With the ongoing dispute over delegates from Florida and Michigan, Time Magazine has decided to do what the media always does - attack Howard Dean. In a new article on its website, TIME basically blames the whole problem on Dean, painting a picture of a situation that would be easy to resolve if it weren't for Governor Dean and his petty childishness. It, of course, glosses over all of the issues involved, and paints Hillary Clinton as the savior of Florida voters. And of course, as is consistent with journalistic principles, the article only quotes Dean critics, giving neither him nor the DNC a chance to respond.
Here is the key passage:
Instead of the typical jokes about Flori-duh, the Sunshine State debacle currently gripping the Democratic Party has evoked reminders of the Dean Scream — the notorious petulance of Democratic National Chairman (DNC) Howard Dean
There are a few somewhat ridiculous things the article says.
First, the author tries to paint this issue as totally destroying the party's chances in the general election in Florida:
In addition, some state party leaders tell TIME they privately estimate the Dem dysfunction will cost them at least 1% of Florida's sizeable chunk of independent voters, who number more than 2 million, or almost a fifth of the state's electorate.
This is written to intentionally overstate the effect. It tries to convey that Democrats will lose over a fifth of the voters (more than 2 million of them!). In fact, what this says is that the Dems will lose 1% of one fifth of the electorate, or .2%, due to this problem. The author is clearly trying to make a mountain out of a molehill when it comes to Florida independents. When it comes to Democrats, the article claims that
According to a poll conducted this week for various Florida media, almost a quarter of Florida Democrats say they'll be "less likely to support" the party's nominee if their state's delegates aren't seated at the Democratic National Convention in Denver in August.
To me, this sounds like people here at Daily Kos pledging not to vote for Hillary if she wins. I think people say this to try and do their small part to convey a message to Hillary that she should bow out. If I were a Florida voter, I might respond to such a poll saying something similar, if only so that the media will put more pressure on the DNC to seat Flordia delegates. Similarly, I think that people often say they approve of politicians of their own party, even if they do not, in the interest of making their party look strong. And, of course, a lot of voters say this now but will come around and support the Democrat no matter what, same way many Republicans have now abandoned their previous rhetoric and are backing McCain all the way.
The article continues to bash Dean and the DNC:
Either way, the DNC's lack of foresight is astonishing
Very few people predicted that there would be a brokered convention, and this all would actually matter. The overwhelming evidence suggests that this would be a moot point as the delegates are seated once a presumptive nominee is picked. To say that this is an astonishing lack of foresight is to totally miss this fact.
Perhaps because Dean and the DNC painted themselves into a corner. They can't easily lift the Florida-Michigan sanctions after all the authoritarian chest-thumping they did last year.
This paints Dean as too immature to accept defeat and instead worried about saving face. It completely ignores the fact that pretty much any solution favors one candidate over the other in some way. This would be easily resolved in a vacuum - it is nearly impossible to resolve in the context of the ongoing battle between Obama and Hillary.
Yet if the party heads into Denver without a clear nominee — and needing the votes of Florida and Michigan to decide the issue — their peremptory action will seem even more ridiculous, making the leadership of the so-called people's party look like a clique of arrogant patricians thwarting the popular will.
This is classic media reporting on the media. There are a number of reasons that seating the delegates as is undemocratic. Many Florida voters likely did not vote due to the DNC ruling. No attention in the article is given to the fact that seating the delegates is unfair towards Obama, as he could not campaign (and at the time he was still less-known than Hillary). I could go on. But rather than saying that not seating Florida would be thwarting the popular will, this article is implicitly threatening to paint the party as thwarting popular will if this author does not get his way. It makes as much sense as the media reporting that the winner of the Iowa Caucuses is important - because the media reports who the winner of the Iowa Caucus is.
Clinton accepted the DNC ruling last year when she was the front-runner; but now, because she won the Florida and Michigan primaries but trails Obama in the delegate count, she's the earnest champion of voters like Bander.
The article paints Clinton as the "earnest champion" of the voters. At the same time,
Otherwise, not surprisingly, he [Obama] is keeping sheepishly quiet — and a bit unpresidential — about the whole thing
The article does not really acknowledge that the two candidates are only acting in their own self interest, rather than in some heroic stand for democracy. But, once again, this is a situation of the media saying that the media will report that Hillary is more true to democracy than Obama, instead of reporting the truth, which is that both are trying to win.
Incidentally, the fact that in a situation like this, both candidates will act in their own self interest, is the reason we have rules governing these elections in the first place. And that is also why following the rules is so important.
But, of course, Dean never was standing up for the rules, he was just partaking in "authoritarian chest-pumping."