The Scream, and the way the media covered it, may well be the best thing that could have happened to Howard Dean.
If Dean had given a convential speech, or if the media hadnt had a field day with the Scream, then what would the news of the last few days have been?
- % of the coverage would have been: "Comeback Kerry on the rise"
- % of the coverage would have been: "Edwards - the next Clinton?"
- % of the coverage would have been: "Iowa Democrats slap down Dean".
But instead, we have 80% coverage of: "The Scream", "What does it mean", "All eyes on Dean in the debates", "The Interview", "Can Dean Come Back".
If the message out of Iowa had simply been rejection by the voters, Dean would have had a very difficult week of campaigning, for the only way to counter that story is to hope that NH voters were kinder to him.
But the coverage managed to completely steal the spotlight from Kerry, and to focus attention not on his rejection by the voters, but on a concrete event - something he could deal with, push back against, and get lots of publicity. THere is no such thing as bad publicity, because if the spotlight is on you, you have a measure of control.
If Dean somehow manages to win the nomination, he will owe a huge debt of gratitude to the media for all this attention.