Got Advice? The Dean Double Standard

So I do my usual first-thing-in-the-morning news troll through the Net (after the cold cereal and the coffee, of course), and I find a mountain of negative articles on Dean. Just as they did with Gore, the media seems determined to exaggerate out of all proportion every tiny little mistake, every distant, pale intimation of a possible conflict of interest on the part of a low-level, long-dead aide, every ripped-out-of-context quotation.

Here's today's round-up:
The NYT editorial board continues its long tradition of holding Democrats to far higher standards than Republicans, demanding that Dean open up all his gubernatorial files, despite the fact that sealing a certain amount of files is perfectly routine (a fact unmentioned by the editorial) and the fact that Bush's penchant for secrecy goes way, way beyond Dean's.

On the general subject of "gaffes," we have David Broder, who pontificates about the potential for utter destruction in Dean's many alleged misstatements: "It is hard to recall another challenger who . . . has so thoroughly demonstrated a penchant for embarrassing himself." And Dean is "accident-prone."

On the specific subject of Dean's error in saying that the Book of Job was in the New Testament, we have both Nick Kristof in the Times and Mike Littwin in the Rocky Mountain News. Though Littwin is generally positive about Dean, he can't resist saying of this particular mistake "You can turn off the gaffe-meter. We have a winner." Ha ha, Mike!

The problem with all this nit-picking is that, like the alleged conflict-of-interest scandalette and the secret files, Dean's "gaffes" are a whole lot of nothing, especially in comparison to Bush. Why is it that Shrub can get away with saying, in May 2003, that we'd found WMD in Iraq? In October that one of his biggest accomplishments of the year was ridding Iraq of WMD? To say nothing of all the lies leading up to the war.

And certainly, by any rational standard, such comments by Bush are far, far worse than Dean's errors. Bush's comments display either complete delusion or a willingness to lie brazenly. They are not mistakes. They are something much more troubling. Yet the media ignores them.

So, the media has every intention of "Goring" Dean this year. What to do about it? I have no idea, really, but maybe you have some suggestions.

•  It's duty

  With the Goring of Dean I'm fairly sure we'll lose.  Sorry.  It's too difficult to get through to the moribound, apathetic, semi-moronic American electorate with the media deliberately screwing your candidate.

  So I fake until I make it (if I ever do--enthusiasm for the coming campaign, I mean).  Act As If.

  I'm going to the MeetUp tonight and will do what I can.  I already do quite a lot.

  There is no alternative.  It breaks my heart and often pushes me toward depression, but I can't sit here and do nothing.

  So I do my duty.  It's all I can do, and the outcome is not up to me.

  by paradox on Wed Jan 07, 2004 at 12:15:42 PM PDT

•  The Goreing

  Well, there are two things.

  1.  It is good to get this out of the way.  Although I'd like to know why fluff pieces on Bush while they gore Dean.  Especially when many of the attacks Ive read in the NY Times these past few days say nothing at all about Dean that isn't positive.  It is bizarre that they even try to spin these things as negatives.  If Dean wins the nomination he will be extremely well vetted at least and that is good.
  2.  Clark is benefiting from this right now because all of the attention is on Dean.  This is good because he might escape the primary relatively unscathed if he wins the nom.  The negative is that he won't be as well vetted and Bush and company will go after him hardcore in that dead period before the convention where he will be unable to respond effectively due to money concerns.  I'm not saying he can't do it.

  So, it is good and bad for both, no?

  p.s. I also think it helps Sharpton when he wins the nomination...  did I just write that?

  by seamus on Wed Jan 07, 2004 at 12:16:48 PM PDT

  •  Out of the way?

    Well, I'm worried that, instead of getting this stuff out of the way, we are witnessing the formation of a year-long pattern. As with the treatment of Gore, statements that are not, in fact, lies or gaffes or whatever, will be treated as such. The storyline gets established, and reporters ge into a rut of looking for gaffes or lies or whatever. When such statements don't exist, reporters just make them up. (See: Love Story, Love Canal, "inventing the Internet").

    And that's the problem.

    by Dan Perreten on Wed Jan 07, 2004 at 12:40:07 PM PDT

    •  agree

      I agree that that is a concern.  

