MyDD :: Now Howard Dean

Now Howard Dean

by Jerome Armstrong, Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 09:29:09 AM EST

Why Howard Dean? Because, as I'll briefly touch upon below, he's come out of the ideological battles of the 1990's within the Democratic Party, and has engaged the partisan battle of this decade. At different times in his political career, he's been firmly identified as 'one of ours' by the fiscally conservative democrats; 'one of ours' by the DLC-like moderate ideologues; 'one of ours' by the liberal social Democrats, and today, 'one of ours' by the partisan reform Democrats of the netroots and grassroots. Dean is the Democrat that is most able to unify the Democratic Party at this time.

Without a doubt, the Democratic Party must become unified right now, if there is any hope of it regaining the majority status for governing by the end of the decade. Even then, it's a tall order, but the unity must happen now. I recall going to the "Unity Dinner" last spring in DC, among all the Democrats. What struck me then, as the most memorable event, was when the frail Jimmy Carter got up on the podium and heartedly denounced Ralph Nader, to the loudest cheers of the evening. I was standing near the back of the center of the Hall, and shaking my head at the fools we all are on this ship. Ugh. Imagine for a moment, what it would take for a similar situation to occur in the Republican Party. I know, it's tough to recreate, that's why they are in the majority.

The Democratic Party has its problems, but it has its glory as well. I didn't come to be a Democrat easily; it was a long tow from voting mostly Libertarian and Green for a few decades, before I came to the realization that a majority must come together in order to defeat the Republican conservative agenda. And it's not going to be a Democratic majority that agrees on everything, that's for sure.

Throughout the recent history of the Democratic Party, there have been two factions going after each other's throats, pushing and pulling for control of the party. It's usually described as an ideological battle, pitting the more liberal against the more moderate of the party. There is also a third part of the Democratic Party, arriving much more recently, and with whom I associate my partisan leanings.

It is a movement distinctly non-ideological, for whom the battle is not within the party, but against the Republican Party and stopping their agenda. A united opposition takes partisanship as its calling. That's what a minority party's does; they do not govern, they do not dictate by majority maneuver the terrain on which to battle. Minorities oppose the majority, and out of that opposition, eventually, an alternative arises.

Howard Dean has been a party leader for over a decade, but came onto the national stage precisely at the moment when this movement came of age together. He was a curious mix.

When Dean first thought of entering into politics in Vermont, it's said among the local political junkies that he sought advice on whether to be a Republican or a Democratic candidate. That might be true, or it might be just a way of saying that Dean was not very partisan. When the Republican Governor of Vermont died in 1990, and Dean became the Democratic Governor, he kept on the Republican staff for a couple of terms, Rockefeller Republican-like, before replacing them with Democratic staffers. In the early to mid 1990's, Dean became the establishment Democrat, first becoming the national chair of the Democratic Governor Association, and then the chair of the National Governor Association. The trademark of Dean as Governor was a progressive attitude toward governmental services, an association with the independence of rural living, and above all, governing fiscally sound. Those are the practices that remain Dean's governing principles. When Civil Unions passed in Vermont, Dean had not wished it, nor pushed for it, but he did accept the law.

When running for President, circa 2002, he would describe how his own views on gay marriage were transformed from one of discomfort to acceptance. He also was becoming more publicly vocal against the Republican agenda. That's because, in Vermont, in 2000, the social conservative movement had reared its head, targeting Dean with their mean-spirited personal politics, because he did not defy the law in opposing gay marriage. Politics became personal, and Dean became more partisan. Campaigning nationally for the Presidency during 2002, he encountered many whom felt this same compelling need to oppose the social conservative agenda of Republicans at home, and oppose the neo-con influence of global politics.

As Dean delivered the now-historical "What I want to Know" speech before the DNC in DC, and the Democratic convention in CA, on March 15th, 2003, he was still registering below 5% nationally in the polls of the Democratic candidates, but being there, you'd swear he was favored. Dean spoke:

I want my country back. We want our country back. I am tired of being divided. I don't want to listen to the fundamentalist preachers anymore. I want America to look like America, where we are all included, hand in hand. We have a dream. We can only reach that dream if we are together.

At that moment, he had reached deep into the agitation that had been arising within this country for the past decade. Pat Buchanan's 1992 speech preaching the division of America had become, through the passive-aggressive politics of Bush, the Republican Party's agenda.

I was blogging the convention, and standing up atop the press riser in the middle of the hall, and for the first half of the speech, I tried to jot down notes like the other reporters around me. But after Dean said "anymore", it was a feeling of such relief, telling the righteous indignant to shove it, we were not taking it anymore. As Dean himself says:

"I gave the stump speech and then I got into this cadence of what the right-wingers had done to this country. And that's when the stuff started flowing. Finally I said I am tired of taking orders from the fundamentalist preachers any more, and when I said that, the entire room exploded. Everybody felt that this incredibly oppressive group of people had taken over the country and there was no reason to hope anymore. We gave people hope."

That's a particular instance that related to me, and for others, the reasons may vary. I don't mean to imply, with the opening statement of this post, that Dean is 'all things to all' people. Putting it into terms from Lakoff, and his description of the varying types of progressives, is a clearer portrayal of what individuals look toward in their politicians for their satisfaction. Neither is it a constant, as people and politicians are sometimes pushed by forces greater than themselves. Dean's not perfect, from the outside looking in, he sees that, but Harold Ickes said it one way:

I think all the candidates who are running have strong attributes, but Dean has more of the attributes than the others. Many people say Howard Dean is a northeastern liberal, he is progressive, but his tenure as governor of Vermont was that of a real moderate."

Dean's can be enough things to enough people in this party to get it back to being a national party again, and for those that resist reform in the party, we have the power.

It's amazing, in this day of poll-tested messages, that no one in the DFA campaign knows where the slogan, "You Have the Power" came from in 2003. Dean doesn't have a clue, and I've not heard that anyone does know, but it symbolized everything. As a political force, the people arose that year against Republicans, lifting up Howard Dean's candidacy.

When Howard Dean said, in front of the DNC, on Feb 21st, 2003, "I'm from the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party," it was a call to arms of progressive Democrats of all stripes, regardless of ideology, who were united in their partisanship.

Dean lost the nomination, but the power remained together within the Democratic Party. We lost the 2004 Presidency, and the power put forward Howard Dean for DNC Chair. Dean's the leader, but he's not the power. Dean's got great progressive ideas, but the Democratic Party is not governing. We are in the opposition, and Dean is the leader that will unite us with the power to take on and defeat the Republicans.

Tags: Democrats (all tags)

Permalink :: 97 Comments :: Post a Comment

CA Convention Speech (3.00 / 2)

"I don't want to listen to the fundamentalist preachers anymore."

I remember talking with my brother about that speech when we were out for drinks one night. We had just seen the speech on the net. I kept repeating that line, both aloud and in my head. It was rhetorically interesting because it came after a long series of positives, and suddenly there was a negation--a negation that really made sense. Enough of them. Shut up you assholes. You are ruining our country.

My brother told me after that speech that he was certain Dean would win the nomination. I scoffed and said something about Kerry being too far ahead in, like, everything. Dean didn't win, but he did manage to pull ahead of Kerry for a while. At the very least, he was really able to tap into a feeling that none of the other candidates were sensing at the time.

That speech and the blogs went a long way toward solidifying my partisan leanings. I always cheered for Democrats to beat Republicans, but most of the time it was like it was cheering at a sporting event from the stands. Not anymore--the Dean campaign gave me a uniform and invited me to play. I think it was the same for many other people. I hope under Dean's leadership that our team can continue to grow like that. United in opposition we stand and work.

by Chris Bowers on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 09:48:54 AM EST

Re: CA Convention Speech (none / 0)

We're team members with Dean involved. When he was running for president, we used to say we were ALL Howard Dean, just like they did with Spartacus. The same.

by Fisherman on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 10:09:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: CA Convention Speech (3.00 / 3)

The weekend of the CDP speech, I was out in three hours of unrelentling atypical Los Angeles rain, protesting the run up to the war.

While I was getting soaked, and muttering to myself I am too damned old to be subject myself this misery, when nobody was paying attention anyway. I resolved to find a better way.

