MyDD :: Not The 2nd Coming Of Dean

Not The 2nd Coming Of Dean

by Natasha Chart, Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 06:09:34 PM EST

There are those Obama supporters who are just deeply bugged that not all the bloggers who supported Howard Dean in 2004 accept the premise that Barack Obama is his Second Coming. And then, painful irony, they often praise Obama's bipartisanship, or ability to work across the aisle, or however they put it.

How's that again? I, for one, don't remember supporting Dean because he was bipartisan. Or because I thought he was the most progressive candidate. I supported him because he called out the fundamentalist takeover of our national dialogue, because he wanted to know what so many Democrats were doing supporting stupid Republican policies. I supported him because he was a partisan Democrat who knew how to sound like a member of the opposition and didn't attack other Democrats, liberals or progressives from the right. He knew what side he was on, even when he said that he wanted to appeal to Republican voters because he thought he could better protect their interests.

The oomph of the netroots back in 2004 was, whichever candidate a person got behind, mostly lined up behind the premise that the Republicans needed to be fought good and hard. As far as I remember, anyway. The Bush Dog campaign, as well as the "more and better Democrats" meme, is the current iteration of that same motive force. The liberal blogosphere was then, and has continued in the mainstay to be, a vehicle for encouraging Democrats to act like an opposition party and criticizing them when they don't.

Now the Obama folks come around after the Donnie McClurkin fiasco, the kiss off to the blogs, and the attack on Krugman, to wrap the Dean 2.0 mantle around Obama's shoulders in expectation that they'll be met with swooning agreement. If not, we must not be real Democrats. We've lost our progressive cred, our fighting spirit, we're sellouts.

Criminy.

I don't hate Obama, and if he wins the primary, I'll vote for him in the general. Like I would any of the other Democrats with a chance at winning. (Thank gods that doesn't include Biden.) But don't tell me Obama's something he isn't.

And don't even get started trying to convince me that bipartisanship is the solution to all our problems. My conviction that bipartisanship means a willingness to cave in Democrats and a refusal to yield in Republicans is if anything even stronger than it was four years ago.

Whomever wins is going to have a hard slog against a Republican party that fights every battle like a cage match to the death. That's just how Republicans operate these days and you have to legislate with the opposition that you have instead of the opposition that you wish you had, as they say. That nominee, and I hope, eventual president, is also going to find that many Democrats who hold bipartisanship as a high ideal are better at attacking fellow Democrats than gearing up to go toe to toe with Republicans for reasons that can only be guessed at.

Tags: Barack Obama, Howard Dean (all tags)

Permalink :: 141 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: Not The 2nd Coming Of Dean (2.00 / 3)

I agree.

Obama has been moving to the right on healhcare and trade. He holds hands with Republicans.

Dean was a Democrat, all the way through. His message was the opposite of bipartisanship. Dean preached that we should be proud Democrats.

Excellent post.

by TomP on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 06:15:25 PM EST

Re: Not The 2nd Coming Of Dean (2.00 / 2)

As Edwards says, quoting Truman, you tell the truth and the Republicans think it's hell. On most of the major issues today it takes a whole bunch of obfuscation to make a bipartisan case.

by MassEyesandEars on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 06:55:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I don't get why a Demo candidate (2.00 / 1)

who attacks progressives, gets lauded on progressive sites.

No less why progressives would support Obama in the primary when he's made it clear he despises both progressives and progressive ideas.

BI-PARTISAN? BI-PARTISAN? Ouch. This seems to be a disease of Democrats who came up during the days that Republican trod on them and called it bi-partisan.

The American voters have made it pretty clear they're tired of that definition of bi-partisanship, and it's Democratic ideals and progressive ideas they want their candidates to get behind.

by judybrowni on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 09:16:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not The 2nd Coming Of Dean (none / 0)

Hmmm. My understanding was that Dean was very pro-free trade.

by mcdave on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 09:25:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

And pro-gun (none / 0)

and for a balanced budget and a bunch of other moderate positions.

The irony is complete. The icon that is held up for adulation could not get the leading Progressive in Vermont to endorse him for President.

by fladem on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 10:27:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

four years ago (none / 0)

I tried to tell people that Kerry was more liberal than Dean. My brother-in-law lived in Vermont for most of Dean's years as governor, and we are well aware of the things he did that angered progressives.

