

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
As a supporter of Dennis Kucinich, I've talked to dozens of activists over the months (perhaps representative of thousands nationwide) who said that while Kucinich was their favorite choice, they were working for Howard Dean because Kucinich was not taken seriously enough by mainstream media. In the last 10 days of the Iowa process, it's clear that many Dean supporters and leaners bought the incessant media line on Dean that he is too angry, too far left, too lacking in national security credentials to win -- and moved to candidates touted by media pundits as more centrist, more electable (especially in the South): Senators John Kerry and John Edwards.
Some Iowa Democrats, of course, changed their views based on independent scrutiny and analysis. One hopes that activists will remain firm enough to make up their own minds and stick to candidates disfavored by mainstream media; otherwise, they risk letting the punditry -- which is usually wrong -- choose their candidates for them.
It was the pundits who kept saying in the fall of 2002 that any Democratic presidential candidate who voted against the war would be committing political suicide. If Kerry had ignored this conventional wisdom and joined his colleague Ted Kennedy in courageously voting against the war, he'd have the Democratic nomination sewn up already. There'd be virtually no Dean campaign, probably no Clark campaign -- and Kerry would have been an ideal candidate to take it to Bush in the general election on Iraq deceptions and quagmire.
Warning: If we keep moving toward the candidate getting the softest mainstream media treatment, we'll end up supporting Bush.
Some of the media attacks on Dean were fueled by the negative approach of rival campaigns, including Kerry's. By the end of the Iowa campaign, Kerry was hurling insults: "When I came back from Vietnam in 1969 I don't know if John Edwards was out of diapers then." (He later apologized.)
Given that Kerry played the "I served and you didn't" card to the hilt and with apparent success in Iowa, it was inevitable that the game would be joined with a vengeance by Gen. Wesley Clark -- whose campaign is based on little more than his military status and whose credentials as a Democrat are such that even Joe Lieberman attacks him...from the left.
On the night of the Iowa caucus, Clark kept pulling rank on Kerry, telling supporters: "Nobody in this race has got the kind of background I've got. It's one thing to be a hero as a junior officer. He's done that. I respect that. But I've got the military experience at the top as well as at the bottom." Clark went on CNN and declared: "He's a lieutenant and I'm a general. He was a lieutenant in Vietnam. I've done all of the big leadership."
If what matters most is military background and rank, maybe certain Democrats will soon pass over both Kerry and Clark to draft Colin Powell for president: Hey, Clark was just a general --I chaired the Joint Chiefs of Staff!
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
As a supporter of Dennis Kucinich, I've talked to dozens of activists over the months (perhaps representative of thousands nationwide) who said that while Kucinich was their favorite choice, they were working for Howard Dean because Kucinich was not taken seriously enough by mainstream media. In the last 10 days of the Iowa process, it's clear that many Dean supporters and leaners bought the incessant media line on Dean that he is too angry, too far left, too lacking in national security credentials to win -- and moved to candidates touted by media pundits as more centrist, more electable (especially in the South): Senators John Kerry and John Edwards.
Some Iowa Democrats, of course, changed their views based on independent scrutiny and analysis. One hopes that activists will remain firm enough to make up their own minds and stick to candidates disfavored by mainstream media; otherwise, they risk letting the punditry -- which is usually wrong -- choose their candidates for them.
It was the pundits who kept saying in the fall of 2002 that any Democratic presidential candidate who voted against the war would be committing political suicide. If Kerry had ignored this conventional wisdom and joined his colleague Ted Kennedy in courageously voting against the war, he'd have the Democratic nomination sewn up already. There'd be virtually no Dean campaign, probably no Clark campaign -- and Kerry would have been an ideal candidate to take it to Bush in the general election on Iraq deceptions and quagmire.
Warning: If we keep moving toward the candidate getting the softest mainstream media treatment, we'll end up supporting Bush.
Some of the media attacks on Dean were fueled by the negative approach of rival campaigns, including Kerry's. By the end of the Iowa campaign, Kerry was hurling insults: "When I came back from Vietnam in 1969 I don't know if John Edwards was out of diapers then." (He later apologized.)
Given that Kerry played the "I served and you didn't" card to the hilt and with apparent success in Iowa, it was inevitable that the game would be joined with a vengeance by Gen. Wesley Clark -- whose campaign is based on little more than his military status and whose credentials as a Democrat are such that even Joe Lieberman attacks him...from the left.
On the night of the Iowa caucus, Clark kept pulling rank on Kerry, telling supporters: "Nobody in this race has got the kind of background I've got. It's one thing to be a hero as a junior officer. He's done that. I respect that. But I've got the military experience at the top as well as at the bottom." Clark went on CNN and declared: "He's a lieutenant and I'm a general. He was a lieutenant in Vietnam. I've done all of the big leadership."
If what matters most is military background and rank, maybe certain Democrats will soon pass over both Kerry and Clark to draft Colin Powell for president: Hey, Clark was just a general --I chaired the Joint Chiefs of Staff!
As a supporter of Dennis Kucinich, I've talked to dozens of activists over the months (perhaps representative of thousands nationwide) who said that while Kucinich was their favorite choice, they were working for Howard Dean because Kucinich was not taken seriously enough by mainstream media. In the last 10 days of the Iowa process, it's clear that many Dean supporters and leaners bought the incessant media line on Dean that he is too angry, too far left, too lacking in national security credentials to win -- and moved to candidates touted by media pundits as more centrist, more electable (especially in the South): Senators John Kerry and John Edwards.
Some Iowa Democrats, of course, changed their views based on independent scrutiny and analysis. One hopes that activists will remain firm enough to make up their own minds and stick to candidates disfavored by mainstream media; otherwise, they risk letting the punditry -- which is usually wrong -- choose their candidates for them.
It was the pundits who kept saying in the fall of 2002 that any Democratic presidential candidate who voted against the war would be committing political suicide. If Kerry had ignored this conventional wisdom and joined his colleague Ted Kennedy in courageously voting against the war, he'd have the Democratic nomination sewn up already. There'd be virtually no Dean campaign, probably no Clark campaign -- and Kerry would have been an ideal candidate to take it to Bush in the general election on Iraq deceptions and quagmire.
Warning: If we keep moving toward the candidate getting the softest mainstream media treatment, we'll end up supporting Bush.
Some of the media attacks on Dean were fueled by the negative approach of rival campaigns, including Kerry's. By the end of the Iowa campaign, Kerry was hurling insults: "When I came back from Vietnam in 1969 I don't know if John Edwards was out of diapers then." (He later apologized.)
Given that Kerry played the "I served and you didn't" card to the hilt and with apparent success in Iowa, it was inevitable that the game would be joined with a vengeance by Gen. Wesley Clark -- whose campaign is based on little more than his military status and whose credentials as a Democrat are such that even Joe Lieberman attacks him...from the left.
On the night of the Iowa caucus, Clark kept pulling rank on Kerry, telling supporters: "Nobody in this race has got the kind of background I've got. It's one thing to be a hero as a junior officer. He's done that. I respect that. But I've got the military experience at the top as well as at the bottom." Clark went on CNN and declared: "He's a lieutenant and I'm a general. He was a lieutenant in Vietnam. I've done all of the big leadership."
If what matters most is military background and rank, maybe certain Democrats will soon pass over both Kerry and Clark to draft Colin Powell for president: Hey, Clark was just a general --I chaired the Joint Chiefs of Staff!