Monday morning, I heard exerpts from that speech, including the ad libbed "I don't wanna listen to fundamentalist preachers anymore..."

And I said "sold." (one has to realize that the fact that Howard Dean having these CDP people standing on their chairs going insane was kind of....er...unusual. I used to go these conventions, and there wasn't moment which wasn't totally choreographed.)

I resolved, after doing my due diligence, to get on this train, and stay on it for the duration. Well, as it turns out the duration was a helluva longer than I figgered...and I guess I am now a Dean lifer.

I am not a political naif. But I gotta tell you, as an old jaded, cynical babe....for me Dean has represented a life changing experience. He has never personally disappointed me, as a matter of fact, my esteem for him only grows.

And from that rain soaked exercise in futility to trips to Iowa and Arizona and beyond, I can't see a time when I won't be willing to walk through hell for Howard Dean.

And instead of attacking Dean for the loyality of his supporters, the partisans of other candidates should at least listen to Dean and do their own due diligence.

by nanorich on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 11:27:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: CA Convention Speech (3.00 / 2)

Although I think he had given essentially the same speech earlier in DC, it was the California Convention speech in March that lit up Howard Dean all over the blogosphere. I may be off, but I think that largely due to Kos and Jerome. I don't remember which one I got the link from, but I watched the speech on line.

I was in from the very first "What I want to know" because that was exactly the question on my mind. Why were the Democrats rolling over? It was a question that had been hanging in the air since the 2000 selection. It was mostly the war, but it was everything else, too.

When he said the line about the fundamentalist preachers, I almsot started crying. No I am not kidding. I donated $100 and spent the next few days on the phone talking to everyone I knew, trying to get them to watch the speech.

At that point, it never occurred to me that Howard Dean would become the sensation of the nation or the frontrunner for the nomination. Having been through many campaigns since the 70s, and having had my fill of losing efforts, there was always a little "pick the winner" calculation when I decided who to support or volunteer for. But this time I didn't give a shit. I heard that speech and I decided I was going to volunteer, give money and do whatever else was necessary and appropriate for Howard Dean.

I felt inspired, for sure, but I also felt like I was politically re-centered, re-focused. For the first time in years if some one asked me "Why do you support that guy?" the answer came easily. And it didn't come from my head with its political calculation. It came from my heart.

by James Earl on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 11:30:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

truly (none / 0)

it seems the CA speech was the "come to jeebus" moment for many people, but for me it was the earlier speech at the dnc winter meeting in 02/2003. he stepped up to the podium and laid the smack down. the took the entire party to task for failing to muster any opposition to bush (save a few folks like fiengold, wellstone, kucinich, etc). in that one speech he said everything i wish i could have said to the party at the time. by the end of the speech, i was literally crying and cheering - i couldn't believe that someone had the balls to speak truth to power, especially to a room full of party players. and that's what really got me about dean - when nobody else was speaking truth to power, he did. he spoke for me. he inspired me. he gave me hope again, and for that i'll always be grateful.

here's a flashback for you:
copy and paste this into real player and you can watch dean's speech at the dnc winter meeting, feb 2003. dean starts at about 1 hour 57 minutes into the video.
rtsp:/video.c-span.org/project/c04/c04_022103dnc.rm

here's the link to the sacramento speech (again, copy into real player). dean starts 24 minutes into the video.
rtsp:/video.c-span.org/mdrive/rwh031603.rm

Visit us at TexasKAOS, where we're taking Texas back!

by annatopia on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 01:40:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: truly (none / 0)

I had the same experience. He was so great at that Winter Meeting. I just watched both speeches again for old time's sake (that, and my wife isn't home to catch me). It's funny to watch the people at the Winter Meeting and how surprised they were by what Dean was saying. It was also interesting to remember that he was using his "pickup owners in the South" line way back then (Sharpton and Edwards were so disingenuous).

And finally, don't you wish he had stuck with that Elvis song "A little less conversation"? I loved that a candidate was using that song. That was so much better than that schmaltzy thing he used later.

by Haus on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 10:23:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Now Howard Dean (none / 0)

Well done post. As a transplant Vermonter of 11 years, I saw the many sides of Howard Dean. The one thing that stands out is his improvement as a public speaker, and being able to put into words a common sense reasoning of what it means to be a Democrat. As a governor, he did not have that skill. As a governor, he chose to govern from the center, as most successful governors must. In Vermont, this meant angering those who wished a more progressive agenda by not going far enough, and it meant surprising his opponents by establishing progressive programs (health care for children, for instance) and paying for them without breaking the bank. He understood that to venture too far in one direction was to alienate too much of his base. His base excluded the far left, and the far right, and was made up of Democrats and Vermont Republicans, who were generally social liberals and fiscal conservatives. This coalition succeeded in its way, and we may never see it quite the same way. Dean built Vermont up, piece by piece. The battle over civil unions followed the battle over Act 60, the education equity law, which lost him allies from the so-called "gold towns" -- the towns that benefited from having a mountain in their town and as a result, benefited from lower taxes for generations. This, too, was as a result of a Supreme Court ruling. By the time civil unions came around, and the Randall Terrys and Alan Keyes of the world camped out in Montpelier to sow their hatred, it became personal and Dean won reelection with the barest of pluralities.

Moving on, Dean found his voice, and we're happy for it. If it is considered too progressive, let the rest of the world catch up. Until the other side chooses to return to the game of discussion and compromise, Dems must not live in the past. Dean will sit on the panels on television and call a spade a spade, and it will keep the Reps running.

Perhaps this is the time for the pendulum to finally start swinging back in our direction...

by teastiles on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 09:50:10 AM EST

Dean's #1 virtue (3.00 / 2)

He decided to fix the problem that caused his problem.

A lot of guys would have either slinked away, or decided to bide their time until 2008. Dean didn't. He identified the DNC as the problem, and decided he would address the problem personally.

He gave up a chance to be a solid candidate in 2008 to ensure his party gets its act together for 2006.

That is a level of virtue few politicians ever display.

by jcjcjc on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 09:55:11 AM EST

Re: Dean's #1 virtue (none / 0)

Of all the statements on the subject of Dean, I think you just summed up the most powerful one. Are there any politician who rise above politics anymore? I am not sure even Dean is one. But, this idea of giving up personal ambition for the good of the country is a potent sign that he maybe. Certainly, if we are going to change the strategy and environment of what is going on in this country we need to start here. I say that after reading a poll yesterday saying of 112,000 students surveyed, over 33 percent felt that the govt should be able to determine what news the press can report. My coworkers were unbothered by this stat, but for me, these are all little signs of where we are headed. We need to return the balance back to this country. This means we need people who are above their own personal ambition, and are long term forward thinkers.

by bruh21 on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 10:06:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dean's #1 virtue (none / 0)

From the days of Socrates, there has never been a politician who rises above politics. Think about that statement for a second...I can hardly think of something more counter-intuitive. An "a-political politician". That ranks right up there with military intelligence and other wonderful oxymorons.

http://operationyellowelephant.blogspot.com/

by Vote Hillary 2008 on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 10:15:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dean's #1 virtue (none / 0)

What bruh was talking about is called... public service. It's what politicians are supposed to be about. It would be naive to think that this is all that any politician is about but it is jaded to think that no politician is capable of it anymore.

Dr. Dean is showing his own personal drive and responsibility of public service. It is to be commended, applauded, and emulated.

The 10,000 Things

by Andrew C White on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 11:19:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dean's #1 virtue (none / 0)

Cynicism is well earned by the politicians. Pure honest values may have contributed to the ambitions of some politicians in their youth and/or beginnings of their careers at local offices and the like, but as we all know too well, at the state and federal level it takes plenty of grease and deal-making to get the wheels turning. And that always comes with a moral and ethical price. People who ignore this reality don't make it past mayor. Plain and simple. Those in power pick them to pieces.

Dean would have more respect from me if he had stood by all his populist rhetoric during the primaries, particularly many of the not-so-flattering comments he made about Kerry, and not become just another lackey for the nominee. And I'm a Kerry supporter. In the end, Dean saw a means to an end and ditched his principles for ABB, and that's why I respect Nader far more than Dean.

http://operationyellowelephant.blogspot.com/

by Vote Hillary 2008 on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 11:42:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dean's #1 virtue (none / 0)

Wow. You continue to show me how little you know about Dr. Dean. You said..

