POLITICS: Dean; Temper, Temper?

A Reuters story surfaces this morning that showcases unusual bias in reporting, more than any specific event on the campaign trail. The headline reads, "Voter Triggers Dean's Much-Talked About Temper", but as you read the story you realize there was no big deal. A Bush supporter rose with questions during a question-and-answer period after a typical stump-speech. Nothing in the story indicates a loss of temper.

---

In January, with a long 11 months ahead of us, is this how we're starting the important political season, with even semi-respected wire services exaggerating headlines in an effort to shape opinion (it's well-known that most Americans now simply scan headlines, and read less than 50% of the stories). Not that I'm a Dean fan (I don't like any politicians), but this is a blatant attempt to create a story where none exists.

www.reuters.com

What do you think?

[Edited on 12-1-2004 by SkepticOverlord]

Interesting piece in the Washington times with a somewhat helpful opinion on this topic:
www.washingtonpost.com...

What do i think?

Dean for America!


Nah, really, i think he's going to do well in Iowa regardless, the democratic party needs a strong leader, no democrat should be speaking ill of another democrat as we're all in this together.

Keep blowing it Dean, keep doing a good job by doing a bad job.

Did you read the story... or "scan the headline"?

I'm going to go with the latter. Very ironic when it's actually what this thread is about.

And yet people are willing to blindly believe the popular media, they think they'd never be lied to and eat up the words they # out like it was chocolate.

And I see this in my own family, just because some political figure/news anchor/ puppet they happen to like or identify with at the time said it, it must be 100% true.

ps: thanks Overlord

[Edited on 12-1-2004 by Lysergic]

Dean is "angry"
Clarck has no "experience"

Won't deviate much from that, I'm afraid.

That's a great article S.O. It show's how all media speculation amounts to nothing more than hype.

From Dean's POSSIBLE temper to "MUST WIN" states.

I guess I have to repost this,

Dean is doing what he is supposed to do and doing it well. I'm sure a suitable reward is being prepared for him and his supporters.

Yes, The White House

Exactly. With prepackaged subtext speculation about how every fart between now and '04 affects HILLARY.

Who gives a rat's ...

I think what THENEO might be implying is that Dean might be a dupe, set up specifically because he can't get the broad based support he needs to defeat Bush.
That is about as conspiratorial as you can get, but I guess it could happen.

Yes many Bush fans (and FoxNews) enjoy floating that assertion along with the "Hillary is the puppet master" theory. What makes no sense is their seeming willingness to warn dems not to fall for it, while at the same time gloating it assures Bush victory. Kind of in a BS loop aren't they?

If they are the only ones that have figured it all out, why spill the beans? Unless it's a secret ploy from the Bush camp to elect Clark? Hmmm....j/k.

It's all BS.

Did anyone see the latest Democratic debate? It was hilarious. Politicians will be politicians but talk about all the dagger throwing and out-right "stabbings"....wow.
If this is any indication, minus Edwards feelings on this, the run to the White House is going to be very entertaining.

I do think Clark was and is making a mistake by not partaking in the Iowa "affair"and "concentrating on NH".



regards
seekerof

That debate though, was one Clark had to be on his knees thanking God he wasn't in. You're definitely above the fray if you remove yourself from it altogether.

But, yes, missing Iowa could hurt. Unless you are Kerry, where showing up and wandering around stage looking for the spotlight in a bad vaudville act hurt worse.

The media and both the right and the left are working their butts off in tandem to destroy Dean. Why? Because he ain't the establishment annointed candidate. He scares 'em. Pure and simple. Why? Because he's who the real people out there are gravitating toward. Gnash those teeth!
Although I've never even contemplated voting for Democrat in my life, I will be voting for Dean in the '04 election. Anything to rub the establishment's nose in their own shyte.

That's one hell of a statement, and your observations on the media hating Dean more than (or as much as) Bush ring true. I think most of Dean's core support remain all walks of the disillusioned and disenfranchised from first time voters to patently fed up people.

Though Dean is not my first choice, he has his appeal. The more they attack him, the more I like him. Kind of like Bush backers think about W.

Lieberman commented last night on the attacks: "I was kind of hoping they'd attack me!" It's true. Expect more attacks on Dean and Clark as their polls continue to rise and polls to rise for Dean and Clark as more continue to attack them.