns. Two of the key people came from his Senate staff. (I suspect I know the one - not from his campaign - you are uncertain about -- there was one I wondered about who at one time drew an analogy to this election and 1968 - where he considered Sanders to be the "McCarthy" who identifies the opening for some "Bobby Kennedy" What campaign person suggests that their own candidate will not be the winner?)

[madfloridian]

66. "the influence of money in our politics also influences our credibility around the world"

Powerful statement.

[BuelahWitch]

51. I am hoping the young people come through

and raise hell if the party tries to destroy Bernie the way they did Dean in Iowa. I'll never forget the sick feeling I got watching the caucuses on C-Span that year. Hoping O'Malley won't be the Kucinich Judas this time around.

[madfloridian]

54. Me, too.

It's a real battle that needs to be fought.

[stupidicus]

57. I remember way back when

he announced on an MSNBC show that one of his first efforts as pres was gonna be to bust them up, that he was toast.

Then came the "scream" that was heard around the world...

[madfloridian]

60. Chris Matthews Hardball on a campus forum...December 2003

The beginning of the end.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

62. Not a cult! Didn't you see Bernie win every self-selected internet poll?

How could anyone possibly accept regular polls showing him more than 20 points back after that?!? Huh?!? It's all a conspiracy, I tell you! A mainstream conspiracy!!!1!!



- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community (*)

(*) except when I'm snarking.

[madfloridian]

67. In the past the first reactions to a debate were accepted as very real. Now they are not?

Why was there this chorus of voices on TV declaring Hillary the winner, while online polls, focus groups, over and over went big for Bernie.

See how things changed so quickly...I wonder.

Online polls are only accepted if they favor Hillary.

Snark isn't going down too well with some of now. Too much is at stake now for our country.

Making fun of us isn't acceptable anymore.

[JI7]

68. Dean had Party Establishment Support

he had Gore, the very popular Iowa Senator Tom Harkin and others.

[hedda_foil]

69. Indeed he did, but Bill Clinton was firmly.in charge of the party's hierarchy.

What has always been most telling to me was that President Carter had told Dean that he wanted.to endorse him on the eve of the Iowa caucuses. Dean traveled to Georgia for Carter's endorsement and while he was.in the air, Clinton called Carter and somehow got him to go back on his promise. When Dean got to Plains, the endorsement was not forthcoming, and he returned to the trail humiliated because the press, , of course, was there.

I also remember Bubba's reaction to Dean at the Harkin Steak Fry in 2003. He literally ignored the fact that Dean was standing behind.him with the other likely candidates. That snub was very.odd to me because Dean was actually the Chairman of the Democratic Governors' Association, and a very strong contender in terms.of his qualifications. I've always believed that Bill put the kibosh on Howard because Dean had the audacity to sign the first civil union law in the country. What's most amazed me, though is that Dean was a professed fiscal conservative. Of course, at that time, few understood what that term means.

[madfloridian]

70. I won't ever forget that time at the steak fry.

It was televised, and I think Clinton noticed everyone but Dean.

[hedda_foil]

71. That's how I remember it too. It was a blatant snub.

[madfloridian]

72. Rule 1 to win...don't criticize media or TPTB.

But that needs to be changed. If Bernie has enough people behind him they can't ignore us forever.

[ecstatic]

73. I was pro-Dean. I don't see any comparison between

those two, however.

[madfloridian]

74. Not what I'm saying. I edited to make clearer. About what they faced from the media

Guess I really had a fail this time.

[Walk away]

77. Except that Dean was a Democrat...nt

I always thought that the party should have supported him more because he supported the party!