Guess what America? It's time to figure out who to vote for!

Why is Dean ‘Unelectable’?

have a few questions for the major media orcs who have been unrelenting in their negative coverage of Democratic presidential hopeful Howard Dean:

Why exactly is Dean unelectable? I’ve seen this sobriquiet bandied about so much that you might think “unelectable” was Dean’s middle name. It’s been repeated on the major televised news outlets and especially in the print media, including the New York Times. In a front page article on 18 January, the Times mentioned questions about “Dean’s electability” yet one more time, failing (again) to define what exactly is meant by the phrase.

Unable to give an answer, it appears that Dr. Dean’s unelectability is somehow tied to his anger. But most people know of many types of anger. One is the type that can galvanize an individual to political action. The other is of a pathological bent: someone is just angry and finishes sentences with an obvious sheen of spittle on his face. In describing Mr. Dean’s anger, the media wants to paint a picture of a candidate who is unbalanced and is therefore incapable of leading the nation. (It’s an old Republican strategy perfected to an art form by now-dead GOP attack dog Lee Atwater.) It’s a subtle dance but it seems to be working, because with so much negative press of the Dean campaign, is it any real surprise that his numbers have started to slip? In a New York Times/CBS poll, 29% of all registered voters in Iowa have an unfavorable opinion of Dr. Dean.

Again, why is this the case? Why do respondents have a negative view? Is it a personal dislike of Dr. Dean, or a rejection of his political platform? What external factors guide people to this conclusion? In the week of this writing, he had made a series of miscues and a faltering performance at a presidential debate, but that alone can’t possibly explain why Newsweek magazine runs a cover story on Mr. Dean with a disturbing picture of the candidate replete with the headline: “The trouble with Dean.”

I am not about to make the leap and start saying “media conspiracy,” but there is a concerted effort on the part of the major news outlets to portray Mr. Dean as unelectable, or angry or just the wrong candidate. In fact, the Center for Media and Public Affairs concluded that 49% of the coverage of Mr. Dean was favorable, compared to 79% for the rest of the candidates. The researchers of the study also noted that pre-election coverage was down overall compared to the last presidential election.

(Now just you watch: if Dean doesn't win the Iowa caucus, the pundits will start saying how it's curtain time for Dean, or how desperate his campaign will now become. And of course, how the New Hampshire primary is suddenly "the most crucial test of all.")

Speaking of polls, another New York Times/CBS poll indicates a 50% approval rating for Mr. Bush, noting that polled voters approved of the president’s handling of the war on terrorism but remain apprehensive about domestic issues. But it begs the question: how do you define the war on terrorism? The poll doesn’t, but for those who are curious, you have to wonder if the invasion and occupation of Iraq isn’t linked to the terrorism issue. We all know that in the minds of the imperialists running the White House it is -- or at least that’s the sales pitch they’ve made to the American people, whether they personally believe it or not. If you watch the cable news outlets, you’ll see pictures of Iraq with the caption “War on Terror...” splashed across the bottom. It reinforces the idea that Iraq is an integral part of the war on terror, a position has always been untenable, especially since no weapons of mass destruction have been found or any verifiable links between deposed dictator Saddam Hussein and Usama bin Laden unearthed.

So how do you define the war on terror when you are taking an approval rating poll and what part of it is so approved of by the American voter? Just thought I’d ask.