As a New Yorker, I write to encourage you to do all you can to prevent the Democratic party from making the mistake of choosing Howard Dean as the next DNC Chair. I know the fast majority of mail you are receiving is in support of Dr. Dean, but you should know that there are as many Dems out here who appreciate what damaged goods Dean has become. It is with great urgency that I encourage you to pull out all the stops in preventing this train wreck.
What just really gets to me about this kind of bullshit is that these idiots conveniently omit the tremendous work that DFA does. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to forsee Dean would bring the DNC up to the level of DFA. AND DFA HAS A GOOD TRACK RECORD OF GETTING PEOPLE ELECTED!!
My problem is that Dean is a spent force outside the left-wing of the party. He has a huge "image" problem that he needs to deal with on his own and not on our time. Furthermore, I'm not even convinced he is the right choice regardless of his image problem. He just seems a little unhinged every time i see him on television. He should not be the voice of the party at this time.
As a matter of fact, a chairman with the reputation for being a bit nutty could be a boon. Think how good he'd be at keeping the Fainthearted Faction in line and "persuading" moderate Republicans to see our point of view.
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.
stop the madness.
I'm only thinking that the Chair should be bland - a neutral facilitator who is not threatening to candidates.
I continue to think of Dean as a major candidate and presidential material.
He is a strong, outspoken individual, and it seems like this kind of position would crimp his style.
Maybe he would take the chair position and turn it into something very positive, though. And Dean's having a high visibility position would be good.
But I don't think that people opposing him as chair deserve to be bashed. They have legitimate reasons to be uncomfortable with this.
Liberal blogs have morphed beyond "energized youth" into something more sinister.
The gang-bang mentality is the one thing that makes me very nervous about blogs and the dons out to whip up the anger. Reminds me of the mafia behind the teamsters a few years back.
That person would be Howard Dean.
Keep in mind that the image of Dean as someone who is not likeable is fueled by a Beltway chattering class hell-bent on taking him down because he is not a part of the "in" group currently inside the fortress. In that vein, the "Dean Scream" was the ultimate character assassination --- a mass media masturbation that has completely distorted the man's image.
Howard Dean is real. He's authentic. He's not a fake. And he would be a great house guest (and so would his wife), certainly more enjoyable than the empty suits that resist him at every turn.
We don't need "leading men" that are poll-tested for likeability. We tried that with Gore and Kerry and look where it got us. We need authenticity. Dean has it,.. and then some.
Gore and Kerry were never portrayed as 'likeable' guys. They were portrayed as smart guys or electable guys, but never as likeable. Clinton was the only one who was recently able to establish a persona above the media that people embraced.
Authenticity is over rated and not nearly sufficient. I'll chose effective over real authenticity every day. I happen to believe that Kerry was too authentic. He is a NE elite and he communicated that pretty consistently. And we know where that got him.
The question isn't who would WE want to have over for dinner (what Dem wouldn't want to host Dean or Kerry or Gore?), but whom would a swing voter or a soft Republican want to have over for dinner. That's my entire point. When it comes to whom could truly be the voice and face for the party over the next couple years (as we battle on Social Security, judges, tax reform, etc) who is going to be most effective relating to the average swing voter and soft Republican voter. As a lifelong partisan Democrat, I don't need to be whipped up in to a frenzy...I'm already there. But a couple of my colleagues who voted reluctantly for Bush could use a bit of convincing. I can assure you it will not be Dean for them. They would be turned off right away. So, they turn the channel and walk away uninformed. That is not a good thing. So, I think we need a fresh face. Someone who does not have to battle the media to breakthrough. Again, it really isn't personal against Dean. I love the red meat. But, again, I am not the audience.
I gave you a 3 to counter that Kossack. Everyone has a right to state their opinion.
I disagree with your opinion, however.