I think most of Dean's support was due to his opposition to the war, which overshadowed everything else in his record.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

by desmoinesdem on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 11:01:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: four years ago (2.00 / 2)

I think what made Dean attractive to a lot of us was that he was a fighter, someone who would run not just for himself but for the Democratic Party. Sure Kerry was more liberal, and probably Clark, Edwards and Gephardt too. But they weren't the same kind of partisan as Dean.

The sharpest criticism often goes hand in hand with the deepest idealism and love of country. ~RFK

by Vox Populi on Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 12:02:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And pro-gun (none / 0)

Dean was no more pro-gun than Bernie Sanders.

You must know what happens to Vermont politicians who bravely don't toe the pro-gun line, such as Congressman Peter Smith, R-Vt. Congressman who? Well, that's right. He had one term. He voted the "wrong" way - i.e. yea - on a gun-control measure. That is why Bernie was able to beat him. Bernie Sanders, the progressive icon.

Now that is ironic!

Dean's fiscal conservatism and centrist governance style was typical of Vermont governors - as was his strong environmental record. But he was ahead of his time in pushing a universal healthcare program in Vermont - and while he didn't succeed in that, he did get kids covered.

Keep it short. DemocraticShortList.com

by Rob in Vermont on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 11:38:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

IIRC (none / 0)

Jeffords stood up to the gun lobby.

The truth is Dean wasn't all that different from Snelling. The big things that happened in his term were the result of the Vermont Surpreme Court, and not his leadership.

He was certainly no partisan. In fact, partisanship in Vermont never sold while I was there.

by fladem on Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 12:58:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IIRC (none / 0)

The big things that happened in his term were the result of the Vermont Surpreme Court, and not his leadership.

Oh, I think that's a stretch, but to the degree that the court was the driving force on issues such as education funding and civil unions, you might wanna give Dean some credit for his Supreme Court appointments.

You're right, he did not govern in a partisan way. Over the years, he took some positions that irked progressives and he took some positions that irked conservatives. As I mentioned elsewhere in this thread, he wore his highly partisan hat on the national scene - at Democratic rallies, as a presidential candidate, and as party chair - but not as governor.

That's not surprising.

Keep it short. DemocraticShortList.com

by Rob in Vermont on Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 08:41:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The irony of this post, and this diary (2.00 / 1)

is that as Governor of Vermont, Dean was VERY bipartisan.

I came of political age and first met Howard Dean at a Chittenden County Democratic Party Meeting in 1982.

I have NEVER been able to square the technocratic moderate who governed Vermont with his image among the netroots.

by fladem on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 10:07:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

the DEAN campaign (none / 0)

is the point of reference here. I think you miss the point entirely.

by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 10:41:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

And my point (none / 0)

is that the argument is based on a wrong assumption: that Dean is the gold standard for progressives.

The post here proceeds from a mistaken premise which I am trying to correct.

Have I still missed the point.

by fladem on Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 12:04:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

imo, yes (2.00 / 1)

I did say that I didn't support him because he was the most progressive, I supported him because he was a bare-knuckled partisan. I knew there were issues the other candidates, even back then, were more liberal on.

His gold-standardness, if that's how you want to term it, rested in challenging the boilerplate Democratic rhetoric of compromise and putting the Republicans on the defensive. If that dynamic couldn't be shifted, I believed then and still do, it wouldn't matter how progressive anyone claimed their policies were.

We'd spent all the time from 9/11 to Dean's breakout tiptoeing around, wishing the Democrats would quit offering to cede territory to the Republicans before they were even asked. Pretty soon, he'd made it all right for other Democrats to criticize Republicans. Just like in 2006, Ned Lamont finally made it all right for Democrats to criticize the war, because he spoke up without fear, and lo and behold, the damn world didn't just up and come to an end.

The Democrats need to fight. And they need to know that they need to fight. Or a marginally better policy proposal on one issue or another isn't going to matter because the dang thing would never even come to a vote in the first place.

People talked a lot about electability last time, and they're still talking about it now. It's mostly a stupid argument, and if the repeated polls have shown anything, it's that any of our frontrunners are electable. Which is to say that, looking at their picture-to-date and bio, voters won't reject any of them out of hand.