"In the end, Dean saw a means to an end and ditched his principles for ABB"

Completely ignoring the fact that since day one Gov. Dean stated he would support the eventual nominee. How is it "ditching your principles" when you do exactly what you said you would do from day one?

I've heard this particular argument before and it's pure bullshit spewed by people that really have no clue what Dr. Dean's is all about in the first place.

The 10,000 Things

by Andrew C White on Wed Feb 02, 2005 at 12:11:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dean's #1 virtue (none / 0)

And you continue to show me just how far naivete can go. First you dare hope that politicians at the state and federal levels are somehow guided by virtue in all their actions -- they wake up every morning thinking: "How can I best serve my people today?". They're good samaritans!

And now second, you use the popular disclaimer that all 10 nominees used during the primaries: "I deserve your vote, but everyone else would also make a better president than Bush and I will support the eventual nominee."[paraphrase]

Oh, what a defense! How convenient of Dean to preach his populism -- champion of the democratic wing of the democratic party, the reformist, the anti-DLC, bane of special interests, the straight speaker, the anti-war candidate, defender of men in pickup trucks waving confederate flags, never surrender any vote from Wisconsin to Oregon to [list every other state here], tell-it-like-it-is Dr Dean! -- BUT remember: eventually he'll support the eventual nominee regardless of how much he disagree with him because he also believe in a means to an end: ABB. But to be fair, so did every other candidate. The problem is that Dean promised to be different.

Dean has said he believes in many of Nader's views and ideas. Too bad he doesn't believe in standing by them to the end. His record as governor also isn't consistent with his positioning himself as a reformist liberal. At least Kucinich has a record that backs up his liberal pedigree.

http://operationyellowelephant.blogspot.com/

by Vote Hillary 2008 on Wed Feb 02, 2005 at 12:56:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dean's #1 virtue (none / 0)

Naivete, huh?

Didn't really read what I wrote did you? Read what you wanted to read into what I wrote.

Ok. Spew away. The vitriol some of you folks spew is really tiresome. Have a nice day.

The 10,000 Things

by Andrew C White on Wed Feb 02, 2005 at 01:35:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dean's #1 virtue (3.00 / 1)

Does that mean you're going to take me off your buddy list now?

http://operationyellowelephant.blogspot.com/

by Vote Hillary 2008 on Wed Feb 02, 2005 at 03:04:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dean's #1 virtue (none / 0)

A sense of humor is always a good and cherished thing. :)

The 10,000 Things

by Andrew C White on Wed Feb 02, 2005 at 10:53:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Student surveys (none / 0)

Was I the only kid who deliberately gave the wrong answers on those things?!

Jesus! If they asked about drugs, you said that you shoots heroin three times an. If they asked about sex, you said you were a bisexual, HIV-positive, possibly male prostitute who has three live-in lovers who you rotate out ever few months for variety.

It can't be any different with politics. If they ask politics, you say you're totally about brown shirts and gulags.

It's just unfashionable to be the dork who says: "And I want world peace and an alergen-free puppy for everyone!"

by jcjcjc on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 11:14:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dean's #1 virtue (3.00 / 2)

What the other guys, Rosenberg and Donnie, are talking about, Dean has done.

When presented with the realities of the presidental race, Dean looked at the landscape, saw he had enormous human resources begging to be used, and went about practically addressing what has been plaguing our party since the debacle of 94. He recognized that we can not have a strong national party unless we had vibrant and active state and local parties, and so he went about helping people run for down ballot offices.

Dean is a team player, who used the time up until the general to divide his time between his organization (which actually attracted votes for Kerry, because if you vote for a down ballot Democrat, you might as well vote for the top of the ticket.) He also traveled around the country campaigning for Kerry, and raising money. Dean being at a fundraiser guaranteed a sell out. He was also considered a rainmaker with regard to the Senate non-Dean candidates.

It is somewhat discouraging seeing partisans of other chair candidates not do the work of actually looking at where Dean stands, and buying into the crap that he is too polarizing, or whatever.

What they fail to understand is that Dean's strengths and candor attract as many people outside our party, as turn off those from the DLC angered at his refusal not to toe their line.

Also, Howard Dean actually has experience as a spokesperson, for both himself and Kerry...and unlike the other candidates, is experienced speaking outside insular party circles....to real people.

I agree with Jerome. These people who rub their hands together with worry that Dean is everything the Bushies say he is, are wed to a mindset which allows Republicans to define who we are and what our issues are. We can't allow them to define us anymore, and it takes someone with the stature of Howard Dean to unite our party, and attract people turned off by politics as usual.

by nanorich on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 10:24:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dean's #1 virtue (3.00 / 1)

Here is a question...

If we did lose in 2008, how much would it hurt Dean? lets say he decided to run in 2012...Would he be DOA or would a loss not effect him?

My feelings are that a Dean loss to Guilliani or to McCain would not hurt him, especially if the race is as close as the last two elections. A loss to Frist would hurt him greatly. Ultimately though, even if there is a loss, if he can get the infrastructure in place to take over local levels and to take back Congress, even if we lose the white house in 2008, he would still be a strong candidate in 2012 (unless age becomes a hinderance.) What are your thoughts.

by yitbos96bb on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 11:21:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Dean can't run in 2012 (none / 0)

Simple fact. Dean has practically ended his political office-holding career.

Consider:

Scenario #1: Mystery Dem 2008 loses to Mystery GOP 2008. Dean gets blamed, probably run out on a rail, tarred and feathered, etc.

Scenario #2: Dem wins. 2012 will then be about Dem's re-election, and 2016 goes to Dem's Veep.

Scenario #3: Dem loses to a "virtued" GOP like McCain. Dean is forgiven for losing unwinnable race as long as he gets Dems to or over 50% of one branch of Congress.

Scenario #3 is the only where Dean stands a chance of getting a chance.

It is very likely that Dean would not see another chance until between 216-2024. Why? If he fails as DNC, the game is over. The party will burn him at the stake for pissing away its time wih heresy. If he suceeds, how does he make it to the other side of his success?

The only way Dean has any shot at the Presidency in his lifetime is if 2008 Mystery Dem fails to get re-elected in 2012. Then, Dean could ride in as the savior come 2016.

That's a hell of a long-range plan. Too long-range to even call a plan. Who here has the balls to claim they would have known 1988 that GW Bush would become a two-term president? In 1988, GW Bush would have be picked most likely to be found dead from an overdose.

Fourteen to sixteen years (giving about two years from the protracted media hell that is a presidential campaign) is too much time to plan. Especially with two wars in progress, a budget deficit that would make Reagan cringe, and a White House that seems non-plus about slitting its party's throat with Social Security.

In fourteen years, America could be well on its way to finding out why you don't pick your leaders based on homophobia and xenophobia. In fourteen years, America could be lauding it's next Bill Clinton. In fourteen years America could be mourning the death of great cokehead war monger and blathering about what a fine leader said moron who obeyed his eunuchs was.

Dean has definitely done the smart thing. He is right when he says there is no need for him to ever run again if the DNC isn't fixed.

by jcjcjc on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 11:06:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

My thoughts... (none / 0)

Less regarding Dean or any one individual for that matter, I think 2004 demonstrated that republicans are all that's needed to unify the democratic party. Kerry's 57 million votes was testament to that fact and nothing to be ashamed about; Bush himself being the only other presidential candidate to ever exceed that sum. I never saw such a focused and unified convention as the one in Boston from the democrats. If the country wasn't so divided and the conservatives just as energized, Kerry would have been the one inaugurated a couple weeks ago.

The democratic party today reminds me of the republican party during the Clinton years. Nothing gets a party together than enduring the policies of its most hated nemesis. Politics like so many other things in life is cyclical; eventually the republicans will push the pendulum too far too the right and it will swing back the other way with the democrats enjoying a majority once again. And the process inevitably repeats itself... Of this I am certain.

