Blogcritics: Comments on "The Note" Anoints Dean

Comment by NohoMissives

Thu, 4 Sep 2003 12:48:23 EDT

> NoHo: which "final analysis" is laughable? "election system has been subverted by money and the media" Always has been, nothing new. This time Dean supporters beat them to the punch and used the fact that early momentum is treated as important by the media. I joined up early with this in mind. I wanted to influence the outcome *before* media and money decided. Tens of thousands of other people agreed and sent in early money and early help.

Comment by Steve Rhodes

Wed, 3 Sep 2003 21:32:48 EDT

Here's an example of some of the coverage Dean is getting. Dean Invites More Scrutiny By Switching Key Stances - Washington Post

Comment by Eric Olsen

Wed, 3 Sep 2003 18:18:29 EDT

NoHo: which "final analysis" is laughable? Murphy: why do Dean People Suck?

Comment by Murphy

Wed, 3 Sep 2003 15:53:37 EDT

Get yer Dean People Suck merchandise right here! http://www.cafeshops.com/deanpeoplesuck.7402921

Comment by NohoMissives

Wed, 3 Sep 2003 14:01:04 EDT

I find the final analysis laughable. The media and money have always picked the nominees before anything even started. This time, realizing this, I decided to pick a candidate before they did and work my ass off for him. I gave money, maintained websites, got others to give money, did a small web related project for the campaign, met with people in my neighborhood, flyered, tabled, introduced all of my friends and contacts to Dean's website, etc, etc, etc. Howard Dean is the antithesis of the media and big money backed candidate -- he is proof that dedicated citizens can beat the system. I strongly urge everyone to do this in each political cycle. Figure out for yourself who you like, don't depend on the media to tell you, beat them to the punch and be prepared to do a little work.

Comment by JR

Wed, 3 Sep 2003 13:24:21 EDT

Empiricism and causality are out of fashion. It's all about assertion these days.

Comment by Eric Olsen

Wed, 3 Sep 2003 12:44:02 EDT

And he could very well be the winner - my point was that "The Note" took it upon itself to declare him the winner on 9/1/03, largely because the press has responded well to him, and by their thinking, the people will follow. They didn't say "we think this might happen because ..." They said "this WILL happen." Why? Because they say so.

Comment by Jack Tanner

Wed, 3 Sep 2003 12:31:41 EDT

It's not as if Dean is running against stiff competition. Competition of stiffs maybe. Primary voting Democrats want someone from outside the Beltway who isn't somnambulent and voted against the war. That leaves.......Dean.

Comment by Eric Olsen

Wed, 3 Sep 2003 08:27:34 EDT

A lot can happen is right - I wish when the press makes a prediction like this they would be more careful to say "a lot can happen" and not give the impression of inevitability, even implying the inevitability is somehow tied to their prediction. Talk about hubris.

Comment by Steve Rhodes

Wed, 3 Sep 2003 03:28:54 EDT

The same thing happened in 91. Clinton got the early money, far more endorsements than Dean and better press. I remember interviewing Susan Estrich who said Clinton won the early money/press primary before the first vote was cast. He did stumble because of increasing press scrutiny and didn't win New Hampshire, but that allowed him to dub himself the comeback kid. I think things have changed enough so that even though Dean has the most money, he still will have to face the voters. And a lot can happen between now and Feb.