But I have a different opinion of what makes a Democrat electable: Someone who isn't afraid to brawl or be unpopular, who doesn't give an inch, who won't be pushed around, won't play into the 'nice Democrat, what good manners you have, you win a cookie and a head pat' storyline.

The candidate I wanted isn't running. No Gore for me. My second pick candidate isn't running, either. No Feingold for me.

I don't want to run down our candidates, but I also think it's probably going to be about a decade before the country is ready for someone who would be a first choice for me as a presidential candidate. And I think that a strong progressive change would be best helped at present by altering the balance of power in Congress towards progressives, because we do now have a conservative supermajority in both chambers, and looking at what we can do to affect the leadership races and committee chair positions.

Given a strong progressive caucus, and a liberal majority, any one of these candidates could likely do more good than even Gore himself were he matched with the Congressional class of 2004.

by Natasha Chart on Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 01:10:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And my point (none / 0)

Yes. The Dean CAMPAIGN. Not the Dean Governorship.

by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 10:22:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The irony of this post, and this diary (none / 0)

I have NEVER been able to square the technocratic moderate who governed Vermont with his image among the netroots.

Well, his political persona was entirely different when he wore the hat of a partisan Democrat on the national scene, compared to when he was wearing his governor's hat. This goes back further than the 2004 cycle. I remember seeing him give a speech on C-SPAN, some years before he ran for president, at a Democratic party conference in New Hampshire. He was all fired up, rallying the party faithful, bashing Republicans. I'd never before seen him in this partisan mode. And that, of course, is the mode he was in when he was running for president, and for party chairman. So of course that is the image the netroots have of him.

Keep it short. DemocraticShortList.com

by Rob in Vermont on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 11:05:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not The 2nd Coming Of Dean (none / 0)

And Dean was true to his word--even when he lost--he changed the DNC despite all powerful people resisting.

That is a leader. He persists for what he thinks is right even if in the beginning nobody yet believes him. Eventually, people start to believe and now even Hillary is singing praises to the 50 state strategy.

Dean reaches out to evangelists--not to find common ground--but to tell the truth about Democrats and how Democrats really are closer to Jesus teachings than Republicans.

He reaches out to Republican voters not to appear bipartisan but to sell them the Democratic Party--that Dems is really the party that have their real economic and significant needs at heart and will do something about it.

Dean never disappoints.

by jasmine on Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 09:12:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

This is precisely why, I am lukewarm about Obama (none / 0)

even though I am now supporting him and have given him money.

For us to accomplish anything in our progressive agenda, we need a fighter, NOT someone willing to compromise BEFORE even setting foot at the negotiating table.

A few observations:

- Republicans don't have to compromise to get things done.

- Republicans don't have to win much over 50% of the vote to get things done.

- The Republicans running on their side for the nomination are DECIDEDLY choosing to run on NOT compromising with the Democrats and their "liberal" agenda.

YET, with Obama, these things seem like the truth:

- Democrats need to be bipartisan and include Republicans, even when they hate us.

- Democrats need supermajorities in the Congress to pass ANYTHING at all, even though the GOP gets major overhauls with only one vote over fifty percent in each house.

- Republicans can force filibuster on everything, whereas we cannot force one on anything...even when we have a majority.

I am sorry, but something tells me, whether it's unintentional or not, Obama is exacerbating this narrative and is adding to the problem.

I wish I was more confident in his ability to fight. This ain't the fucking general election, yet Obama is ALREADY compromising. Even if it's for show, it's damaging our brand and our ability to enact our agenda in 2009.

McCain is defining Obama, and Obama is neither defining himself, nor McCain. This is awful.

by jgarcia on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 06:23:06 PM EST

hmmm (none / 0)

You need to look at the big picture.

Obama has climbed back into the race by subtly fighting HIllary will light jabs. It's a different strategy that brute force that many bloggers advocate...but it can also work IF AND ONLY IF you have a likable politician imploying it.

by mcdave on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 09:54:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not The 2nd Coming Of Dean (2.00 / 1)

I believe Obama is running the Edwards campaign of 2004, right down to the campaign leadership of David Axelrod. He's the cautious, hope-based candidate with little experience, a cute family and a nice life story.