I believe at this point if the democrats were to nominate their mascot for president in 2008, they'd vote for it unflinchingly. So I see the whole "unity" spiel a bit overplayed of late. Regardless of who wins chair and the nomination in 08, the dems will be unified and hungry for a return to power. Also, stating Dean is the only one that can unify the party is just a bit melodramatic -- he may be a rockstar on the left, but moderates like myself are not so impressed. Then again, I'm an independent who leans democrat but regardless you'll need us again in 08 to win beat the GOP. That said, we should remind ourselves that the vast majority of voters are casually interested in politics if at all, and generally don't pay attention to the issues or the candidates until the last few weeks of a general election.

Lastly, I differ on the suggestion that the republicans in 04 were more unified than the democrats. Sure, they all would back Bush regardless, but all the dems backed Kerry regardless -- goes without saying. What, are they going to boycott the incumbent president if they don't get what they want? Of course not. But there were many issues of contention regarding what was written into the 04 republican platform...the socially liberal cons had their spats with the fundies over abortion and gay marriage planks among others, but were talking about a seated president who has the final say on how his platform is defined. So I don't see it as a fair comparison.

In closing, I'm not a big Dean fan. I was a Kerry supporter from 2002 and actually prefer Nader to Dean, but nothing gets my blood going hotter than the asinine policies of Rummy, Condi, Wolf, and chimpy, so I'll be voting for anyone to the left of that collection of assclowns and I'm sure every democrat will as well, regardless of who happens to be leading the party.

http://operationyellowelephant.blogspot.com/

by Vote Hillary 2008 on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 10:10:59 AM EST

Re: My thoughts... (none / 0)

Beg to differ. If the party was united it was united against ABB not Kerry. The Convention in Boston was an exercise of the party holding it's breath than a true act of unity. Everyone seem to walk around with fake grins plastered to their faces (are we having fun yet...). The only emotional moments were Sharptons and Obama's speeches that rest was bland and flat...but we were unified.

As for partisanship, Kerry had the entire Convention direct towards the Republicans not to Democrats. I heard more about Republicans and their /swinging over than about the wonderful feats and accomplishments undertaken by real Dems grassroots.

In 2008 there will not be a DEVIL to run against and frankly I don't see any Democrat wiinning (particularly your namesake) which is why I will be happy if Dean wins the DNC at least we may have a chance to pick up seats in the congress and fortify our state parties.

Besides telling us how to live, think, marry, pray, vote, invest, educate our children and, die, the GOP has done a fine job of getting gov't out of our lives.

by Parker on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 10:41:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: My thoughts... (none / 0)

I wholeheartedly agree with Parker and definitely take issue with Vote for Hillary 2008.

Unity based solely on opposition yields defeat.

Let me say it again.

Unity based solely on opposition yields defeat.

The mass of voters don't want to read policy proposals, and they're not satisfied with attacks. They want to know who you ARE, and not just know it, but FEEL IT.

It's the little things (accents, stories, local references), but it's also the big things -- knowing your first principles, and relating everything you say back to them.

When Democrats appeal to the head (or to the hatred of the other guy), and the GOP appeals to the heart, REPUBLICANS WIN.

by CT Lex on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 11:32:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: My thoughts... (none / 0)

You underlined my point. Whether the party unified behind Kerry or ABB is irrelevent. The point is that the party would unify behind any candidate, whomever it happened to be because of opposition to Bush.

You really think you'll ever see a democratic party unified behind a single candidate because of the candidate himself? That's a complete fantasy. The democratic party, like any party, is made up of splintered groups with different agendas, values, and beliefs, and more importantly, the varied prioritization of all those political views. Ergo, no one every agrees with everyone else and therefore there will never be unification on the scale you hope for. Elections are won by coalitions who can compromise, reach consensus, and reach out to others, increasing turnout numbers on election day. In 2004 the GOP simply did a better job of it.

http://operationyellowelephant.blogspot.com/

by Vote Hillary 2008 on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 11:28:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Forgot to mention... (none / 0)

Case in point...in 2008 I believe Hillary will easily win the nomination, and when she does, I trust you and every other grassroots democrat will vote for her regardless of any caveats. Particularly after witnessing how rabid democrats were for going after Nader's candidacy, something which I didn't agree with on principle. There's your unity. If it's not unity, I expect you all to sit out the vote and usher in another GOP puppet.

http://operationyellowelephant.blogspot.com/

by Vote Hillary 2008 on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 11:33:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: My thoughts... (3.00 / 0)

I can't take people like you seriously anymore. Afterall, there is no way that you can read that Dean comes from the moderate wing of the party, and then come back with "well, I'm a moderate" and, therefore, I will have problems w/ Dean b/c he's not a moderate." Beyond that, it is a little bit hard to believe that you are a moderate if you would have supported Nader over Dean, and in the same breathe claim to have also been a Kerry supporter. Needless to say, this is not only inconsistent, but frankly seems designed to push a few buttons.

What the hell does moderation even mean in the context of a DNC Chair? What has that got do with with whether the party is organized so that, just to name one example, when people like me go to poll monitor I have the paperwork like my Republican counterpart to go into the polling station? How are we going to reform these issues if people continue to not listen enough to realize there is a problem? Which, when I hear people say that Dean is listening to the local people, I am thinking this is the best thing that could happen.

If you want to understand the value of this issue consider Ohio. If they had enough poll monitors from the Democratic side in the polls helping the voters figure out, as I did at my polling station, where to go and telling them that the provisional ballots may not be valid, then things may have been different. The fact is we were caught off guard needlessly by the fact that the Republicans were sending in challengers. This is unacceptable, and probably, my guess is that the local people knew this was happening. In my polling place (no in Ohio but in swing state) for example, I must have convinced more than 20 to 30 people that day, to go out of their way to get to the right polling place so that their vote would count. Imagine if that had happened everywhere.

The reality is that this shouldn't happen, and, if anyone had bothered to listen to the local people, they would have known well before the election that this is a major problem. The same is true of the number of voting machines. The reason this was an issue was lack of organization on our side to counter their sides manipulation of the process. Sometimes it is not the laws, it just the enforcement. Instead, we realized these issues after the election. Again, who has been talking about the need to devolve power to the local level, and why is this important? Well, now, you see a couple of reasons why. One of which is that the local party would have been able to respond rapidly to the realities of the local situation. Don't even get me started on the lack of communication infrastructure when I tried to find proper polling places for people.

Finally, going to your whole discussion of what will and will not be the level of Democratic support. My advice is to not take these things for granted. You can't assume that people will always support you just because they have in a particularly intense election cycle. It's just bad customer service planning to assume that. If businesses, assumed that their customers would always return to them just because they used them once, then they would soon be out of business. Let me give you an example. When I did phone banking, I was amazed to discover that they don't keep track of the voters during the 4 years in between elections, and only really gear up 6 months prior to the election. The problem here is that a lot of people among the Democratic constituencies that we were calling had moved. There should be a constant effort to keep people in the loop, and not just during an election year precisely because you lose contact with people. This is another reason why some of the ideas expoused passionately by Dean make sense.

by bruh21 on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 11:06:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: My thoughts... (none / 0)

Riiiight. "Trying to push buttons..." If you want to troll-witchhunt, leave and stay over at dailykos where you can partake in groupthink and suppress opinions different than your own. Notice how hardly anyone rates people down here? And wow, hardly any trolls. That's because this is a true blog, unlike that dump markos runs.

Dean, moderates, what? Uh, where in my post did I say anything about Dean being a moderate? And I suggest you state your intent to paraphrase when you quote someone as saying something that they never did -- in this case, you completely manufactured something out of thin air.

This is why I can't take a lot of Dean supporters seriously. Too much whine and too little cheese. You all can't see past your own emotions and some on the far left are just as blind and close-minded as their fundie counterparts. This is why dailykos is such a shitty blog this side of free republic...anyone right of kucinich/dean is the anti-christ.

