How any "Inevitable" Candidate can be defeated aka, remember our media and how it works.

Those who remember the primaries of 2003-2004, will also remember that once the election campaigns really got started....then so did the media manipulation.

In the summer/fall of 2003, the media heralded Howard Dean as the "frontrunner" and the inevitable one. He was the "jurgonaut" who would energize the base! All the polls showed him as a frontrunner.

and so, until very late in 2003, Howard Dean was "inevitable" according to the media......to become the Democratic nominee. The Gore endorsement sealed his fate, they said.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0312/08/pzn.00.html
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/12/09/elec04.prez.gore.dean/
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0106/p11s01-cogs.html
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/12/04/elec04.prez.new.hampshire.poll/index.html


And so it can be said that Hillary is currently our Frontrunner. The pundits have been providing her (and Obama) with a lot of media coverage for quite some time (much longer than they ever gave to Howard Dean).........but, I don't believe that this means that the media "wants" Hillary to become the President anymore than they wanted Howard Dean to be President.

The current media meme right now is that Hillary is ahead all by herself (and that the nomination is hers to lose), Obama is not attacking Hillary and is therefore losing ground, and Edwards and Richardson are waiting in the wings, and that "electability"(whatever that truly means) is key.

I believe that the attacks by the media against Hillary Clinton (just like what happened to Howard Dean) will occur by the media echoing the current netroots; Hillary is NOT inevitable. The cracks are already appearing in Hillary's armor (because they have started the attacks, but ever so softly......which will become progressively louder and louder as we approach the first vote.....like they did with Howard Dean).

In other words, I don't believe that the media "wants" Hillary Clinton to become the nominee, even thought that is the impression that they are currently giving us, and one the netroots settled on long ago. I believe that which candidate the media really "wants" has still not manifested itself....as they are playing this one close to their vest....but I do believe that it will become more and more clear as we get closer to the actual vote.

So those here who are peddling that the Media "wants" Hillary and that they, the voters will "show" the media in Iowa who's really in charge are in for the treat of their lives.....as I fear that it will have been the media, once again, who will have won the battle of manipulation once all is said and done.


I close by saying, be careful what you wish for, cause unbeknowns to you, you may just get it.

As in 2004, we may end up with the vaguely familiar "electable" candidate once again.

The question is.....will that really be a good thing and the slam-dunk that we are hoping for?

I for one, I'm not so sure.

They're on our side for now. They're ready to tear down a clinton again, just like the 90's. GW's been a push over and they've grown tired of playing with him and his goons. They're ready for a tiger...And they'll have one.

in comprehension.

The media all declared Kerry's candidacy dead at least ten times a day since fall 2003.

They kept over-reporting Deans strength on the ground while continually under-reporting Kerry's strengths.

The media did full coverage for most endorsements, but did not give coverage of Kerry's endorsement from Firefighters - and post 9-11, that endorsement should have been wall to wall media coverage.

Kerry dominated most of the Dem debates and Dean's weakest debate performances happened to be the last two before the Iowa primary, his numbers had already been dropping since November, but, again, the media was not accurately reporting that fact.

Not Dean's fault - the media was pretty consistently lying about everyone in an effort to keep the Dem primary off kilter for every one.

It's ABSURD to believe that media wanted Kerry anywhere near the nomination - they had been ignoring his campaign or attacking him religiously since June 2003:


Kerry Seeks to Reverse FCC's "Wrongheaded Vote"
Commission Decision May Violate Laws Protecting Small Businesses; Kerry to File Resolution of Disapproval
Monday, June 2, 2003

WASHINGTON - Senator John Kerry today announced plans to file a "Resolution of Disapproval" as a means to overturn today's decision by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to raise media ownership caps and loosen various media cross-ownership rules.

Kerry will soon introduce the resolution seeking to reverse this action under the Congressional Review Act and Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act on the grounds that the decision may violate the laws intended to protect America's small businesses and allow them an opportunity to compete.

As Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, Kerry expressed concern that the FCC's decision will hurt localism, reduce diversity, and will allow media monopolies to flourish. This raises significant concerns about the potential negative impacts the decision will have on small businesses and their ability to compete in today's media marketplace.

In a statement released earlier today regarding the FCC's decision, Kerry said:

"Nothing is more important in a democracy than public access to debates and information, which lift up our discourse and give Americans an opportunity to make honest informed choices. Today's wrongheaded vote by the Republican members of the FCC to loosen media ownership rules shows a dangerous indifference to the consolidation of power in the hands of a few large entities rather than promoting diversity and independence at the local level. The FCC should do more than rubber stamp the business plans of narrow economic interests.

"Today's vote is a complete dereliction of duty. The Commissioners are well aware that these rules greatly influence the competitive structure of the industry and protect the public's access to multiple sources of information and media. It is the Commission's responsibility to ensure that the rules serve our national goals of diversity, competition, and localism in media. With today's vote, they shirked that responsibility and have dismissed any serious discussion about the impact of media consolidation on our own democracy."

the results were known in Iowa.

They had already taken Dean down enough for it to count.


Once it was time for the GE, THEN they took Kerry down.

But they tried to take Kerry down LONG BEFORE they went after Dean in Dec2003, because they thought they had Kerry already out of it.

It's absurd to try and revise what happened in 2003 and 2004 just to fit your preferred storyline.

Kerry's endorsements were downplayed or unreported, his campaign was declared dead for months to dry up his donations (he financed himself the last months before the caucus vote), and he was urged by some pundits to drop out entirely.

And Kerry was electable - so electable that media had to go into full protection mode for Bush, and RNC had to pull every vote stealing trick they had constructed over the years.

"so electable that media had to go into full protection mode"......

That's why those claiming that electability means anything are fooling themselves.

The point is that Hillary and Obama are just as "electable" as John Edwards claims to be. Simply being a White man from the south does not "electable" make. In fact, they will probably be able to tear down Edwards that much more easily.....cause he won't have any excuses.

is that Dean was a fresh face. Voters loved him at first, but as he became better known that support slipped significantly. Democratic voters are already very familiar with Hillary, so it is less likely that she will lose that much support unless she really does something out of character.

I'm saying that the press tactics are very similar.

First they promoted them, and at some point, they will turn on them....which is what they did to Howard Dean.....and what they are about to start doing with Hillary.

That was what my op was refering to; the media and the way it manipulates in a way that one doesn't know they have been had till after the fact.