The sharpest criticism often goes hand in hand with the deepest idealism and love of country. ~RFK

by Vox Populi on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 06:24:38 PM EST

Re: Not The 2nd Coming Of Dean (none / 0)

Agreed. That's why I found Edwards distasteful then and find Obama distasteful now. (This year I'm supporting Edwards.)

by lorax on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 10:52:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not The 2nd Coming Of Dean (none / 0)

Terrific, Natasha. There's been a case of amnesia that happened to Democrats after the stunning 2006 victory, whereby anything previous to then is assumed to be ancient history and all that we Democrats need is for a Presidential candidate to be nominated, no matter who it is or what their record is or how they wage their camapign --it's just all a personality contest for us to elect whatever our excitement can imagine-- and presto, Democrats will win the 2008 election.

It's a nightmare to me to consider what Obama would be like in the general election against McCain.

by Jerome Armstrong on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 06:33:13 PM EST

Re: Not The 2nd Coming Of Dean (2.00 / 1)

The irony is that you are asking the Democrats to do the opposite of what they did in 2004. Dean was in our hearts, but the party chose Kerry and we made a huge mistake.

Now, you want the party to repeat what it did in 2004. Namely, to reject what's in their heart (Obama) and go with whomever can stack up best against the GOP nominee strategically.

It's funny how the dumbass Democrats always choose wrongly.

McCain is defining Obama, and Obama is neither defining himself, nor McCain. This is awful.

by jgarcia on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 06:47:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not The 2nd Coming Of Dean (none / 0)

You have to realize that the environment is ripe for Dean's message whereas it wasn't in 2004. The public had not completely given up on the conservative agenda and Bush enough good will left from 9/11 to squeak back into office. This is not the year to pick someone who already concedes everything to the Republicans.

If Obama's main objective is working across the aisle, then he should stay in the Senate where that type of mind set works well.

No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!

by Ga6thDem on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 06:54:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not The 2nd Coming Of Dean (none / 0)

The Democrats need to think about what they are doing in real world common sense terms. Not because of a slogan like ABB or feel good language or other such nonsense, but where they are being motivated by overall goals and values of the party. At the core of all of this, including this diary, is 'fight for our core values."

by bruh21 on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 07:03:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not The 2nd Coming Of Dean (2.00 / 2)

Did you even read this post, beyond what you needed to glean that its tilt was anti-Obama? Doesn't look like it. The point is that Obama does not merit the comparison.

I frankly don't want to meet anyone who has Obama "in their heart." That's not someone who's thought things through--in fact, people who are passionately behind any candidate this year, any of them at all, pretty much have a screw loose. The smart people are weighing or have weighed choices they know to be deeply imperfect.

So, yeah, watch the "dumbass" language.

by epenthesis on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 07:17:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not The 2nd Coming Of Dean (none / 0)

"choices they know to be deeply imperfect"

I haven't summed it up better myself.

by Jerome Armstrong on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 08:05:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not The 2nd Coming Of Dean (none / 0)

When exactly has any party ever had a "perfect" candidate since George Washington?

IMO, we're choosing among 3 candidates who are all better than anything that has come around in many, many years. Nothing to complain about.

The truth about McCain

by nstrauss on Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 02:32:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Not in my heart (2.00 / 1)

In my heart, I want a nominee who wants Democrats to stand for Democratic values. My heart wants a fighter. My heart wants Edwards.

My head also thinks Edwards would be the best general election candidate.

I do believe there are plenty of people with Obama in the hearts. Unfortunately I think they are focusing solely on him and not the Democratic party in general.

by sinclair on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 07:52:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not The 2nd Coming Of Dean (none / 0)

Obama is in whose heart?

I recall looking at his campaign with one good look, a fair look (and go back and read the archives here from Dec & Jan a year ago if you doubt it), and deciding that it was a campaign that basically took the movement style of the Dean campaign, deleted the progressive partisan substance, so it would have corporate appeal, and marketed to the masses based on a personality. Everything since then has confirmed it.