How can someone like Nader more than Dean, and Kerry on the same token? Easy. Because unlike NRA rednecks, abortion activists (pro or con), homophobes, and hybrid driving hippies, I don't vote a candidate on any single issue -- I vote on a plethora of qualities that I look for. When Dean lost the nomination, he forgot all his criticisms of Kerry and the party and became an rubber stamp for their campaign. Nader called him on this and he demurred. He did what was convenient as a means to an end. That's where I lost respect for him and knew he was just another populist opportunist. Kerry will be Kerry, nuanced and calculating as always, but I agree with most of his politics. Nader is unwavering in the face of any opposition and criticism -- unlike Dean he stands to his beliefs come hell or high water and I admire anyone who does that. The democrats were wrong to oppose his candidacy with GOP tactics when the latter didn't do the same against Badnarik who got the same sum of votes as Nader.

More cheese please.

http://operationyellowelephant.blogspot.com/

by Vote Hillary 2008 on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 11:21:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Encouraging... (none / 0)

I am very encouraged. In the wake of the November elections, there was so much spin and breast-beating about how the Dem Party has lost middle america, lost the 'values' debate, lost the 'religious center' (?), become too liberal, blah blah blah, I found it very discouraging that the gist of everything was that Dems had to become more conservative so we could appeal to the South and the 'heartland.'

This kind of 'strategizing' is just the kind of thing that takes us down the path of trying to test political winds, and then tailor our public issue stands to them. Maybe that's what's made Karl Rove who he is today, but I don't consider him a role model, nor will I support Democrats who do.

I am encouraged to see Howard Dean taking the helm of the Dem Party, simply because I know that is not the way he is.

Will I agree with him on every issue stance? Probably not, and I am not afraid of the fact he's willing to take a stand that's not traditionally "liberal" based on his beliefs and convictions. We could use a lot more of that, both in candidates and party officials. I'd rather know he's taking his stance based on his informed opinion and his best judgment of the issues.

Of course, a party Chairman is not a candidate, so it is not his personal stand on issues that will matter as much in his job as helping Democratic candidates get campaigns going, and mobilizing the base. I have no doubt Dr. Dean will shine in this role. I had the good fortune of meeting him briefly when he was here in Wisconsin, and he's the type of person who can send a sense of excitement through a crowd.

I think he will help provide what this Party needs. Not hand-wringing, self doubt, and weak-kneed insecurity, but a strong vision for the future and the confidence to know that if people can see it clearly, they will join us and help us turn the tide.

We can't lose heart, especially when times seem especially dark. I find it very encouraging to know that soon, at the Dem Natl Party ... THE DOCTOR IS IN!

by DDenver on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 10:14:50 AM EST

Howard Dean (none / 0)

Howard Dean a darling of the left? Too many meaningless labels - there's a certain laziness in accepting and applying rnc spin and lazy media regurgitation.

....Also, stating Dean is the only one that can unify the party is just a bit melodramatic -- he may be a rockstar on the left, but moderates like myself are not so impressed....

If Howard Dean is a rockstar on the left then moderates are enablers of the far right wingnut agenda - it is the ultimate of naiveté to posit some form of "moderation" as a means to reasonableness and compromise with the right. They do not and will not accomodate. It's about power and it's all or nothing for those in control.

There are very real and very large differences between the Democratic Party and the republican extremist agenda.

Howard Dean has highlighted those differences from the beginning.

I heard Dr. Dean speak several times over the course of his campaign. I first attended a small dollar fundraiser in suburban Kansas City in May of 2003. Over a hundred people came to hear him speak under a tent in a thunderstorm. I've only said one thing to Howard Dean - it was at that event - "Thank you for speaking out." I've never been disappointed since.

That's the ultimate compliment for anyone in political life - helping give a voice and hope to the voiceless.

543,895 votes

by Michael Bersin on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 10:44:36 AM EST

Re: Howard Dean (3.00 / 1)

Define what you mean by moderate and how does Dean not represent you.

Besides telling us how to live, think, marry, pray, vote, invest, educate our children and, die, the GOP has done a fine job of getting gov't out of our lives.

by Parker on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 10:52:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Howard Dean (none / 0)

Uh, I was quoting this comment above:
http://www.mydd.com/comments/2005/2/1/64444/83014/6#6

543,895 votes

by Michael Bersin on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 12:38:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

fundamental preachers.... (none / 0)

Now I understand. I couldn't figure out why, after 50 years, I started becoming a bit of an activist. But Dean said it. (Actaully the first time I have read that statement, but it really hit a cord in me.)

Those people (fundies) scare the s^&&* out of me.

Go Dean Go!

Grandma Jo

by JWC on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 10:50:42 AM EST

I was for Dean until (none / 0)

people opposing him were manhandled and mobbed on the blogs. Then I started wondering.

Several people have asked out how deep Dean has bought into the blogosphere.

Does he have a hand in all of the relentless bashing against TV dems who opposed him in the primaries?

That being said, Dean is the best speaker, the best thinker and this "liberal" label that they've stuck on him is horseshit, and needs to be dealt with.

(Educating the voting public on how to think independently of the media should be a top priority during non election years.)

But I digress.

My feelings are that if Dean is heavily into the shit vat I've seen on dailykos this past month, forget it. Don't want him.

There have been no answers to this little nagging question.

by synthia on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 10:55:35 AM EST

Re: I was for Dean until (none / 0)

synthia: I don't understand what your "little nagging question" is. Please clarify. If you are insinuating Howard Dean has done something, or been involved in something, untoward, then be clear about what it is you are talking about. A vague reference to dailykos.com doesn't tell me much.

Of course, people can oppose Dean if they want to. And people can reply to that oppostion, if they want to, as well. If you interpret that sort of give and take, as "manhandling," I think that's a bit oversensitive. Of course, personal attacks should be out of bounds. I have seen far more rants about Howard by a few Dems who are apparently terrified by him than I have attacks on people who don't want him.

I think the bottom line is this: let the process work (but trasnparently) and when the party leader is selected, everyone should get behind him. All of these vicious personal attacks on Howard or any on those opposing Howard, need to cease. It just sets us back on the real work of turning back the rightwing tide.

When Kerry got the nomination, Howard did as he promised and got in line behind him in the effort to unseat GWB, probably more than any other primary-losing Dem.

When Dr. Dean wins election as Party Chair, everyone who's a Dem, even those who opposed him most vociferously, should get behind him in the common cause.

by DDenver on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 11:08:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I was for Dean until (3.00 / 1)

And not to excuse any over-the-line snarking, but remember this:

Dean was SAVAGED by party insiders, SAVAGED. (The Iowa TV ads are but one example.) If some of his supporters have been a little sensitive to posts they feel are anti-Dean, look at this recent history and at least you can understand why.

They don't (and I don't) necessarily think the primary was a fair fight, and so are tempted to be a little less than fair to the opposition themselves. That's NFL football.

Excuse it? No. Understand it? Yup.

by CT Lex on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 11:37:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You might want to remember (none / 0)

by nanorich on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 11:41:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You might want to remember (none / 0)

continued that politics is a contact sport, and in the end, those of us who can afford to be interested in politics, it isn't wise to think who we support is about how we are treated on bulletin boards.

It is about who can do the most good for for our party and our country.

Regarding this liberal problem people have, maybe they might look into how distorted the process has become and how far right we have moved to the point that Howard Dean is considered a liberal.

And what is terrible about being a liberal, anyway?

This is another symptom of how we have allowed Republicans to define us to the point where liberal values, which basically were the values which built the good part of America are a problem for people.

by nanorich on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 11:49:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You might want to remember (3.00 / 1)

Excellent point and well taken.

Here's the semantic terrain the GOP has so shrewdly set up:

--you're for 'tax relief' or you're 'big government'

--you're for 'traditional values' or you're 'anti-family'

--you're for 'cutting wasteful social programs' or you're for 'Washington solving all your problems'

And you're right: we shouldn't take it. Dean has it part of the way right -- "when they say guns, you say health care; when they say gays, you say jobs;", but we also need a WHY as good as our WHAT.

Dean gets it. Barack gets it. And I'm trying to get it too.

PS. "It isn't wise to think who we support is about how we are treated on bulletin boards"? i'm not sure i understand... people getting snarked by Dean supporters aren't MORE likely to support him in the end, are they?

by CT Lex on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 12:11:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You might want to remember (none / 0)

>PS. "It isn't wise to think who we support is about how we are treated on bulletin boards"? i'm not sure i understand... people getting snarked by Dean supporters aren't MORE likely to support him in the end, are they?

