Wrangor
Go Deacs
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2011
- Messages
- 12,413
- Reaction score
- 1,376
BKF Bat Signal
- Thread starter Liquid Karma
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
TownieDeac
words are futile devices
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Messages
- 76,189
- Reaction score
- 16,925
Deacfreak07
Ain't played nobody, PAWL!
I know you aren't addressing the 3rd place Iowa finish, but NH was the 1st primary in 1960. NH, Wisc, Ill, NJ, Mass, Penn, Ind, Ohio... JFK didn't lose a state until May 3rd in Ohio. Makes for a very different opportunity to build momentum.
bobknightfan
Banhammer'd
All the Bernie Sanders supporters and those who may not remember really that much about 2004 should read this article:
http://dissidentvoice.org/2007/11/remembering-howard-deans-2004-campaign/
The Sanders campaign is really the 2004 Dean Campaign Redux, to a large extent. Not exactly, of course, but it draws from the same voter demographic group.
Also, this article mentions the negative media coverage, vis a vis Dean's "anger", in the months leading up to the Iowa caucus. It doesn't go into great depth about the Clinton supporters & the DLC's complicity in that.....but this one does:
http://dissidentvoice.org/2007/11/remembering-howard-deans-2004-campaign/
Two months ago, Howard Dean was the man to beat for the Democratic nomination. Then his campaign fell over a cliff, limping in as a distant second, third and even fourth, in the primaries. On Wednesday Dean officially ended his bid for the White House, telling supporters, "I am no longer actively purusing the presidency."
What happened? How could Dean's insurgent candidacy, which had energized and excited voters in every state, come to such a screeching halt? The pundits claim Dean's "rage" undid him, that voters took a "second look," etc. etc. Nonsense really. The answer is much simpler. Howard Dean was assassinated in broad daylight. Unlike Kennedy's "grassy knoll," Dean's killers are not hiding ñ it was the Democratic Party itself, and more specifically the DLC, that successfully went after, and sabotaged his candidacy.
Another core part of Dean's appeal was his overwhelming support among young people. In 2000, one of the lowest voter turnouts was among young people. If you were under 24, you tuned out and stayed home in November. By contrast, the bulk of Howard Dean's support was among the youth of America. Energized by a strategy focused on Internet campaigning, "Generation Dean" or "Dean 2.0" spread across college campuses and gave a youthful aura to the man from Vermont.
Of course, the DLC did not take kindly to this direct challenge. The crucial dynamic in America today is that big companies, political parties and media are powerful businesses ñ and they will do anything to crush new threats. The DLC reacted with fury to the Dean candidacy, going all out to torpedo his momentum. Although Democratic nominees soon piled on the "bash-Dean" bandwagon, earlier attacks were carried out by DLC operatives. There was even the smell of scandal when two top Democratic candidates were found sharing information about Dean in an attempt to slow him down. This is where Dean lost a crucial ally ñ the mainstream media also joined in on the anti-Dean feeding frenzy. In his early days, he had flayed big media for caving in to George Bush on Iraq, and media giants never forgave him for this. In the same week, Time and Newsweek ran "Who is the Real Howard Dean?" stories. One cover showed a face covered in dark shadows, another showed an incomplete jigsaw puzzle! Semioticians take note ñ bad guys in westerns always have their faces obscured in shadows!
In the end, Dean threatened a troika of powerful institutions. He was a threat to the political parties (because he attacked Democrats' centrist drift), to media (because he criticized their cowardly reporting) and to big business (because he would roll back chummy tax-benefits for corporations). All three institutions responded with venom and destroyed Dean's candidacy. In 1968, a sniper's bullet ended Robert Kennedy's anti-establishment candidacy. In 2004, the methods used were more subtle, but just as effective.
http://dissidentvoice.org/2007/11/remembering-howard-deans-2004-campaign/
The Sanders campaign is really the 2004 Dean Campaign Redux, to a large extent. Not exactly, of course, but it draws from the same voter demographic group.
Also, this article mentions the negative media coverage, vis a vis Dean's "anger", in the months leading up to the Iowa caucus. It doesn't go into great depth about the Clinton supporters & the DLC's complicity in that.....but this one does:
http://dissidentvoice.org/2007/11/remembering-howard-deans-2004-campaign/
Two months ago, Howard Dean was the man to beat for the Democratic nomination. Then his campaign fell over a cliff, limping in as a distant second, third and even fourth, in the primaries. On Wednesday Dean officially ended his bid for the White House, telling supporters, "I am no longer actively purusing the presidency."
What happened? How could Dean's insurgent candidacy, which had energized and excited voters in every state, come to such a screeching halt? The pundits claim Dean's "rage" undid him, that voters took a "second look," etc. etc. Nonsense really. The answer is much simpler. Howard Dean was assassinated in broad daylight. Unlike Kennedy's "grassy knoll," Dean's killers are not hiding ñ it was the Democratic Party itself, and more specifically the DLC, that successfully went after, and sabotaged his candidacy.