      I think there is a long term importance of somehow overcoming this.  Part of our fight here isn't just against Bush.  Our fight is against this tendency of the media whatever you'd define it as.  It hurts America when the media can tag candidates who are strong and make them appear weaker through distortions and lies.

      So how do we beat them at their game without getting dirty?

      by seamus on Wed Jan 07, 2004 at 12:48:53 PM PDT

•  It's the candidate, stupid

  tell dean to cheer up and change his tax code?

  by josh in chi town on Wed Jan 07, 2004 at 12:22:02 PM PDT

  •  screw subject lines

    Don't you ever have something constructive to say?

    Dean has had a tax plan in the works and you know it.  Clark announcing his first is a coup.  But don't overplay it.

    by seamus on Wed Jan 07, 2004 at 12:29:16 PM PDT

  •  Re: It's the candidate

    Josh: Yeah, Dean isn't perfect. Do I wish he hadn't said that thing about not wanting people to look into his records in the future because he might run for president (bad paraphrase)? Heck, yeah!

    Do I wish he had come out with Clark's absolutely brilliant tax plan? Heck, yeah! (Though, as others have pointed out in the blogosphere, I have no problem with Dean's plan as policy. In fact, it's more honest because it begins to deal with the deficit, and Clark's doesn't. But Clark's is clearly superior politically.

    But Josh, the same media gang-banging would be happening to Clark if he were the frontrunner. In fact, don't you remember when he first got into the race and all those articles appeared accusing him of being insane, unlikable, a waffler, a liar? I remember Howard the Whore Fineman's cover story in Newsweek that began with an anecdote about Clark claiming to have called Rove and not getting a call back. Clark told Fineman he'd been joking, but two Republicans swore to Fineman that he'd been serious. The Weekly Standard that same weekend called Rove's office, got the telephone records, and accused Clark of being a liar because they showed he'd never called. BUT CLARK SAID HE'D BEEN KIDDING!!!

    It was all insane fun-house mirror stuff created by Republican operative and media hacks, but it all made Clark look bad and distracted from his message and his critique of Bush.

    by Dan Perreten on Wed Jan 07, 2004 at 12:46:58 PM PDT

•  Strategery

  Like Will Farrel's impressions on SNL, Bush can't even speak his own language, and Americans love him for it.

  It's Clenis backlash. They got so sick of smooth talk that they now want the village idiot in charge.

  America ultimately gets the government it deserves. If the dems lose, it's our fault for letting them lose.

  Time to dig in, boys and girls.

  by Morpheum on Wed Jan 07, 2004 at 12:24:28 PM PDT

•  fuck the media

  we have some serious mojo here when it comes to readers on sites like eschaton, dailykos, and grassroots candidate sites like BFA and the clark blog.

  get them organized to send letters to the editorial writers and reporters and editors who publish the real crap, and send them into the front lines. look at what happened with the pickler article with a false quote. we nailed the AP hard for that one. pick one reporter and gore them right back for a week or two, and they'll learn their lesson. or, if we have enough forces, marshall a full scale invasion of the press.

  by skaiserbrown on Wed Jan 07, 2004 at 12:27:35 PM PDT

•  try this as an antidote

  Foes attack Dean on his actual strong point

  Listening to Sunday's Democratic debate in Iowa, and to most of the rest of the Democratic primary campaign, it's easy to see what most Democratic candidates consider the major reason they're running for president:

  Howard Dean.

  If they'd ever seemed this distressed about George Bush, they might not now have to be so worried about Howard Dean.

  There are, of course, lots of things to be concerned about on the subject of Dean. He seems a stranger to the unexpressed thought; whatever pops into his head goes immediately onto CNN. (While that process is quick, the explanation of what he really meant often doesn't appear until several days later.) He's only been the governor of a small state with a large population of cows -- although at least none of Vermont's cows seems to be mad.

  And Dean on the stump does frequently seem upset about something, which at least in Senate terms is supposed to be bad form -- even though the only chance of defeating an incumbent president is if lots of voters are upset about something.

  But what comes across from listening to attacks on Dean, especially from the questions asked Dean on Sunday by Massachusetts Sen. John F. Kerry and Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman, is less concern about those issues than outraged entitlement.

  Here these are national figures planning to run for president for a long time, and they're losing to a governor out of nowhere. Clearly, they feel, it's just not right.

