This Harkin endorsement can only be good for Dean, and I think it’s a much bigger deal than the four year old Canadian TV show thing. But my favorite line of the AP story on Harkin was this:
“To me, it’s a cynical attempt to participate in the Iowa caucuses if that’s the way he feels about it,” Gephardt said.
“Dean issued a strongly-worded reply. ‘Dick Gephardt would have you believe he loves Iowa more than I do. But if he really loved Iowa that much, why hasn’t he married it?’ “
Why indeed?
Iowa was gonna be the last big victory of Gephardt’s political career. I feel almost sad for him if he loses. Almost.
Sooner or later, shouldn’t even the most ardent supporters start to question the wisdom of this, “I didn’t mean what I said/say what I meant/you have to parse my words like Nathan Thurm” stuff? Forget Bush for a minute — examining Dean on his own merits, shouldn’t he get this ex tempore hotheaded statement that could bite him in the ass thing under control if he wants to be President? Sure, it plays OK among his base and in the media — will it play OK at a summit meeting?
sure, he would be better off sticking his foot in his mouth less often. But it’s greatly exagerrated by 8 opponents parsing his words so they can issue press releases about them. In this case the quote in question is at least four years old (was it 1996, 98 or 2000? I can’t remember.) And saying that “if you think the caucuses are structured badly you shouldn’t participate” are just ridiculous. I think the electoral college is stupid; should I not vote?
The media increasingly makes whether a quote could be taken out of context or interpreted badly or contradicted by a quote 6 years later THE story. This encourage politicians not to talk to the press, to read from a script whenever possible and not to say anything with real content (President Bush is practically the Platonic ideal of this and it is incredibly destructive and leads to a public that’s systematically misinformed. What keeps him from being the ideal is that when he’s off script he says untrue and absurd things, but that’s treated as “dog bites man” and gets no coverage.)
The whole thing is political correctness for elected officials–worse, because it controls not only what you call people but the entire content of what you say.
The media increasingly makes whether a quote could be taken out of context or interpreted badly or contradicted by a quote 6 years later THE story.
No! Really?
😉
Moe
One of dozens of appearances on Canadian Public Access TV != the State of the Union. If that’s what you’re getting at.