I was a Kerry supporter in 2002 when he was prepping his run for nomination. When Dean was surging I stuck with the MA senator when the press left him for dead. I never was too impressed with Dean -- I think he only has this appeal with the far-left of the party. His angry populist rhetoric never appealed to me. But you know whose did? Nader's. And Nader owned Dean when they debated on NPR.
I especially agree with the "unhinged" comment. Three things that Dean said bothered me:
As the author of this diary, I'm glad to see you support Dean despite your reservations. However, having followed Dean very closely for the last two years, I would wholeheartedly disagree with you on the perception that he is "unhinged". But that's a discussion for another day.
For now, I what to re-direct you to what I said below in another thread you were involved in. Until convinced otherwise, I'm against Hillary bashing. And I hope you'll re-consider any Dean bashing... let's call a truce and work together.
I agree completely with working together. In fact I'm an independent, a centrist, and consider myself an ally to liberals. I wanted Bush gone as much as any of you.
I also do not understand the hate directed within the party. Republicans coalesce around their own, which is why they are so successful.
As for BRock, I didn't think he was bashing at all. Just has a different of opinion. If Dean was the nominee in 2004 or 2008 would he have voted for him anyway? I bet he would.
Dean is the Harry Truman of our time, at least stylistically. One might also compare him to Teddy Roosevelt, again on style points.
The only difference: Truman and TR didn't have a ravenous broadcast media licking its chops every time he picked up a microphone (or a uni-directional mic at a post-caucus rally ;-).
So, one might argue that perhaps Dean is a throwback --- a presidential candidate who would have "translated" better in a bygone era.
Or, as I'd like to hope, perhaps Dean is just ahead of his time. After all, the pendulum of history may swing back in Dean's direction, especially if he is given credit for the resurgence of the Democratic Party in 2006 and then 2008.
I really hope people do not misinterpret my concerns for Dean's viability as an effective spokesperson as 'bashing Dean'. I like the guy. I just don't think he should be the face/voice of the party. I hope my expressed opinions have been thoughtful and somewhat fleshed out. But, I'll be especially careful to refrain from 'Dean bashing'. The 'Hillary bashing' however is a bit much in these parts.
but the statement that Nader "owned" Dean in their debate is ludicrous.
I'm speechless. Nader came off as washed-up, begging anyone to listen to his view, and Dean pointed out many, many times how much he was hurting the progressive movement.
For that matter, I don't think that there was another person (aside from Kerry's family, and Max Cleland) that campaigned more and harder for John Kerry than Howard Dean.
But when I listened to the debate, Nader had an immediate solid answer for every issue thrown at him. Unlike dems and reps, he wouldn't use qualifiers or quantify issues -- he said it like he thought, viciously attacking corporate interests, the military industrial complex, Bush's absolute failure, and called for the immediate withdrawal of US troops. There were no pauses or hesitancy in his answers. Maybe that's because he never had a realistic chance and no big financiers he had to worry about offending, but even if I didn't agree on everything I had to respect his answers.
Dean's best lines came when he pointed out that Nader was partially funded by republican interest groups which was true and Nader was unapologetic for. He also had great views on reforming the election system, but in agreement with Nader. The problem was that he did use qualifiers and a little waffling in answering questions regarding his past quotes on Kerry, though understandable. He also came off as almost begging or groveling for Nader to drop out of the race.
Most consensus on both sides, lib and con in the media was that Nader beat Dean. Of course Dean supporters will never see that to be so. I was rooting for Dean but even I thought he was beat.
I don't remember it that way. Got some links to back up your claim?
My recollection was that Dean beat Nader and at the very least more than held his own. It was a refreshing debate and another example of why Dean is unafraid to take on all comers.
Just another reason why he'd be a great Chair.
#2 I dunno about.
Now, #3, he was listing off states he wanted to win in the primary, not the general election. Also, he was miked-the room wasn't. He was shouting over the loud room, but since he was the only one miked it sounded like he was the only one talking/yelling.
