ABC News mea culpa: the truth about the Dean scream

I think the "scream" is a ridiculous issue but that said shouldn't a smart politician know how the mics work and also know how something like that is going to by played by the media and opponents?

Also as many have noted the bigger story is that he lost the Iowa primary after having a huge lead and outspending the other candidates.

I coach a sports team and I always tell my players if you want to make a spectacle of yourself that's fine just make sure you win.

 

Either way, that was a terrible concession speech. The pointing and naming off of each of his opponents states, including Dick Gephardts. it was as if he was going to attack them. When I first saw it i thought it was hilarious.

 

"...our political system remains rooted in the superficial."
This is almost exactly what my wife said about the incident, and she's not a fan of Dean because she doesn't think he's as "electable" against Bush as is going to be needed considering the gigantic warchest he's going to have... although she isn't crazy about Kerry either, in that regard.

The obsession of the electorate with the superficial, on display most prominently with the election of Bush, is a morass this country has fallen into for the last several election cycles. What will bring us out of it? If the average voter pays so little attention to the candidates that an artificial creation on the scale of George W, Bush, even after being exposed for what he truly is after 3+ years, still may be re-elected, then what is our ultimate future?

Grim. I wish I knew the answer.

 

Batman,

It is admirable of you to continue to stick by "good ole crazy" Howard, but don't you think that even if this scream thing was overplayed by the media (which it was), that something else would have come out against this guy? Doesn't Howard know that politicians are always going to be earmarked by what they say and do?

Now I know you will argue that the media overplaying his scream is what cost him and if it wasn't for that, he would have a better than average chance of beating Bush. But I am really not so sure about that; I think these caucauses (sp?) show the other side to the politicians and it would have come out sooner or later that Dean is not the best choice to beat Bush for the Democrats. Personally, I would like to see Wesley Clark win the nomination because that is who I would vote for in a heartbeat. And isn't your main objective is to see Bush lose? Why would you want someone who has no chance of beating him to get the nomination? If I am a Bush supporter, I would want Dean to be the Democratic nominee.

 

To be fair, I don't think it's accurate to right this up as an entirely new development, although it's tempting. If I'm not mistaken, Clinton's victory over Bush was the first time in US history where the shorter man won, and I don't think there has ever been a US President under 6 ft. tall.

The history of US politics is replete with superficiality winning out over substance; virtually every political analyst of the day says that Nixon won the famous televised debate with Kennedy, but Kennedy's numbers shot up after the fact, due entirely to superficial superiority.


What I think is true is that our attention spans have gotten much shorter, and politicians and handlers have gotten better at feeding us bite sized pieces of political sloganism and mud slinging so that the superficial aspect is more on the surface. But whether it ultimately has more effect is debatable.

I think Bush has expolited this as well or better than any other President, coupled with the post 9-11 fear and almost unparalleled partisan entrenchment. A lot of what he sells and his supporters buy is so obviously crap that it hardly even seems like they're pretending to try...

 

write, not right.

 

I was just watching something on C-Span. Dean really has done a lot of good in Vermont - an increase in the minimum wage in the works, healthcare for pretty much everyone who couldn't afford it otherwise....sounds like a nice place to live.


It's a shame that a potentially good leader for this country has had his campaign hobbled by an arbitrary and ultimately meaningless video clip.

Bush should be happy that the media could never dig up videotape of him snorting cocaine out of a stripper's ass-crack during a Yale alumni party, because that would probably have ended up in heavy rotation as well.

 

I didn't intend to say we haven't always been affected by the superficial. As Batman said, it remains rooted in the superficial. But it's gotten far worse. You used the example of JFK beating Nixon because he looked better on TV. And I think it's very true. The difference is that, although Kennedy may have won due to his looks, the fact remains that Kennedy himself was far from superficial. As was Nixon. And LBJ was not superficial by any means... you might argue that he was the "anti-superficial" President. Crafty, conniving and an s.o.b., but not superficial. And they used the superficial in their campaigns.

There are other examples, but the point was that while sometimes we elect candidates influenced by superficial things, the candidates themselves aren't. (largely ) On the other hand, Bush is superficial, elected by the superficial, for the superficial.

 

LOL, I guess I should post in this forum more often so you would *really* know how I feel about things.

If what you are saying is true, then you would think that my favorite TV show is "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy", eh Batman?

 

Batman,

I clicked on your link and watched that video. My parents (who have ALWAYS voted Democratic and they are 61 and 59 respectively) were laughing the whole time! Yes, the scream was almost inaudible on that clip and if you go back to my first post in this thread, I AGREED with you that they (the media) were probably overdoing it. That is what they do - they run crap into the ground, but come on, man. In watching that clip, how can anyone take that guy seriously?

Maybe subconsciously, I let the media form my impression about him but there are other factors, too, mainly this board. There are many "non-conservative" posters that I respect here and I bet the majority of them are not for Dean. Maybe I should do a poll on it.

Besides I like Wes Clark, so I could care less about any of the other nominees on the Democratic side.

 

The media giveth, and the media taketh away... They MADE him the front runner in the first place.

I dont exactly see how the superficial has helped John Kerry get in the lead (supposed lead right now). If looks and style were the order of the day, Kerry and Kucinich would be fighting it out for last place.

 

There be great truth in what you speak brother McClure.

and I had only known you as the sayer of other great lines like. ...

The scream may have been a blow to Dean and a boon to the media but I think the attention to it has overshadowed far greater problems with the Dean campaign. Even without the scream he had lost Iowa and was slipping in several polls when just a month ago everyone including many Republicans had all but conceded he was going to be the Democratic nominee.

 

This is just a *light* version of what the media did on the Paul Wellstone and others memorial.

 

So, you're saying officially that you will not vote for a Condi Rice / Ann Coulter ticket in '08? Or have their testicles descended? Or are they transexual? Do they put that sort of info in the young republican handbook? Thought so.