CT,

Let me just say that at one point I noticed that people who say stuff like this, often times are the same people who were saying, "I am a lifelong Democrat, but after so and so said this I will never vote for a Democrat again."

I also think it is foolish to extrapolate how one is treated on a partisan bulletin board as a signal to do something which is not in one's best interest.

In the end, basically one would hope that one makes a political decision on the basis of less shallow reasons that making something about me, and how I am treated. One would hope that if one is honestly interested in supporting someone, one would leave one's computer and actually go out and talk to real people, and given the opportunity, talk to the candidate. Or you do your work, and listen to the candidate yourself, rather than judge him by secondary sources.

You have to realize, that political discussion, on line, especially back in the usenet days was one mean nasty business. And because you can't see someone's face fall, or make other judgements about their "sincerity" you have to go with your gut.

by nanorich on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 12:28:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You might want to remember (none / 0)

"In the end, basically one would hope that one makes a political decision on the basis of less shallow reasons that making something about me, and how I am treated. One would hope that if one is honestly interested in supporting someone, one would leave one's computer and actually go out and talk to real people, and given the opportunity, talk to the candidate. Or you do your work, and listen to the candidate yourself, rather than judge him by secondary sources."

In a perfect world, yes. But we all know people vote with their hearts and their emotions and when they are treated badly by enthused followers it sometimes causes them to search out another party. One of the reasons my dad voted for Clinton in 92, after voting GOP all his life.

by yitbos96bb on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 12:32:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You might want to remember (none / 0)

I know of no case of people who cavassing for Dean treating people with anything with the utmost respect.

One should not confuse partisan spitballing on a liberal blog with the actions of the candidate. The political culture online is what it is...and it has its own rules.

In the end, there are people who claim they were Dean supporters who were turned off by the actions of his supporters.

I can say the same thing about rather obnoxious Kerry people, and very obnoxious Clark people. And trust me, the Dean blog was infested with jerks for Clark and Kerry.

If you are going to judge Dean by the a bunch of kids with no manners....you are also have to address the fact that all candidates have obnoxious and trollish supporters who don't do their candidate much good when they go knowingly into territory where they expect to be unwelcomed.

by nanorich on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 01:10:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You might want to remember (none / 0)

I agree with you. I don't judge my candidates in that way, although if I was a fence sitter on two that may become an issue...so far it hasn't.

I don't think it is right to judge a candidate by his supporters...However, not everyone is like us. I have family in Iowa who wouldn't vote for Dean BECAUSE he had all those "neo-hippie types from Vermont and California working for him". I am sure most of these people were very nice (as I am sure there were a few who were trollish...just like all campaigns have as you stated.) however it was the perception that made them support someone else. They had friends who felt the same way.

I agree that all supporters have Trollish supporters... I think though that if you are a supporter of a candidate that you need to say something if other supporters are acting like asses. If the first time a person meets the canvassers and they are nice, polite etc and can answer questions with energy but without patronizing the other person's feeling, those canvassers will be extremely effective and will be able to dispel any preconceived stereotypes. If however, the supporters act like their usually unfairly given stereotypes (like most of Dean's supporter just walked out of a Phish concert) and start arguing the politics with people, they will turn people off...it is unfair but it happens. If I am canvassing for a candidate, I don't care if a person I talk to calls him a cowardly liberal asshole, I am not going to argue with the guy, I will thank him and move on. Basically it is like working customer service...Studies show you have a good experience you tell 4 people. You have a bad one and you tell 9. I am not saying that judging a candidate by his supporters is right, fair, practical or intelligent. But it does happen.

by yitbos96bb on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 03:55:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You might want to remember (none / 0)

Hmmm... lots to think about in your post.

Overall, I like your points and find little to disagree with.

I guess if I had one question it would be this: If dialogue is truly that, an exchange of ideas, can't we expect people to be changed or affected by what they hear? Or are we all such hardened pros that our opinions and sensibilities are pretty much what they are, evolving minimally if at all?

I'm new to the site, so I really don't know what people generally take from all the bombast...

by CT Lex on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 06:09:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You might want to remember (none / 0)

The problem is you and I know there is no problem with being a liberal... However, how do we undo 40 years of GOP propaganda?

I hate the whole liberal and conservative argument. The GOP has succeeded in making people think it is black and white, when it is truly shades of gray...

I am liberal on some issues (Gay Marriage, Health Care, Death Penalty) and conservative on others (Long Jail time for Violent Crime, Fiscal, etc) on others. Other things, I am in the middle on (Gun Control (some but not all), abortion). I wouldn't classify myself as a Political Liberal or a conservative although I will acknowledge I do lean left. Yet I have been called both by people.

Problem is, I am not sure how to de-program people into seeing that many who hate liberals fit the dictionary definition of one and have some beliefs that the Political Liberals have.

It is so stupid it even makes a difference, but people are way to self contained to actually see the world of gray we live in and continue to view it with the Black and white glasses the GOP has created.

by yitbos96bb on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 12:29:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"the little nagging question" is about (none / 0)

is Dean into the kind of intimidation that we have seen of late
on dailykos. Is he part of this gang that is getting into people's diaries and making remarks like "do you self flagellate?"

Then spamming the hell out of them with hard core porn because you don't like what they said?

The kind of intimidation that we are accustomed to associate with the post Nixon republican party.

I don't have any way of knowing what goes on behind the scenes in blogs.

I want to know how deep into the blogosphere Dean is personally involved.

Why is that a big problem with you?

I really supported that guy, and would like to know who the man is. Because when his friends pull dirty shit it may mean that he is a sleaze.

And I hope that he is not. But I goddamned well would like to know.

And you can intimidate and be as much of an asshole as you would like, but I want to have an opportunity to ask Howard Dean how closely involved he is with DailyKos.

And at some point, I damned well expect to have that opportunity.

by synthia on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 04:57:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I was for Dean until (none / 0)

You aren't looking for answers. Be honest. You are just looking to prove your conclusiosn right. There is a difference.

This reminds me of the debate with the anti fraud versus fraud people about the voting rights issues. There was always a third way, but neither side was ever really interestedin a solution. Just in being right. The solution there was to just call as DemFromCt and I agreed for investigations to find out exactly what did and didn't happen.

If you were looking for answers you would be asking the more realistic question- not whether Dean is perfect (none of the choices are perfect as Ickles so correctly stated), but is he the best of the choices you have in front of you for the DNC chairman? What is the criteria for the chairmanship here? For me, I asked who would most likely institute reform? For that, I asked what kind of reform was needed? For me, as I mention above, the reform is not about idealogy, it is about organization and message. Dean's call to shift the power to the local parties makes sense with regard to what I have seen. As does the idea that we need to brand our message to make it clear to people that they know what we stand for outside of what the Republicans say we stand for. My question then became whether he was the right guy fo the message? On that front, I was up in the air. I really didn't know much about the guy outside of the primaries where I supported Clark. What impressed me there was that despite my cynacism about Dean he didn't just quit the race, he went on to form DFA which at the time I saw as a consolation prize until he started to speak out in places like Air America about his goals for it.

As I said above, what has also impressed me so far are 4 things a) the level of enthusiasm that he solicits from others b) the fact he seems to listen to the state people (as referenced by the endorsements of some pretty conservative states) c) his clarity on what is wrong and what needs to be done and d) his willingness to take risk (we aren't becoming the opposition party just to remain in opposition- it is, I hope, the goal over the long term to use this as a strategy to make us the majority party.

by bruh21 on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 11:18:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I was for Dean until (none / 0)

See this is the type of message that is constructive. Not offensive (or shouldn't be) and makes all of the points in an effective manner.

by yitbos96bb on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 12:35:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm not interested in getting an answer??? (none / 0)

A couple of diaries were turned into rape rooms
on daily kos.

One praised Kos, but expressed disappointment in
his not revealing that he had worked for Dean at the
time that he endorsed Dean for Chairman.

Apparently, Kos thought it was fine because there
had been an article about it some time ago. The person
who wrote the diary had not seen the article.

Kos went on to sneer at the idea that bloggers be held
to journalistic standards.

