Not to derail this, but I guess my point is just that, while a scream or a mispronunciation is certainly a legitimate reason to feel that someone is not right for the presidency, it’s hardly a “big deal” compared with other issues a person might have.
Dean may have been a great president despite screaming at the rally (or not). Bush’s presidential legacy would be the same if he had been pronouncing nuclear correctly.
What, we should not be looking for “nu-cu-lar tourists”? :smack:
I remember this stunt. Dead looked like a jerk 
I remember watching it live. He had just finished a distant third in Iowa after being the front runner for over a year. I appreciate trying to put a positive spin on a defeat, but Dean charged on stage, rolled up his sleeves, and basically acted like he had just WON the whole presidency, let alone a man who finished a distant third in Iowa.
It struck me as a man who had either lost touch with reality, or was a simpleton in trying to make grown adults, many partially educated, think that he had just done something wonderful. That was my live take, and the scream was just incorporated into the whole scheme for me…
As I’ve posted for years on this message board, I personally know 2 people with PhD’s in Nuclear Engineering who pronounce it the exact, same way as Bush does. One is the lead engineer on a nuclear project which is 7 or 8-figures large, and despite his pronunciation of the word he still got put in charge with the full confidence of the client, and still did a great job.
Somehow, this fact doesn’t stop the juvenile snickering that the “smartest folks in the room” like to engage in, along with their even more disgusting personal appearance slurs. Of all the ways that Bush is a bad President, pronouncing a word wrong and his personal appearance aren’t among them. :rolleyes:
Yeah, just like it did Bill Clinton in back in 1992. :rolleyes:
As to Howard Dean, he had the misfortune of not being among the favored ones and having his voice crack at an inopportune time. The media did to him what it was trying to do to Huckabee this time around. I’m not a fan of Huckabee’s by any stretch, but we’ve got to stop this freak show of an electoral process somehow, and the first thing would be to stop buying every single story and narrative that comes from these no-nothing stooges. There was nothing unhinged about Howard Dean, regardless of how many third-person NYT stories about his supporters one might scrape up from the gutter.
I recommend Glenn Greenwald on many, many issues, and here is a great piece about the junior high mentality of the press following these candidates around. Here’s a quote from an interview from Rolling Stone that Greenwald cites in his piece:
I find a little context is useful sometimes: Clinton was an underdog in 1992, while Dean crashed to a third-place finish in Iowa after months of being portrayed as the favorite. So the circumstances were just a little different.
Let’s not compare the 1992 Iowa caucus. They were useless as a political predictor because favorite son Tom Harkin was running. His win was a foregone conclusion so none of the other Democrats even campaigned in the state.
As for “nucular” presidents Eisenhower, Carter, Clinton, and George W. Bush have used this variant pronunciation, and Carter even had extensive military nuclear training. I think we should just let this go.
For once I fully agree with Mr. Moto’s post. Nucuelur may sound dumb to a lot of people, but it’s hardly limited to dullards.
Dean got screwed. Looking back, I think he was a better choice than Kerry. Too often Democrats flirt with the idealist and wind up with the panderer.
What was it someone said at the time, that Kerry was a kook masquerading as a dull centrist, while Dean was a dull centrist masquerading as a kook?
I think there was a tremendous amount of truth in that, and that Dean may have fared better had he presented his centrist bona fides earlier on.