Media:
The media thinks that if they put Howard Dean on enough magazine covers, Senator John Kerry will be irrelevant. It is really a huge joke isn't it? Howard Dean is getting all this media attention because he opposed the war against Iraq? Do you get the irony, or has it gone over your head, simply because the media is hiding the real story?

The real story is that the media is blaming John Kerry because the Bush Administration lied to secure a blank cheque to wage an unprovoked war, and John Kerry is fighting mad. In the meantime, the only obsession of the partisan media is to blame John Kerry for Bush's deception.

Lightweights like Howard Dean get a free ride from the media, because he does not threaten George Bush's re-election prospects. When was the last time the media gave a peace candidate so much attention? Remember John Lennon, he wasn't even a politician, and reporters spent most of their time trying to ridicule a man who promoted peace. Why is the media giving Howard Dean so much attention and publicity? Why don't they ridicule Howard Dean? Why am I calling Howard Dean, a peace activist?

Looks like I have internalized all the media spin. The truth is, Howard Dean is not even a peace activist, he is merely somebody who claims that he opposed the Iraq war, even though he did not. As a matter of fact, on September 30, 2002 Dean said, "I don't think he really has to prove anything. I think that most Americans, including myself, will take the president's word for it." Dean was talking about allowing the lies of the Bush Administration to be used as a pretext for war, and he was very specific about supporting George Bush's efforts to wage war. In his own words, Howard Dean said, "Well, that's correct, that would certainly be grounds for us to intervene, and if we had so unilaterally, we could do that." Howard Dean claimed that if George Bush made the case that Saddam Hussein was a nuclear threat, he would support unilateral intervention in Iraq, and that's exactly what happened. The Bush administration did everything they could to convince America that Iraqi weapons of mass destruction threatened American national security and Howard Dean supported the need for unilateral intervention in Iraq, just a dozen days before the vote in Congress on the joint resolution, and now, Howard Dean suggests that he would have voted against it. Some people will do or say anything, to get elected. On October 6, 2002, Dean said, "It's conceivable we would have to act unilaterally [in Iraq], but that should not be our first option." To be brief, Howard Dean's position was as vague as saying that he would take President Bush's word at face value and that was essentially the equivalent of giving George Bush a blank cheque to declare war. Why is everybody now assuming that Howard Dean opposed the war from the beginning? Is the media really that good?

Dean and the media feel that they are justified to denounce John Kerry for taking Bush's "word for it," even though Howard Dean was saying the same thing before the war began. On March 9, 2003, Howard Dean said, "I don't want Saddam to stay in power with control over those weapons of mass destruction." Howard Dean in fact sounded like George Bush's press secretary, and now, he is supposed to be a credible, peace activist? If the anti-war movement has rallied around Howard Dean, it is because the media is not exposing the truth about Howard Dean.

In a recent debate in Iowa, Howard Dean said, "The right thing to do would have been not to give George Bush that unilateral authority.... That was the wrong thing to do. This was an abdication and a failure on the part of Congress. And Senator Kerry was part of that failure. I don't think that's the kind of experience we need in foreign affairs in the White House." Sounds like Howard Dean just disqualified himself. Who wants this idiot in the White House? The hypocricy is very clear. On January 31, Dean told Ron Brownstein of the Los Angeles Times that "if Bush presents what he considered to be persuasive evidence that Iraq still had weapons of mass destruction, he would support military action, even without U.N. authorization."And then on Feb. 20, Dean told Salon.com that "if the UN in the end chooses not to enforce its own resolutions, then the U.S. should give Saddam 30 to 60 days to disarm, and if he doesn't, unilateral action is a regrettable, but unavoidable, choice."

Unlike Pee Wee Howard, the hypocrite, John Kerry is a giant in the realm of foreign affairs. John Kerry has a longstanding history of fighting unjust wars. He fought Nixon on Vietnam, he fought Reagan on the Contras and despite Howard Dean's spin, John Kerry also fought George Bush on Iraq. Kerry supported a diplomatic solution. Tough inspections backed up by threat of force, working within the UN, exhausting all diplomatic channels with respect to all nations involved and going as far as it took and for as long as it took to avoid war, particularly unilateral war.