It is invalid to want to know how deep Howard
Dean is involved in dailyKos ?

Please explain why this would not be a normal concern.

Does Dean communicate with Kos on a regular basis ? I sure the fuck don't know. do you?

by synthia on Mon Feb 07, 2005 at 04:41:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I was for Dean until (none / 0)

Yeah...I was for Dean too until...

I heard he drinks lattes and drives a Volvo
that he is carrying a lot of baggage
Novak pointed out to me that Democratic funders will not give him money

Boy I am so glad you wrote that, it is good to knwo that there are kindred spirits out there.

Besides telling us how to live, think, marry, pray, vote, invest, educate our children and, die, the GOP has done a fine job of getting gov't out of our lives.

by Parker on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 11:21:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I was for Dean until (none / 0)

That, and I heard that sometimes the DFA office forgets to sort its recycling properly.

Go Frost!

by CT Lex on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 11:40:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I was for Dean until (none / 0)

I knew there was something crazy and unhinged about Dean.

NBR Nobody but Roemer

Besides telling us how to live, think, marry, pray, vote, invest, educate our children and, die, the GOP has done a fine job of getting gov't out of our lives.

by Parker on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 11:50:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I was for Dean until (none / 0)

Don't even get me started on Joe Trippi's kickbacks from Diet Pepsi.

LOB: 'Leland or Bust!'

by CT Lex on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 12:12:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I was for Dean until (none / 0)

I think Dean supports it, but isn't manipulating it. Frankly, he doesn't have to. Just like the Freepers have those who are zealous (zealots) about Bush, Kos and MyDD have those who feel as strong about Dean. I think many are a little too sensitive to someone who says they don't like Dean (and as stated below after the primary, i can understand why, even if I don't think it is acceptable), which truthfully I think has turned some people off to Dean in the first place...They look at the man's followers instead of the man and think that the followers are exactly what the man is like...It is unfair but then many Americans make important decisions from soundbites and headlines instead of reading the whole story. Personally, It took me a long time to go back to church, not because I didn't believe but because those who were fanatical followers such as the fundamentalist preachers of the world preached such hate and intolerance it turned me off. I didn't go back for years (even at Christmas and Easter) until I did some research on the early church and found that they didn't take the bible as a literal thing like the fundies do. I read some of the new testament and pretty much saw that Jesus preached tolerance and love and would be branded a bleeding heart liberal if he was a live today. I can see why the fundies are making some of their claims, because if you take everything written literally they could be interpretted that way. If you take things the way the early church did, allegorical, then it has a different context altogether. Since Jesus, to my reading comprehension, seems to be one of love and tolerance, I chose to follow the context that best matched that. Ok sorry, back on topic.

My opinion is if you don't like Dean and you have a legitimate reason (you don't feel he best represents a broad cross section of the party, you think he doesn't have the experience to run a 50 state campaign or some of the other things I heard) then the "Deaniacs" shouldn't blast you...If you call him an "asshole" or say he is an idiot or a racist, then I don't have issue with someone flaming you. Hopefully the Dean supporters who do jump at people with questions about Dean's ability will realize they may be turning people off to their guy. If they answer the questions or the statements with facts about the guy and remain calm, they may convert them. I asked a lot of questions about Dean for DNC chair and the people who took time to answer the questions calmly and rationally, succeeded in convincing me he is the best choice.

by yitbos96bb on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 12:18:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I was for Dean until (none / 0)

Thanks. Very good advice. People should not be viewing ourselves as adversaries.

I think it would be good if people on both sides of the Dean candidacy could develop thicker skins. Anyone is free to disagree with Howard and his followers, but then don't take it personally when we disagree back (as some probably will, right?).

If we can stick to actual issues, rather than parroted themes like "he's too liberal" or "he's not electable" or "he's from the Northeast" then hopefully we can learn something from the discussions, whether we agree or not. And in the end we all want a united Party that can work toward the common goals. At least I hope we do.

by DDenver on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 12:44:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I was for Dean until (none / 0)

Great points. Actually that was one of the reasons I didn't support him for President...I didn't think he could win, even though i liked a lot of what he said. I supported Clark but as I watched his less than stellar performance from the stump, I figured he was not gonna win. I think I voted Edwards but that was because by time Illinois came around, Kerry was a lock.

In hind sight, I wish I had supported Dean. Like a lot of people I bought into the electability arguement...which could be a valid argument when picking a candidate. The only problem was that what I and many, many others thought led to electability was completely wrong (I am man enough to admit it...grudgingly ;-) ).

Until someone can come up with a winning electability requirement everytime, in the future I am going to vote with the person who shares my passions rather than the one I think can win. Howard may or may not have won...But I will bet some of the issues Kerry faced (being labeled a flip - flopper etc) would not have been issues as Dean would have fought back (much like Clinton in 92). Never again will I support a candidate in the primaries who lacks the passion and is afraid to fight back. It is too important a quality in politics today.

by yitbos96bb on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 04:05:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

how deep Dean has bought into the blogosphere (none / 0)

Dean just bought in too early.

It's like the companies that got into computers in the late 80's and got out by 1994. They lost a bundle because they gave up too soon. Had they hung in there to 1998, they would have made a killing.

Being ahead of the curve is only bad if you chicken out too soon.

Ask AT&T.

by jcjcjc on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 11:19:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What are they afraid of? (3.00 / 1)

This from AirAmericaradio.com:

"Dean's candidacy has been opposed by the Democratic Party establishment and according to the Los Angeles Times "unease about a Dean chairmanship is widespread among congressional leaders and many governors. But almost none of those grumbling privately have expressed their concerns publicly -- in part, some believe, because they fear crossing the ardent grass-roots, Internet-activist community still backing Dean."

And fear they should, because people who are most active in Dem politics right now are those in the DFA movement, no doubt about it. I attended a DFA meetup last month that ran out of chairs, because so many people kept coming. How are the Kerry/DNC meetups doing these days?

Many of us are tired of the mealy-mouthed wishy-washiness of candidates trying to appease the undecided but who only end up appearing undecided themselves. For the sake of party unity, we worked for Kerry's election and followed the path of Terry McAuliffe, et al. We tried it.

Change in the Democratic Party is needed, and it's coming. This is not about preserving power structures, and figuring out how to better appeal to Republicans and Republican leaners. It is about being committed Democrats, and bringing out the base. Howard is the ideal person to help do that. But he will need people to help.

Or at least to stop actively trying to trash him, and undermine him. The grassroots are speaking up, and the power structure of the Dem Party would be wise to heed the advice.

by DDenver on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 12:24:17 PM EST

Re: What are they afraid of? (3.00 / 1)

The only thing that they fear is not getting a slice of the Grassroots Pie.

Corporate money is gone...why should they invest in a party that is out of power in every freaking branch of the Federal Geovernment. (Thanks to Al From and the DLC)

Today the only game in town is the small donor and more than a few eyebrows raised when Dean asked (being the operative word) his supporters to help out Gregoire anyway that they could and within 24 hours over a quarter of a million dollars flooded into her coffers...remember this is almost a year after Dean pulled out of the primaries.

It was noted that the aid agency that Dean posted and sent out an email for help with the Tsunami computers crashed from the incoming support.

Of course they are going to paint it in a negative frame ...but we know better

Besides telling us how to live, think, marry, pray, vote, invest, educate our children and, die, the GOP has done a fine job of getting gov't out of our lives.

by Parker on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 12:36:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What are they afraid of? (none / 0)

How much do you think we could raise if the next Dem candidate refused corporate donations? Can we compete with the GOP? How much of Kerry's came from small donors and how much was corporate? What is the windfall we need to make up?

by yitbos96bb on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 12:40:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What are they afraid of? (none / 0)

In the primaries Dean beat Clinton's fundraising record with an average donation of 87 dollars.

That momentum was transferred to Kerry and the DNC. The DNC has money left over after an election for the first time in history. And Kerry held onto more tham 15 million dollars... after reaching parity with the GOP for the first time in history.

Besides telling us how to live, think, marry, pray, vote, invest, educate our children and, die, the GOP has done a fine job of getting gov't out of our lives.

by Parker on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 12:52:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh... but there is a catch (none / 0)

there needs to be inspiration to tap into this. Meaning that the candidates have to work for it. Status quo won't work...just look at what happened to Roemer when he assumed that he could be annointed...that got kinda ugly.

