Every single pundit in America claimed that the Iowa caucuses would be a showdown between Howard Dean and Dick Gephardt. Howard Dean, everybody claimed without exception, was the unstoppable front-runner and John Kerry was written off. Only nsnews [newsworld showdown] accurately claimed that Howard Dean's lead was absolutely phony and it was only a matter of time before John Kerry and John Edwards would inherit votes
that in fact belonged to them.
Without exception, the pundits claimed that Howard Dean's double digit lead in Iowa had
made John Kerry and John Edwards irrelevant. The question that all the pundits ignored;
Were Kerry and Edwards in fact irrelevant or was it wishful thinking? Even when John
Kerry and John Edwards were soaring in the polls, media pundits kept insisting that
Howard Dean and Dick Gephardt had better organizations and that the polls were
The fact of the matter is, Kerry and Edwards were written off because Republicans
wanted to run against Howard Dean. Formidable candidates like John Kerry threatened
the re-election of George Bush, and the obsession to dismiss them through the effort to
dictate the outcome in Iowa was very clear and obvious. The following message posted on
the Internet, does not leave any room for the imaginative pundits who constructed their
I can't help feeling that Dean is being maneuvered into the Democratic
candidacy by Republican money, because he will be the easiest candidate for Bush to
defeat in November. Nobody knows what Dean stands for. Nobody I know likes him. In
fact, I've never seen anybody claim him for their own. Yet he is the 'front-runner' because
he has raised the most money. Personally I like Edwards, but he's way down in the money
race because he doesn't have any huge corporate contributions from, like, the Republican
Howard Dean's inflated lead was kept afloat by bandwagon pundits who repeatedly
claimed that the campaigns of Kerry and Edwards had faded, and in the end, their lost
credibility was claimed by nsnews, the organization which was bold enough to claim that
John Kerry would win the Democratic Party Nomination and that John Edwards would be
his Vice President. Clearly, when conventional wisdom is a rumor spread by the media,
nsnews is a breath of fresh air. All the phantom young people who allegedly financed
Howard Dean's campaign, showed up and voted for John Kerry.
At his post-caucus rally Monday night, Dean looked angry and sounded delusional.
Gephardt, who graciously accepted defeat, was every inch the veteran public servant he is.
Unlike Gephardt, Howling Howard screamed, turning red in the face, jabbing his index
finger in the air, carrying on and on about all the states in which he was going to
successfully compete, as if he had the divine right to win the Democratic Nomination. He
was positively silly and scary to the point of raising questions about his very sanity. A
spirited, fiery tirade, is not the appropriate demeanor of a loser, but can anybody really
blame Howard Dean for 'losing it'? The media had crowed about Howard Dean to the
point where he believed that he had won the Democratic Nomination, and he had every
right to hyperventilate. The game was over but Dean wanted to extend the play because in
his eyes, the media had let him down. "We will not give up!" Dean shouted, and he listed
the election's future battlegrounds as his face shot red. "We will not quit now or ever!"
This is one angry man who was appropriately retired by the Democrats in Iowa, he doesn't
have to quit. The predictions of every pundit in America collapsed on the shoulders of one
man who was in desperate need of the reality therapy he received when he was defeated
by both John Kerry and John Edwards, and sooner or later, he will get the message.
Organization, organization, organization is not enough.
Those who wrote off Kerry and Edwards planned to do it by maintaining the charade that
Howard Dean was an anti-war candidate. Howard Dean is anything but anti-war.
In fact, Howard Dean is anything but anti-war. The truth is, Howard Dean is not anti-war,
he is merely somebody who claims that he opposed the Iraq war, even though he did not.
As a matter of fact, on September 30, 2002 Dean said, "I don't think he really has to prove
anything. I think that most Americans, including myself, will take the president's word for
it." Dean was talking about allowing the lies of the Bush Administration to be used as a
pretext for war, and he was very specific about supporting George Bush's efforts to wage
war. In his own words, Howard Dean said, "Well, that's correct, that would certainly be
grounds for us to intervene, and if we had so unilaterally, we could do that." Howard
Dean claimed that if George Bush made the case that Saddam Hussein was a nuclear
threat, he would support unilateral intervention in Iraq, and that's exactly what happened.
Dean was supposed to be popular because he allegedly raised over $40 million, and the
average donation, it was frequently pointed out, was well under $100. The zeal to create
the impression that everybody except Howard Dean is influenced by special interests, is
absolutely preposterous. Special interest groups are not morons, they use the Internet to
direct money to the candidate of their choice, and they are better at it than anybody else
because they let their money do all the talking. The claim that the people who are funding
Dean's campaign do not expect anything in return, is an obscene fraud. Howard Dean's
entire campaign is based on well orchestrated lies, distortions and deceptions and they are
clearly too deliberate to fail to betray the pattern and the conduct of lobbyists who spend
millions of dollars, to distort the truth. The claim that Howard Dean's campaign is driven
by grass-root supporters is clearly a desperate fraud, and the exuberant enthusiasm of
those who have taken the bait, is very interesting.