Reality:
The reality is, the media clearly understands the fact that John Kerry has the power to pulverize the Bush candidacy, and the media is trying to dilute his strength throughy creating the false impression that Howard Dean is special. Face it, the media is trying to lynch John Kerry, and if you do not believe that, just think back to the Clinton impeachment --another attempted lynching that failed, because Clinton's grass-root support, came through. Ironically, the assertion that Howard Dean has more grass-root support than John Kerry is the biggest joke since the failed impeachment. The other big joke is how the media salivates and gives every single loser who supports Howard Dean his or her moment of fame.

Did you know that Tennessee Congressman Harold Ford, Jr. and Senator Edward Kennedy have endorsed Senator John Kerry or is the media too busy promoting Howard Dean's supporters? Congressman Harold Ford, Jr. is a good, intelligent supporter and Senator Kennedy has arguably given and sacrificed more for his country than any living American, and if that is not the most significant endorsement thus far, it is probably because the mainstream media is too busy trying to find another way to create the impression that Howard Dean is a peace activist.

The mainstream media clearly understands the process. Salivating reporters failed to successfully impeach President Clinton because the people are smarter than the reporters, and now, the reporters are playing hardball. They suddenly think that if they tell all the people that Howard Dean is the grass-roots candidate, the people will believe them. Make no mistake about it, this report will not receive the light of day in the mainstream media because it's about the candidate who is the most progressive and most qualified to be the President of the United States, and that is what you call a grass-roots campaign. Howard Dean's grass-roots act is merely a matter of using blowhards to create the false claim that Howard Dean is some kind of a charismatic peace activist who has the power to singlehandedly crown the next President of the United States, and since Howard Dean is clearly not electable, he is, in effect, in the business of selecting George Bush again. Very crafty, aren't they?

How many reporters does it take, to throw John Kerry off his feet?

If you watch CNN, the media is ignoring John Kerry, except when the media seeks to prosecute Kerry because he voted for the Iraq War Resolution. That is the only time that the media promotes John Kerry, and it is not to applaud his decision but to create the impression that Howard Dean, who did not even have to agonize over the vote because he is not a Congressman or a Senator, is a peace activist who merits constant, media publicity. Funny, isn't it, the media is giving Howard Dean millions of dollars worth of free publicity for doing nothing. Compared to the do-nothing, say-anything, Howard Dean, Senator John Kerry's progressive record is unrivaled, amongst all the Democratic candidates, and the media thinks that if it puts Howard's face on enough magazine covers, he will be more relevant that Senator John Kerry is. It's a great, mainstream media promotion, but the truth of the matter is, the media knows that John Kerry has the power to change the regime in Washington, Howard Dean does not --and that is the only thing that is driving this charade. Reporters are very crafty, aren't they?

The media thinks that it can make John Kerry irrelevant because he voted for the war, but he did not vote for Bush's war. "This was the hardest vote I have ever had to cast in my entire career," Kerry said. "I voted for the resolution to get the inspectors in there, period. Remember, for seven and a half years we were destroying weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. In fact, we found more stuff there than we thought we would. After that came those four years when there was no intelligence available about what was happening over there. I believed we needed to get the weapons inspectors back in. I believed Bush needed this resolution in order to get the UN to put the inspectors back in there. The only way to get the inspectors back in was to present Bush with the ability to threaten force legitimately. That’s what I voted for."

Senator Kerry Senator Kerry has repeatedly said, "if you truly believe that if I had been President, we would be at war in Iraq right now, then you shouldn’t vote for me" and he means it because Bush promised to work with the international community and that war would be an absolute last resort. The media is essentially blaming John Kerry because Bush lied and that clearly betrays everything. And in the final analysis, all those reporters who support the war and who are endorsing Howard Dean will have a whole lot of explaining to do, when John Kerry is the President of the United States.

The media is trying to lynch Senator John Kerry because it wants George Bush to be "re-elected" and that is not the role of a free press. Get the message?

Face it, John Kerry and John Edwards make an unbeatable ticket, and the media barons think that if they put Howard Dean on all the covers of all their magazines, George Bush will finally discover the opportunity to win an election. There is nothing wrong with endorsing a candidate, but this sly effort to bury the candidacy of John Kerry is not right.

Next: Why is our justice system failing?