The only ones that are in love with Obama now are the ones that fell for the gimmick the first half of the year, and they are left to continually justifying it by castigating anyone that thinks otherwise. For others even more overboard, they are so far gone that it's a cult of personality: Obama! Oprah! marketing pizazz for President-- and they suggest anyone that argues otherwise is a racist.

by Jerome Armstrong on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 08:03:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not The 2nd Coming Of Dean (none / 0)

People are in love with the IDEA of Obama and not Obama himself.

They seem to be projecting what's in their fantasies onto a guy running for president named Barack Obama.

And that concerns me. Because I think he's going to win the nomination and we may actually lose because of it. But, to quote Bill Clinton, I'd rather "roll the dice" and choose Obama then have a surefire centrist with Hillary.

McCain is defining Obama, and Obama is neither defining himself, nor McCain. This is awful.

by jgarcia on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 08:31:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not The 2nd Coming Of Dean (1.00 / 2)

Obama is not going to win the nomination. He will do very well in the first four states, they have a top-notch organizing team of strategists, but after that he will fail.

by Jerome Armstrong on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 10:43:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama is in GE mode (none / 0)

The way he's campaigning right now, bu moving to the "center," that sounds like positioning for November.

by mikelow1885 on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 11:58:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not The 2nd Coming Of Dean (none / 0)

Indeed. Unfortunately, you get attacked if you make these points. Primary season is always ridiculous but Obama's online supporters have been off the charts. I'll offend some fols with this, but it is creepy cult like stuff.

by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 09:36:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not The 2nd Coming Of Dean (none / 0)

Funny you should mention amnesia. John Kerry was the "establishment" candidate in 2004. A long-term senator from a liberal state. Yet in 2008, you've got your money on the "establishment" candidate, a long-term senator from a liberal state. This is too hilarious. You can't write stuff this good.

"Life can only be understood backwards, but it must be lived forward." - Soren Kierkegaard

by SixthElement on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 09:37:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not The 2nd Coming Of Dean (none / 0)

By your logic, we should clearly be supporting Richardson, since he's the governor in the race. It's solely job title we're picking for now?

by Natasha Chart on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 11:15:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Ill tell you one thing (none / 0)

Obama would be a hell of a lot better than Clinton. I watched from 1995 to 2001 as her and Bill let the Republican Congress run the show completely and were happy to just get table scraps from the Republicans. We cannot work with Republicans after what they have done to us for the past year. Never again.

by Toddwell on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 06:34:28 PM EST

Re: Ill tell you one thing (2.00 / 2)

exactly. Any rejection of Obama should not mean turning to the Clintons. They are, afterall, why we are in this mess to begin with.

When you are as poll-driven as Hillary and Bill are, it is a natural occurence that you are in a conservative country because if you are busy only REACTING to polls, you have no time left to DRIVE the agenda and CREATE the opinions of society.

Rove knew this and the Bush Administration actually MADE the opinion on certain issues liek Iraq and WMD. The Clintons have ZERO talent, ability, or even desire to make public opinion. They only react to it. I hate that shit.

Bill Clinton's entire administration was a whole lotta nothing and ended up handing the whole kit and kaboodle to the Bush neocons.

Not again.

McCain is defining Obama, and Obama is neither defining himself, nor McCain. This is awful.

by jgarcia on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 06:44:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ill tell you one thing (none / 0)

Well- on that I mostly agree. I think policy wise we are unlikely to see much difference, but I do think the Clintons are more likely to accomplish their goals because they aren't beholden to the "why can't we all just get along" crowd. I know too many Obama supporters who really do believe things will be different merely because it's Obama.

by bruh21 on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 07:05:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ill tell you one thing (none / 0)

The problem with the Clinton's is that they just let the opposition set the agenda, as they did through 1995 to 2001. Whenever they would try to come up with a plan for anything(healthcare, taxes, ect), they would allow Republicans to attack it and kill it. The Clinton's usually take a "follow the leader" approach to governing and thats not something we need again.

by Toddwell on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 07:21:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ill tell you one thing (none / 0)

Well yes, but here we are arguing over which is worse rather than which is better- kill your plans before you start or follow gthe leader so that the plans you come up with you throw under the bus? The later only marginally is better in that there is some hope that more will slip through without falling under the bus while the later guarantees that what ever you want may not even be on the table because in teh name of 'bipartisanship" Obama won't even put it on the table at all. Obama is still my second choice of the top three because of the trust factor with the Clinton's, but I am under no illusion about the flaws of his leadership style. or for that matter of edwards or clinton. of the three, i choose edwards because at least he's offering a new leadership style rather than rehashing the same thing the parties has been doing since 1992.

