Clutch

The Daily Howler's typically lucid look at the "mainstream media" and its treatment of Democrats.

Russert's sophomoric run at Dean

Part Two

BibleBelted

I'm not one to be paranoid of media conspiracies (aside from Fox News) but it does appear that there is a media stampede to marginalize Dean before he can get a toe-hold. Why? I really don't know. I keep hear him being compared to McGovern, who was shellacked by Nixon, but I don't think that comparison is fair for a number of reasons (one of the biggest being that Nixon, for all his faults, was intelligent).

Mike Barnicle, substituting for Chris Matthews on Hardball started off by saying (referring to the MTP interview) "If this had been a fight they would have stopped it in the first round."

WTF? I watched it and had no such impression. To the cynical eye it would appear that Kerry is to be the anointed one.

Bill

I agree, and I think that the reason for this is obvious: the Bushies have enough dirt on Kerry stored up to ensure his burial at election time. Kerry has been around a long time, and his record isn't all that glorious. IMHO, he would not make a good President, and the Bushies seem to know that this is a widespread opinion, even among "lefties."

So, the reason that "Kerry is to be the anointed one" from the perspective of the right wing is that the right wing thinks that he will be the easiest "Gore clone" for the Bushies to beat.

The Bushies know that Dean will be a lot tougher to beat, so they would prefer that Dean get marginalized as quickly as possible.....

== Bill

capsaicin67

This was totally my first reaction when I saw the clip of the Russert ambush. It was transparent what he was up to, IMO.

Russert, Mathews and many others inject jabs and personal opinions and comments that flavor the perception of the audience according to their own preferences, a la O'Reilly.

Has anyone else noticed how the topic of their Catholicism seems to come up intermittently? Russert fawned all over O'Reilly when he recently interviewed him, and their mutual admiration for Catholicism came up. I've seen it come up with Mathews, too.
I'm not saying that there is any overarching conspiracy, but I am saying that I think it's a bias that pollutes their judgement and allegiances and that is thinly veiled behind a questionable veneer of "neutrality". I think that they are clearly of a conservative sympathy. If they want to be Catholic, that's all very well and good for them, but personally, I find it to raise questions for me about their integrity and biases much as an endorsement of Mormonism or Christian Science strikes me as significantly ingnorant and suspect in both content and agenda.

ex-idaho

I believe the McGovern comments are either coming from the RNC or even the DNC. The Dems don't want Dean to get the nod they have invested in Kerrey and want that investment to pay off. The reason for the investment is that Kerrey is a known entity to them. Predictable and safe. Dean is a maverick and would not flinch at coming down on his own party if wrong doing were to surface. Dean like McCain is going up against his own party and they could bury him. The only thing keeping him safe is he is waging an independent campaign free of DNC influence and free of DNC money. He has turned to the internet and this has allowed him to be flexible and freed him from control of the party.

BibleBelted

I'm afraid you might be right. At the risk of being flamed I confess I am disappointed (to put it mildly) with the Clinton/McAulliffe leadership of the Dems - and their talent for burying anyone in their way. (Politically I mean, not literally - I'm not from Newsmax )

Of course I'm still pissed about '02 when the DNC couldn't find a nickle to spend against the fundy flaming squirrel James Inhofe while throwing nearly everything into a loser campaign against First Brother Jeb.

Tom Sawyer

I think that the DNC doesn't know what it's doing. None of their candidates is a credible alternative to Bush.

Granted, there are a lot of people who will vote for anyone they put forward, either because they always vote Democrat or because they are part of the ABBA crowd. The Dems could run a chimp as their candidate and these people would vote for him. These people aren't going to be enough to defeat Bush, though.

What is needed is someone who can get others to get up out of their chairs and actually vote. Most people who are slightly discouraged by what they notice Bush doing inbetween their watching reruns of Friends aren't going to the polls and won't bother to vote for someone whose chief benefit is that he's not Bush. Dean has managed to get a hold on people who generally don't vote because they feel (rightly) that their opinion doesn't matter.

I think that Dean's main selling point is that he's getting young people interested in what politicians are saying. In the last election, I was bored stiff with the endless back-and-forth about the idiotic "lockbox" for social security, which I think is pretty much guaranteed to be long gone by the time I hit retirement, so I don't particularly care about it. There weren't very many issues discussed that actually mattered to me. This time, however, the issues being discussed are things that I actually feel are relevant. The way that the military is used, the crumbling economy (I've lost my job twice since the beginning of the year) and things like that are extremely important to me and I don't like the way that the administration is handling things.

The one thing that I do like about Bush is that he comes across as different from other politicians (I'm not talking about now, but the way he was when he was campaigning). He spoke his mind and sounded like he meant it. I disagreed with almost everything that he had to say, but I liked the way that he said it. Dean strikes me as the same, the only difference is that more often than not, I agree with what he's saying. He has an ability to sound like it's him that's saying it and he's not repeating some talking points from a focus group. The rest of the Dems come across as feeble politicians who will say whatever they think people want to hear. That's not going to beat Bush and Dean is the only one who can connect with people on the level that Bush did last time and that's what it's going to take to beat him.

ex-idaho

Tom Sawyer I think you and many others are giving Bush to much credit. I don't believe he is nearly as popular as most people think. I think the polls are wrong based on the simple premise of who responds to them. The people that are least likely to support Bush are the very ones that call screen their calls and have caller ID. I have heard several pollsters comment that this has become a major obstacle in polling and it will only get worse.

I do agree that Dean is tapping into a pool of voters that have been excluded from politics with issues that effect only the baby boomer generation like medicare and social security. With talk of universal health care he can really bring on this group giving him a real edge.

One thing that I have not seen Dean do to this point is interact with minority voters. This will be crucial. If Dean can not solidify the black and hispanic voters in the Democratic base he is screwed. Has anyone ran across any appearances to the South or the inner city?

Sue Sponte

If these people don't answer, then how does anyone know what their political preferences are?

I would love to believe that most people see through Bush, but this explanation I'm not buying. When the study comes out showing that "liberals" purchase caller ID more than conservatives, perhaps I'll reconsider.

ex-idaho

The fact they don't answer the phone is precisely my point. We don't know what the true political mood of the country is. We can only assume one way or the other. And no I don't think that liberals buy caller id more frequently than conservatives but younger suburburban sinlges and young families do and that is what shades the numbers. When you have rural and elderly people making up the bulk of the polling data it tends to shift towards conservative candidates on social and defense issues and towards democrats on health care and social security issues. If you look at the Bush policies this is clearly reflected.