According to popular misconception, Howard Dean has used the Internet to prove that the
Republican and Democratic parties are no longer the most effective ways to organize
like-minded people to achieve political ends. Clearly, the suggestion that Howard Dean
has single-handedly upstaged the Democratic Party is the wet dream of crafty political
operatives who have generated the perception that Howard Dean is essentially a
third-party candidate who has used Internet technology to achieve a takeover of the
Democratic Party. But perception is not reality. Like Richard Nixon, who collected million
dollar, cash donations in brown paper bags to bribe eyewitnesses who were in a position
to expose corruption, Howard Dean should not brag about the size of his war chest,
because if all of his fans are correct, then the Internet has the power to take away that
which it has so generously granted --the false perception that Howard Dean is John Kerry
and John Edwards, rolled into a single candidate. John Edwards is the Democratic
candidate who has not spend his entire adult life in politics and John Kerry is the
Democrat with the progressive record that Howard Dean is trying to hijack, through his so
called ability to upstage the Democratic party.
The media loves to promote the wonderful delusion that Howard Dean has used the
Internet to create his own party, his own hierarchy, his own lists, his own money, and his
own organization, but that does not make any sense at all, Indeed, if that were true,
Howard Dean would not even need the Democratic Party, he could simply use all his so
called Internet resources to run as an Independent.
Howard Dean is on his way out because he has used the resume of Senator John Kerry to
create the false perception that he deserves to be the Democratic front-runner, and that is
clearly counterproductive because a hostile takeover demands more complicity than
Howard Dean has managed to secure. Gore and Bradley are not enough.
Make no mistake about it, the Internet is not Dr. Frankenstein. The Republican and the
Democratic parties still dominate and the Internet is merely the docile recipient of
Republican and Democratic resources. If the Republicans, who are always obsessed by the
effort to control the media, think that Dean's hostile takeover of the Democratic party will
enhance George Bush's re-election prospects, they are correct. If they have filled Dean's
head with the fantasy that he can use the Internet to subvert the will of the entire
Democratic party, the arrogance is understood. But a democracy is not about creating
your own party, it's about joining or leading the party, and Howard Dean is not even a
player, in either capacity.
While governor of Vermont, Howard Dean accepted personal pay from special interests at
least five times for speeches and also received at least $60,000 in checks and pledges from
insurers who benefited from a state tax break,
In 1993, the two insurers sent the governor a gift, described only as a "package" after
Dean met with them to discuss a bill that would provide new tax breaks and Dean signed
the bill into law later that year. Is this the guy who uses the Internet to by-pass special
interest groups, or are special interest groups financing Dean's campaign?
Howard Dean's phony surge in Iowa was driven by an enormous army of people who
created the false impression that Howling Howard was the candidate who deserved to
inherit the dominant, anti war constituency within the Democratic Party in Iowa. The dirty
little secret that media pundits ignored is the fact that John Kerry was the real anti war
advocate and that Howard Dean was merely pretending to be antiwar, to claim what he
thought would be the constituency he required to win over the Iowa caucuses.
The media has ignored John Kerry and John Edwards since Howard Dean announced his
candidacy and in just 5 days, John Kerry and John Edwards did what Howard Dean failed
to do in 2 years -they won the Iowa caucases despite being written off by every pundit in
America. No need to put them on the cover of Time Magazine, nsnews covered the
attempted lynching, every step of the way. The following was
From hereonin, Dick Gephardt is more relevant than Howard Dean is. When is the rest
of the media going to figure it out? Let me guess, it's organization, organization,
The results of the Iowa caucuses speak for themselves: Kerry 38%, Edwards 32%, Dean 18%, Gephardt 11%.
The media, especially "Republican mouthpiece", Judy Woodruff had repeatedly claimed that
"organization" is going to make the difference in Iowa, as if the organized plot to steal the
election from John Kerry was still a secret.
The streets in Iowa were teeming with youths and not-so-youths in orange caps and
knapsacks, who had come in from out of state to try to muscle Dr. Dean to victory. It felt
like the same GOP "love-in," the angry mob that stopped the counting of votes by rushing
the doors outside the office of the Miami-Dade supervisor of elections to steal the election
from Al Gore. John Kerry is no Al Gore.