If Dean were the frontrunner, would the media be pushing the AWOL story?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

[pezcore64]

1. yes

because regardless, this isnt about the democratic front runner..its about whether or not Shrub lied about his National Guard service, not the 'who has the best military record' game as some people would like it to be.

[BL_Zebub]

2. Remember, the media whores work for BUSH

They are running the AWOL story now for a reason - so they can respond to it with their prefabricated response, therefore neutering it as an issue in the general election, regardless of the Demoncratic nominee. They used a similar tactic a few months ago when they finally addressed the fact that Prescott Bush helped to fund the Third Reich, yet played his involvement down to the point where Grandaddy looked like a victim in the whole mess.

[mzmolly]

3. No they'd be talking about Iraq which is far more important.

*

[Skip Intro]

8. Exactly!!!!!

[Terwilliger]

4. The media's pushing the AWOL story b/c it finally came to scrutiny

after the introduction by Michael Moore and Peter Jennings, and the fact that Bush has reacted strongly to the charges

[lovedems]

5. I say no. I think Kerry being the front runner is precisely why

this is an issue. The dems have a reason to take away the "we are the only party to support our troops" from the rethuglicans. Can the dems actually win over the military vote? It looks like it might be working thanks to Kerry's war record and the vets that surround him at every stump speech.

[candy331]

7. Don't think so

but of course who really knows. I say the Democrats missed their golden opportunity with this in 2000. Al Gore served faithfully and this could have helped him so we never would have got to this in the first place. It has been said that missed opportunities seldom come back around.

[lovedems]

11. I would agree with what you are saying but the press to busy

painting Gore as an out of touch intellectual and the chimp and the under acheiving cowboy. I don't think military backgrounds were that important (for me they weren't anyway) in 2000 because we just had 8 years of peace and economic prosperity.

So, there wasn't really a point in bringing it up then and the military backgrounds didn't serve the images the press was trying to conjure up. If I remember correctly, the press was trying to "disregard" Gore's service as that of a reporter, not a combat solier.

Times have changed. We have a war monger pResident who only saw a dentist during his "sporadic service" to the country.

[On the Road]

6. Change of Sentiment at the Top

The business community is starting to worry about the budget, the economy, and the prospect of more war and larger defecits. Not a conspiracy so much as a loose consensus emerging. That's why Bush has suddenly become fair game for all the accusations no one wanted to make four years ago.

Now, when an aggressive reporter draws blood, they're no longer reined in. They don't have to be actively rewarded -- just allowed to go after a scoop or a hit piece.

Think of the scene in Gladiator where the emporer Commodus loses his sword and begs for another. The military leader commands his troops to "sheath their weapons." That's what happening. The leader has lost the confidence of too many people and protection is being withdrawn.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

9. Terry McAuliffe would have never brought it up

if Dean were the frontrunner. I think it's hilarious that so many are not willing to acknowledge that.

[Skip Intro]

10. I thought Peter Jennings brought it up

in a question to General Clark at the last debate.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

13. Exactly

if Dean were the frontrunner, that would have been the last we heard of it. McAuliffe would not have kept pushing it, and the media would have dropped it like they did in 2000.

[Capn Sunshine]

12. I NEVER agree with you

except THIS time, that's an accurate characterization.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

14. Who knows?

maybe in the future, we'll agree more often... I can hope, right?