In this thread about next year’s election, the “angry Howard Dean” comment was used.
When I saw the clip initially, without any explanation, I thought it was just a “rally the troops” cheer poorly done. Sort of a “hip, hip hooray” or an Army “Hoo-aH”. It was out of character and came off as awkward but I never saw it as “angry Howard Dean”. Remember, the context was approximately “we are going on to win in New Hampshire… and to win the white house…aaaarrrrrr”.
I assert that this is just bad reporting (perhaps spin influenced from his opponents’ supporters).
I agree with tim in that I never quite understood what the big deal was with the Dean screech. Everyone goes a little bit silly once in a while, and Dean was stressed out after months of constant campaigning and probably short on sleep. It wasn’t a wise thing to do but I can’t understand why everyone made such fuss about it.
Life is not fair, and this is a perfect example. The “scream”, out of context is very different from the whole speech, but we usually only see the “scream”.
My take, though, is that Dean was done (as a candidate), and the press just picked up a neat (tidy) way of showing it. He road the wave of media darling for awhile, and when the tide turned, they dumped him like yesterday’s garbage.
John Mace has it right. The media love to play their influence, even if not a very coherent fashion, and like to pretend they are the kingmakers.
I am definitely no Dean supporter, but I do respect him, and there are a lot of less liberal Democrat pols I would toss before Dean. The scream is really, really funny. But there was nothing wrong with it whatsoever and the entire “contraversy” was simply another media navel-gazing news fabrication*.
*In both the senses of being a manufactured product and a lie.