Another core part of Dean's appeal was his overwhelming support among young people. In 2000, one of the lowest voter turnouts was among young people. If you were under 24, you tuned out and stayed home in November. By contrast, the bulk of Howard Dean's support was among the youth of America. Energized by a strategy focused on Internet campaigning, "Generation Dean" or "Dean 2.0" spread across college campuses and gave a youthful aura to the man from Vermont.
Of course, the DLC did not take kindly to this direct challenge. The crucial dynamic in America today is that big companies, political parties and media are powerful businesses ñ and they will do anything to crush new threats. The DLC reacted with fury to the Dean candidacy, going all out to torpedo his momentum. Although Democratic nominees soon piled on the "bash-Dean" bandwagon, earlier attacks were carried out by DLC operatives. There was even the smell of scandal when two top Democratic candidates were found sharing information about Dean in an attempt to slow him down. This is where Dean lost a crucial ally ñ the mainstream media also joined in on the anti-Dean feeding frenzy. In his early days, he had flayed big media for caving in to George Bush on Iraq, and media giants never forgave him for this. In the same week, Time and Newsweek ran "Who is the Real Howard Dean?" stories. One cover showed a face covered in dark shadows, another showed an incomplete jigsaw puzzle! Semioticians take note ñ bad guys in westerns always have their faces obscured in shadows!
In the end, Dean threatened a troika of powerful institutions. He was a threat to the political parties (because he attacked Democrats' centrist drift), to media (because he criticized their cowardly reporting) and to big business (because he would roll back chummy tax-benefits for corporations). All three institutions responded with venom and destroyed Dean's candidacy. In 1968, a sniper's bullet ended Robert Kennedy's anti-establishment candidacy. In 2004, the methods used were more subtle, but just as effective.
Last edited:
Deacfreak07
Ain't played nobody, PAWL!
His momentum had gotten him 3rd place in Iowa. I don't know why I'm bothering to respond you're a hero worshiping lunatic who cares about this more than Howard Dean himself.
bobknightfan
Banhammer'd
You're still missing the point. Dean's negative "momentum" by the time of the Iowa caucus was a result of the things I have detailed in the links I gave you. It wasn't just an accident. It was the result of a coordinated effort to bring down his candidacy.
And if you are a Bernie Sanders supporter, I can tell you that the only reason the same thing hasn't happened to him yet is because he is not yet considered to be the threat to win the nomination that Dean had become by November, 2003.
It is impossible for me to understand how anyone can support Bernie Sanders today and not have an appreciation for Howard Dean and an understanding of what he went thru by challenging established political powers. The situations are so similar that it is spooky to think about it.
I can only assume that some posters' antipathy toward me is interfering with their judgment regarding what happened to Howard Dean twelve years ago.
Last edited:
Deacfreak07
Ain't played nobody, PAWL!
Was Dean the first person to deal with negative campaigning?
bobknightfan
Banhammer'd
No...and I've never said that he was. All I've said was that he was the victim of a vicious stealth attack from Clinton supporters within his own party....for reasons that I have given....and that what happened after the Iowa caucus was rigged and over-hyped out of all reasonable proportions.
I'm just trying to get the facts out there about all of this, because it appears that almost none of the posters on this board are aware of what was actually going on during that time.
deacvision7
Mod Emeritus
Say what?
Bernie is still the underdog, but he is most certainly a threat to Hilary at this point. A direct threat to Hilary in a race she is actually running in. Unlike Howard Dean was in 2003/4.
deacvision7
Mod Emeritus
Dean and Gephardt both overplayed their hands in Iowa to disastrous results which allowed Kerry to gain momentum going into NH. That is why they both lost and Kerry won.
Deacfreak07
Ain't played nobody, PAWL!
bobknightfan
Banhammer'd
Bernie Sanders has never been anywhere close to the position that Howard Dean was in during late 2003.
Dean was far ahead of the field at that time...very similar to where Trump is today. And he was also leading in fund-raising and endorsements from key figures & unions. Sanders has consistently trailed Hillary by 15-25% or more in national polls until now. Your statement is preposterous.
bobknightfan
Banhammer'd
You could read the two links I posted in post #24, for starters.
TownieDeac
words are futile devices
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Messages
- 76,189
- Reaction score
- 16,925
Bernie is 24 points ahead in New Hampshire.
Deacfreak07
Ain't played nobody, PAWL!
I'm willing to bet the farm that Bernie finishes better than 3rd in Iowa.
BarcaDeac
Well-known member
Dissident Voice is not a source I had in mine. Anything in the WaPo, NYT, Atlantic, Time, Newsweek (still around back then!), the Burlington paper, Des Moines Register, etc?
deacvision7
Mod Emeritus
My statement that Bernie Sanders is a threat to Hilary at this point is preposterous?
Or my statement that Howard Dean didn't run against Hilary in 2003/4 is preposterous?
I just want us to stay on the same page here. Thanks, Bud!
deacvision7
Mod Emeritus
I like how you linked the same article twice in that post, Bud! Way to be thorough!