The Changing Race

If you had any doubt that the media was dead set against Howard Dean, just look at what they've done with his post-primary speech Monday night—calling it a "yowl" and a "howl" , "overheated" and "screechy." Give me a break! I saw the speech live when he gave it, and I thought it was an energetic and passionate thank-you to his loyal supporters, and an admirable attempt to encourage their continued support. If the media was going to be fair to Dean, all of these stories would recognize that, rather than how "bizarre" the speech was, or rather than characterizing it as yet another "gaffe." The guy probably hadn't slept much in a few days, he was obviously losing his voice, and he just wanted to show the gathered crowd of thousands that his 3rd-place showing in Iowa, his campaign was going to move confidently on to the next primaries. Why can't the media say that? It's not because it's factually untrue; it's because they've chosen another spin. They've declared Dean to be angry and gaffe-prone and unpredictable, and they're making sure their predictions turn out to be true by seizing every opportunity to spin things in that direction and say, "See, I told you so." Now they're already writing Dean's obituary.

Why does this matter? Is this just the boohooing of a disappointed Deaniac? Perhaps. But I'm not the only one who thinks that the Dean campaign has become more than just a campaign for president—it's become a test of whether internet organizing, coupled with grass-roots, on-the-ground organizing, can have any real effect on the status quo in the U.S. If Dean simply gets crushed in the rest of the primaries, there are going to be a lot of people who are going to consider giving up hope in their ability to affect the democratic process in this country. Not least among these people are those in the progressive wing of the Democratic party, many of whom chose not to support Kucinich or to press for some 3rd-party alternative in the hope that their support of Dean would ensure he could beat Bush. They and many other Dean supporters have dedicated massive energy and time and other resources to building Dean's campaign, and it's that kind of public-spirited dedication, that kind of community-building, that kind of hope for a better future that this country really needs. If Dean gets crushed and even a small percentage of those people give up the fight, the U.S. will have lost a lot more than a presidential candidate.

Michael Moore is among those who has recognized this problem. In another somewhat inexplicable message (following his endorsement of Clark, I mean), Moore tells Dean supporters: Don't give up. He's not clear what it is we're not supposed to give up, but the implication is we shouldn't give up hope that a good candidate will defeat Bush or the fight to make that happen. Moore writes:

As one who does not support Dean, I would like to say this to you: DON'T GIVE UP. You have done an incredible thing. You inspired an entire nation to stand up to George W. Bush. Your impact on this election will be felt for years to come. Every bit of energy you put into Dr. Dean's candidacy was -- and is -- worth it. He took on Bush when others wouldn't. He put corporate America on notice that he is coming after them. And he called the Democrats out for what they truly are: a bunch of spineless, wishy-washy appeasers who have sold out the working people of America. Everyone in every campaign owes you and your candidate a huge debt of thanks.

Moore goes on to detail the contributions the Dean campaign and its supporters have made to the election process already. It's good stuff, all true, and worth a look—especially if you're a Dean supporter. Sure, it all seems a little backhanded coming from someone who doesn't support Dean, but, well, Michael Moore is just like that, I guess.

Here's hoping Kerry and Clark will beat each other up in New Hampshire over who's the most kick-ass big bad military man and Dean's new focus will be what Granite Staters want to hear. The debate tonight will be crucial. Dean's never been stellar in the debates as far as I'm concerned, so we'll see how it goes...

I can't even get started with the SOTU address except to agree with this Canadian writer who said it was:

riddled with disingenuous, at times dishonest, formulations as well as logical inconsistencies.

For a little perspective on the heavily saturated spin Bush smirked at us all on Tuesday, read this annotated critique of the speech's foreign policy aspects. If you find other good critiques and analyses of the speech, please point to them in the comments.

Posted January 22, 2004 06:41 AM | election 2004