Much what I said before. Dean was a relatively unknown outsider that caught the DNC insiders by surprise. While they initially liked all the anti-war young people Dean was attracting, their enthusiasm turned to concern as Dean rose in the polls and became the front runner. He was considered too independent and too liberal. even though as a governor he had a moderate record and was considered pro-business. The DNC wanted the nomination to go to a pro-war, old guard insider like Kerry (who was then way down in the polls, at 7% IIRC). So the party machine turned on Dean and began promoting Kerry.
No thanks. I'll just compare the results for the U.S. middle class compared to that of other developed countries over the last 5 years.
Now, presumably, you see what I mean. We were able to accomplish a lot despite rabid opposition from conservatives. Imagine the damage that could have been caused if we let them get their way.
Yep.
Dean was a rare thing, a crowdsourced candidate. He was not chained by the DNC masters and was therefore far less beholden to them. An independent of thought contender is more dangerous than the known one of the other party. Dean could not be permitted to win, and if the media was responsible it was loyalty to the old DNC "Sound like you are going to change things but never do it."
The way you see the middle class is not the way they apparently see themselves.
Gawd. I'm sure that Fox News (~30% market share) did their part out of loyalty to the DNC.
Not.
The Media served their own interests & not those of anybody else. On the one hand, Dean threatened the existing power structure of the Media, and on the other they'll destroy anybody with the right juicy sound bite simply because they can. It titillates the audience, focuses their attention which carries over to the next commercial.
Your reasoning is classic erroneous conspiracy theory, particularly considering that Dean then became head of the DNC in Feb 2005.
I'd love to see someone claiming the Dems are perfect, infallible or righteous saints.That must be the case because everyone knows the Democrats are absolutely infallible and righteous saints who are absolutely correct in all things. If the American public are too stupid to understand perfection when they see it then that's their fault. Schumer has devolved into peasant status like the great unwashed.
I love how you ignore that thanks to the actions that the Dems were able to accomplish we are better off than most. The Dems promptly lost control in the next election because the GOP were able to convince you muppets that what the Dems were able to accomplish was bad, but no, let's not focus on that, it's a diversion.Of course "no thanks". In too many ways the so called Liberals and Conservatives are virtually identical in mindset, which makes Schumer's attitude refreshing. Rather than looking how real people's lives are affected you pull up aggregate statistics from other nations which do not pay the bills of our citizens here. Republicans have been oppositional, but the Democrats have no imagination and no real concern what happens in the real world. In essence they'll just ignore what the US middle class has to deal with by selecting other nations we have no say in. It isn't about "other developed countries", it's about us and what has really been done. It's about addressing the very real concerns of the nation, not just their party faithful. What was done is nothing compared to what is needed and they didn't even stop to think what that was. You can compare us to other developed countries and out of office as a result. Frankly neither side is worth two cents so if we could get rid of the lot of I'd be thrilled. Instead we'll hear more about conservatives/republicans and how the opposite side can pat themselves on the back and oh how awful they are being talked about in negative terms. The peasants never appreciate their lord's noblesse oblige.