Posted on 05/25/2004 3:58:36 AM PDT by VanZant
Hmm, I still think the reason is simpler...
The media scuttled Dean because they knew he couldn't win. They made the election into a question of who could. And Kerry won out against very weak competition.
Do you think this theory hold's water?
Interesting and worth a bump. BTW, it's My Lai, not Mai Lai.
You have to remember, the revelation of Abu Ghraib happened right before the Iowa Caucus vote. They systematically destroyed Dean in Iowa-- we all said he was treated like a Republican.
I think the media found out about Abu Ghraib and decided to nuke Dean in Iowa.
Thanks.
Dean was right about the Iowa caucus system, it's the most corrupt so called primary in the country.
One theory I heard months ago was that when Gore and others endorsed Dean the Clinton machine got nervous. They helped take him out because they didn't have an FBI file on him and they did on Kerry. I go on the premise that the Clintons, especially Hillary, will do almost anything to keep another dem out of the White House until 08.
That's the Clintons-- what about the media? They ran with it. Remember Kimmit announced the prison abuse scandal right before the Iowa caucuses took place. The media has tons of sources inside the Pentagon that would have allowed them to know about it days before Kimmit even mentioned it.
You have to admit lots of us wondered why they suddenly destroyed Dean and elevated Kerry.
By the way, the media (even in Bubba loving places like Vanity Fair) don't want the Clinton's goal of a Bush second term to be realized. At this point, it really looks like the media want Bush to lose badly.
I'll go into broken record mode-- Kimmit announced it days before Iowa voted. That was an earthquake. Imagine for a minute that you are a hardcore antiwar Leftist in the media resigned to a Dean loss in November and you get wind of photographic and video evidence of GIs abusing Iraqi detainees. That coupled with body bags coming home and no WMD found could be a potent weapon against your nemesis George Bush and "his war."
What if you had seen or knew that those pictures existed in January--wouldn't you're thinking on the race had changed?
You would probably have thought," Damn, the Left is going to politicize this in the General election and milk it for all its worth."
It's satire...right?
The "media" are not independent thinkers or decision makers.
they do what they think is fashionable, or what they are told.
Your theory has two things going for it: It's simpler than the one in the article, and it brings in the Hillary factor. Since the media would like nothing more than to see the Clintons back in their 'rightful place,' they decided to promote the weaker candidate and scuttle Dean.
That's too simplistic. The Clintons --since they have third part groups that make the party apparatus meaningless--if their goal is a Bush loss, would have been thrilled if Dean got the nomination.
It's the media that wants to win. Remember they could have destroyed Kerry at any time. They didn't even elevate Edwards. They gave Kerry uncritical coverage. They clearly knew that events on the ground i.e. the Abu Ghraib revelations would redound to his benefit.
You guys have to remember that the liberal media existed before the Clintons. All the Clintons are are creations of the liberal media.
You actually have several theories in this piece... I buy that the media took out Dean, but not necessarily over Abu Ghraib. They just realized he was too scary to win.
Your last sentence, however, makes what I consider a huge unfounded leap. I think the odds of that scenario occuring (disgrace) are less than 5 percent.
All I am saying is-- think about it.
Let's say, we had known about Monica before Iowa in 96, would we have run a sure loser like Dole?? If we had known and could have sabotogued him and put in a guy who had a chance, we would of.
I think the media is a lot more sophisticated than we are giving them credit for. I think they found out about Abu Ghraib before the Iowa vote and nuked Dean in Iowa.
I think Iraq is going pretty well, but the perception is all that matters.
If Bush loses--he will go back to Texas a haunted failure. If Kerry becomes the President, he will have no will (political or moral) to do right by our mission there and we will leave in utter disgrace, but that faiilure will be laid at Bush's feet.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.