I have to say that I am extremely confused about the rapidly growing meme that "the media is out to get us." On
another diary entry earlier today, two articles were highlighted that were offered as evidence for this idea:
Dean: Dominator or Detonator? and
The Hunt Through Dean's Past . I gotta say...I don't see it.
The main claim of the NYT editorial is that Dean's decision to keep his gubernatorial records sealed is making things worse for himself by "making Vermont only more of a magnet for media and political screening." The claim made by the author of that entry against the article is that (i) it doesn't mention that keeping a certain number of records is standard operating procedure and (ii) it doesn't mention that Bush is far more secretive than Dean.
I think the diarist misses the point. The NYT has long argued for "reasonably" complete transparency in government and freedom of information. This is just another attempt by that news organization to continue to argue that point. Nothing more. Nothing less. Dean just happens to be the most recent platform from which the NYT editors can make that point.
David Broder's column is basically a discussion of how Dean's "instinct for the political jugular" has vaulted him to the lead of the pack while simultaneously sown the seeds for his own destruction.
There is nothing new in this article that hasn't been discussed ad infinitum among fellow Kossacks for quite some time and Broder puts it quite well: "It was near genius for [Dean] to grasp as early as he did...that grass-roots party activists were disgusted by the congressional party leaders' futile efforts to finesse both the tax issue and the war with Iraq and were wide open to being recruited by a dogmatic, even demagogic critic of President Bush and the Washington establishment."
I believe that to be absolutely true. Many of the early Dean supporters were drawn to the one candidate that did the best job mirroring their own feelings about the Democratic party's response to Bush's foreign policy agenda.
On the other hand, Broder writes, Dean has made a few statements about foreign policy that have not been received all to well (or at least have easily been used to put Dean in the position of having to defend the statements): (i) saying that the U.S. is "no safer" one day after the capture of Saddam and (ii) saying that he did not want to prejudge the guilt or innocence of Osama bin Laden.
He's right. Regardless of the truth of those statements, they were either ill-timed or not well conceived.
Regarding the Saddam quote, Broder is on target when he writes "whatever the ultimate judgment of history, that was a day for celebrating the success of the manhunt for this thoroughly malignant character." Why didn't Dean wait a week before making this all too accurate point. It frankly would have held a lot more weight if he had made it as the terror alert level was raised just a few days after Saddam was captured as many Kossacks did.
Likewise, Dean did not need to use Osama bin Laden as an example in which he can let us know that he believes in Due Process. I don't think that's in doubt. Instead, he needs to let swing voters that he too is still angry about 9/11. I know that seems silly, but given that we Democrats have had to face charges of being "weak on Defense" for some 35 years or so, admitting his anger is directed at OBL as well as GWB is necessary for certain swing voters.
Admittedly, there have been a few examples of pure unadulterated "Dean bashing", but most of them have come in the guise of editorials and not straight news stories. But in the end, I don't see how either the NYT editorial or the Broder article could seriously be believed to be "bashing" Dean any more than a discussion of how fiscally conservative Republicans aren't enamored of how quickly the deficit has grown under Bush. It's not a bash, it's a fact.
