dean and obama
full of questions tonight i am.
so the media decided to wreck dean. i have no idea why really, they just did. nothing makes me believe in elite conspiracy so much as their crushing of the dean campaign.
i can't figure it out though, that's for damn sure. was it a sort of implicit or deliberate liberal position- maybe they thought dean would be unable to beat bush and so went with kerry. was it just sensationalism, shoddy journalism? was there something darker going on? i can't tell, honestly, and i don't trust them.
my concern over the obama campaign is that the same thing will happen to him this go around. and edwards if he starts doing well. that they'd only let clinton win because, i don't know why.
i don't know. it's too dirty to figure out most of the time, and the dirty aspects are too little commented upon.
they couldn't have felt threatened enough by dean because of his outsider status. he wasn't that much of an outsider, although maybe the war position set him too far back at the time. he had necessary experience, at least.
the threat had to be in the uncontrolled nature of his following. that was chaotic.
if obama's following stays chill it might work, they might not overdo it. the dynamic has already diverged, he's too charismatic to ave a freewheeling following that could actually push him in certain directions.
bet that's it, that's why they sunk dean. he showed himself moveable by his movement. moveable enough. what's the logic, what's the logic... prediction, obama and clinton burn each other out, the others fail to get a strong following, clinton emerges the victor given her institutional ties. gore enters at the last minute and the left-liberal activist base jumps sides overnight, he has enough prestige to carry it off.
don't want that to happen. but probably the best course of action then is to stop paying attention. this seems to burn candidacies out somehow.
so the media decided to wreck dean. i have no idea why really, they just did. nothing makes me believe in elite conspiracy so much as their crushing of the dean campaign.
i can't figure it out though, that's for damn sure. was it a sort of implicit or deliberate liberal position- maybe they thought dean would be unable to beat bush and so went with kerry. was it just sensationalism, shoddy journalism? was there something darker going on? i can't tell, honestly, and i don't trust them.
my concern over the obama campaign is that the same thing will happen to him this go around. and edwards if he starts doing well. that they'd only let clinton win because, i don't know why.
i don't know. it's too dirty to figure out most of the time, and the dirty aspects are too little commented upon.
they couldn't have felt threatened enough by dean because of his outsider status. he wasn't that much of an outsider, although maybe the war position set him too far back at the time. he had necessary experience, at least.
the threat had to be in the uncontrolled nature of his following. that was chaotic.
if obama's following stays chill it might work, they might not overdo it. the dynamic has already diverged, he's too charismatic to ave a freewheeling following that could actually push him in certain directions.
bet that's it, that's why they sunk dean. he showed himself moveable by his movement. moveable enough. what's the logic, what's the logic... prediction, obama and clinton burn each other out, the others fail to get a strong following, clinton emerges the victor given her institutional ties. gore enters at the last minute and the left-liberal activist base jumps sides overnight, he has enough prestige to carry it off.
don't want that to happen. but probably the best course of action then is to stop paying attention. this seems to burn candidacies out somehow.