Kerry was lucky that he was running against the worst President ever and that was enough inspiration to motivate people to give.

Besides telling us how to live, think, marry, pray, vote, invest, educate our children and, die, the GOP has done a fine job of getting gov't out of our lives.

by Parker on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 12:59:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh... but there is a catch (none / 0)

Interesting. I am not in favor of getting rid of all Corporate donations, but I am in favor of only accepting corporate donations that support he ideals of our party (fair labor practices, Eviromentally friendly etc.) Companies like Ben and Jerry's when it was independent, etc. I don't think we can completely ignore businesses, but we do need to step back from their influence greatly. Maybe vow to not accept more than 10-20% from corporate...I am not sure the percentage that Kerry got from Corporate vs individual donors.

by yitbos96bb on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 04:11:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Thanks Jerome (none / 0)

You really captured the passion of Dean and his gift for saying what I feel.

However, I am not in favor of pure anti-Republicanism and using all our energy to stopping their agenda. We may be the opposition party but opposition for the sake of opposition is not enough.

The Democrats also need to prepare themselves to govern again.

I hope that Dean as DNC Chair will offer more than opposition. I hope that over the next few years there will be an opportunity to debate the important domestic and foreign policy issues of our day.

I want to see new ideas and new democratic solutions to the old and tired problems facing Americans. We have to use the next few years to develop and vet policy to use as a polictical platform and to implement once back in power.

The Democartic party needs to change more than just its infrastructure-- it is time to change its political platforms as well.

by aiko on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 12:58:40 PM EST

Why I am an anti Deanist. (none / 0)

Its not Dean per say. He seems an intelligent individual and not a bad guy at all. ITs Deanism, Deaniacs and the cult of personality.

Its the idea that the left most 5% who spend more time and effort and money deserve to control the party from the other 95%.

I believe in Democracy not Kosocracy.

Deans comment about being from the democratic wing of the democratic party offends me as it seeks to imply that if you supported the concept of freeing millions of Iraqis from the grips of Saddam then you are from the republican-lite wing of the party.

Many TRUE democrats supported the concept of freeing the Iraqis. Seriously if you don't support the concept that America has a responsibility to fight for OTHER peoples freedom and democracy then I think you are the ones who are in the Democracy-lite party.

If Dean is elected I will support him in so far as he supports the same goals as I do. However if a Dean win means the 5% who threatened to leave the party if they didn't get their way become the standard bearers then I say no thanks.

by donkeykong on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 04:12:10 PM EST

anti Deanist. (none / 0)

"....Deans comment about being from the democratic wing of the democratic party offends me as it seeks to imply that if you supported the concept of freeing millions of Iraqis from the grips of Saddam then you are from the republican-lite wing of the party.
Many TRUE democrats supported the concept of freeing the Iraqis. Seriously if you don't support the concept that America has a responsibility to fight for OTHER peoples freedom and democracy then I think you are the ones who are in the Democracy-lite party...."

Nah, it just means that you bought the ever changing justification promulgated by dubya, his administration, and their lazy media enablers. Now you're just grasping, hoping that things don't continue to get worse so you can feel better about supporting dubya's crappy war.

....On NBC's "Meet the Press," Vice President Dick Cheney accused Saddam of moving aggressively to develop nuclear weapons over the past 14 months to add to his stockpile of chemical and biological arms.
"Increasingly, we believe that the United States may well become the target of those activities," Cheney said....
....Rice acknowledged that "there will always be some uncertainty" in determining how close Iraq may be to obtaining a nuclear weapon but said, "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud...."

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/08/iraq.debate/

"....Q Well, we went to war, didn't we, to find these -- because we said that these weapons were a direct and imminent threat to the United States? Isn't that true?
MR. FLEISCHER: Absolutely. One of the reasons that we went to war was because of their possession of weapons of mass destruction. And nothing has changed on that front at all. We said what we said because we meant it. We had the intelligence to report it. Secretary Powell said it. And I may point out to you, as you may know, there is a news conference at Department of Defense today at 2:00 p.m. to discuss one element in this.
And so we have always had confidence, we continue to have confidence that WMD will be found. He's had a long period of time to hide what he has in a variety of different places, and there is a whole protocol of the search that is underway, that is being conducted in a very methodical fashion...."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030507-7.html

Or was it all really about GOTV?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/2/1/32436/18281

543,895 votes

by Michael Bersin on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 04:37:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: anti Deanist. (none / 0)

For 5 min think about this. No spin just think.

Why did so many elected Democrats not oppose the war?

Nadar was right the Dems secretly are no different from the GOP. They were scared to oppose the GOP.
Freeing people from Saddam. Striking back at an Arab muslim country after we were struck by an Arab Muslim terrorist movement. The large Chemical weapons stockpile that almost everyone though Saddam still had. Promoting Democracy in the middle east. Providing a strategic foothold near Iran which is a major terrorist supporter. Having military muscle in theater to negociate the Israel-Palestine peace. Having military in theater to lean on Syria and Libia.

Bush is a disaster. Had Colin Powel been president however he could have don't almost everything Bush has done and pulled it off. The war in Afghanistan and the War in Iraq may well go down in history as successful. And that is despite the complete idiot, torturing loving, freedom despising president we have.

Now time to grow up. Are all the elected Dems stupid for not thinking this through or did they get it and you didn't?

by donkeykong on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 04:54:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

anti Deanist. (none / 0)

...Had Colin Powel been president however he could have don't almost everything Bush has done and pulled it off. The war in Afghanistan and the War in Iraq may well go down in history as successful...

Yeah, we'd have ham and eggs, if we had some ham and if we had some eggs.

.....Freeing people from Saddam. Striking back at an Arab muslim country after we were struck by an Arab Muslim terrorist movement. The large Chemical weapons stockpile that almost everyone though Saddam still had. Promoting Democracy in the middle east. Providing a strategic foothold near Iran which is a major terrorist supporter. Having military muscle in theater to negociate the Israel-Palestine peace. Having military in theater to lean on Syria and Libia....

Uh, your rnc Faux News Network spin is showing. While we're in the process of freeing people from tyrants can I ask who's next?

Yeah, this one one makes a lot of sense - Iraq was a secular socialist state in an Arab country - let's strike out at the people who didn't have anything to do with the September 11th terrorist atrocity. Or, are you calling dubya a liar? Or, do you just believe in collective punishment?

Leverage to negotiate an Israeli-Palestinian peace? Uh, this administration would have had to care by participating in and facilitating the peace process, which they instead abandoned and ignored.

Have you noticed that Iran is quaking in their boots?

Oh, by the way, where exactly are those weapons of mass destruction? Or is it it just weapons of mass destruction program related activities now?

Silly me, PNAC predicted all of this...fantasy.

543,895 votes

by Michael Bersin on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 07:58:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why I am an anti Deanist. (none / 0)

Well, it's a shame you have bought into the characterizations without taking the time to look into the substance.

"Deaniacs" are not the "leftmost 5%" as you seem to think. Howard Dean's record as Governor, as well as many of his positions as a candidate, were not the most 'liberal' positions.

Dean's supporters at any rally really look more like a cross-section of America than a Grateful Dead concert.

You should try to learn the reality, not use the media's characterizations, before you render judgements on Dean supporters. After all, we were big enough to put the primaries behind and support all those tired old so-called "New Democrats" who were really the Old Democrats all along... now it's time for us to acknowledge we need a change... and then unite....

Your free to your opinion, but you should keep your mind open enough to look beyond the characterizations, imo...

by DDenver on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 04:48:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why I am an anti Deanist. (none / 0)

"Well, it's a shame you have bought into the characterizations without taking the time to look into the substance."

BS I have been to DailyKos. I have seen it here.

You drank the kool-aid and I didn't.

by donkeykong on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 04:56:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Bull Moose (none / 0)

believes he's channelling Karl Rove; what he doesn't realize is it's Rove, whistling past the graveyard.

by Jeany on Wed Feb 02, 2005 at 12:31:23 AM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.