  (...)

  And guess who the SCLM gets most of their material from.

  by DemFromCT on Wed Jan 07, 2004 at 01:31:13 PM PDT

•  Utopia or Oblivion

  The chattering class will almost certainly be the laggards if this is to work. We must go around the mainstream media -- working on alternative channels, one to one connections, and local press -- to reach a critical mass of Americans and create a great consensus that Bush must go.

  This is what Trippi is attempting to do. Dean's national numbers are dropping because they're all iowa all the time, but what is being built there is something that will exist well beyond the caucuses. There's more than enough time to do the same in every battleground (and more than a few "Red" States) between now and October.

  If this can happen, the SCLM will be dragged along sometime during the summer. It's a long hard slog, but it's the only way to win.

  by Outlandish Josh on Wed Jan 07, 2004 at 01:34:35 PM PDT

  •  Absolutely on the mark!

     

    Lets not forget what Tip taught us:
    All politics is local

    Even the most negative media in the world cannot beat the power of the grass roots.  But we must be organized, united, and very aggressive.  

    We must challenge the media at every turn and show them we are not weak.  No slander or misrepresentation should go unchallenged!  

    We must stay on the offensive at all times.  Bush may be the incumbent, but we have the power of truth on our side.

    by sbj in Va on Wed Jan 07, 2004 at 01:54:46 PM PDT

    •  How does that work?

      How do you effectively challenge a slander and misrepresentation without the co-operation of the media in some form?  I can see how it works HERE, in the blogosphere, but how about in the world of paper and meat?  Letters to the editor only go so far if they are even published, and only so many read blogs.

      There are tools, like letters, like the net, like talking to people, like walking the streets, and these are good and should be exploited.  But for the most part, they're not going to go half as far as an article in the papers or a segment on the news.  And then what kind of challenge do you have left without enlisting the media itself?  How can you cure someone if you can't deliver the medicine?

      No, I think we need the media to an extent, but I think that the grassroots has the power to shape the media.  Just look at Dean's campaign.  I remember spring, when Kerry was sitting in the lead of New Hampshire and no one in the national media cared about Dean at all except to group him with Kucinich, Sharpton and Brown as a second or third tier candidate without a chance in hell.  The grassroots, thanks to the fundraising and Meetup and enthusiasm, taught the media a lesson that catapaulted Dean to national prominence WITH THE HELP OF THE MEDIA.  We simply cannot do it alone, but we can do it.

      Then again, I'm not sure what kind of power truth has in politics besides the fact that it tends to be less likely to be discovered to be wrong than falsehood, so maybe I'm just in a bit of a cynical mood.

      by notapipe on Wed Jan 07, 2004 at 04:03:46 PM PDT

•  An alternative media

  While it remains to be seen how pervasive or effective it will be in 2004, there is an alternative, progressive media building infrastructure and momentum.  And its primary purpose is to defeat Bush.  It is taking several forms.

  There is a liberal talk radio to challenge Rush et al., like Randi Rhodes, Ed Schwartz and Mike Malloy, some of whom have national syndication and or web-casting.  There is the possibility of the progressive cable news channel that Gore has been trying to get up and running.  There are liberal books galore topping the best seller lists, many of which are highly critical of the Bush administration and the mainstream media.  

  There are the 527s like MoveOn and Amercia Coming Together raising buckets fo cash.  We know MoveOn is going to run ads highly critical of Bush and has the money to do so widely and on television (donate to MoveOn!)  ACT, a coalition of progressive groups like Emilys List, Sierra Club and union groups, is going to coordinate a massive voter education and get-out-the-vote campaign in battleground states, and is also going to have a lot of money, thanks to George Soros and others.  

  Then there is us:  the grassroots, the bloggers, the internet alternative media, reaching more and more people all the time.  Dean has the right idea.  We need to get people who have stayed home back into the process, and that is happening on the grassroots and local levels.  I am cautiously optimisitc that we have a better shot at counteracting the Goring of Dean (or our nominee) than we did in 2000.  Screw the mainstream media whores.  There are alternatives and I think they can reach  a lot of people.      

  by Ramsey on Wed Jan 07, 2004 at 04:22:07 PM PDT