by bruh21 on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 07:25:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ill tell you one thing (none / 0)

And Obama has followed other leaders since he entered the Senate. The manner whereby he does and does not cast votes in the Senate is illustrative of this tendency.

by truthteller2007 on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 07:28:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ill tell you one thing (none / 0)

let me be clear- i dont think you are going to get the GOP to act differently unless you do things that aren't predictable in terms of what moves they should make. It's absolutely ironic to me that Obama argues what he does given even after a win of the Congress we are still playing by the same rules so that the GOP regularly wins by simply knowing how the Democrats will play the game. Ironic, sad and a wee bit pathetic. In a perfect world I would have a kind of Frankestein monster of a candidate- Edwards leadership and smart, Obama's appeal and CLinton's political abilities. But this isn't tha world so I take the one that's unpredictable and least likely for the GOP to control.

by bruh21 on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 07:29:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not The 2nd Coming Of Dean (2.00 / 1)

I am not buying the premise here. Especially when I compare Obama to the other top tier Dem candidates. Which among them can we really say is any more a fighter than the others? Edwards has more fire in his rhetoric and I actually would be happy to have him win. But it is ineteresting how he converted once he got out of the senate. Clinton will fight dirty (stoop low enough to exploit race)and as we all know she is a master of triangulation. This arch type of a belt way insider will not acomplish anything but resurrecting the Dixiecrat. And in case you all have forgotten St. Howard (to use your terms) who I voted for governed as a pro-gun centrist. So why is Obama up for extra scrutiny? Who compared him to Dean? Name the names or give urls to the blog postings please.

by TMP on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 06:34:58 PM EST

Noen of them if you like (none / 0)

That OBAMA is not what you describe is the point of THIS DIARY.

by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 09:38:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

former Deaniacs in Iowa (none / 0)

are very divided between Edwards and Obama, with each side feeling strongly that all former Dean supporters should be with their current candidate.

I only know of a couple of former Dean supporters who are with Hillary.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

by desmoinesdem on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 07:04:02 PM EST

I spoke with a senior person in NH at length (1.00 / 1)

today and he can't really find ANYONE for Hillary beyond the establishment officials. None of the activists are for her.

He went canvassing in Concord and found 1 Clinton supporter. The activists are split between Obama and Edwards (though Richardson has some support).

by fladem on Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 12:16:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I spoke with a senior person in NH at length (none / 0)

today and he can't really find ANYONE for Hillary beyond the establishment officials.

Strange, then about 25% of all NHers must be establishment officials.

The truth about McCain

by nstrauss on Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 02:47:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not The 2nd Coming Of Dean (none / 0)

Never remotely thought he was another Howard Dean. Not in the least.

by rikyrah on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 07:04:47 PM EST

Re: Not The 2nd Coming Of Dean (none / 0)

Christ-on-a-stick, I was a Dean Meet-up coordinator and volunteered for a week at the Iowa caucus for Dean, so I know-of where I speak and comparing Dean to Obama is just plain goofy. In their fervid imaginations the man I call the Imaginary Obama might look like Dean, but frankly, all this bipartisanship talk is more Liebermanesque. Hell, Obama ain't even looking like Kerry.

"Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest." -- Denis Diderot

by Stoic on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 07:20:47 PM EST

I don't get Dean supporters (none / 0)

for Obama. The thing is, he REALLY believes in Kumbya politics. It's not just rhetoric. No one who supports Obama should expect him to become any sort of partisan president.

formerly bookgirl

by masslib1 on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 07:22:20 PM EST

Re: I don't get Dean supporters (none / 0)

But that is the rorcschach of his candidacy is it not?

by bruh21 on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 07:27:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't get Dean supporters (none / 0)

I hear alot of people tell me they think Obama is going to go partisan once he gets into the WH, or atleast acknowledge that Dem's and Repub's have diverging priorities for the most part. But perhaps that is what you mean. That people ascribe their own beliefs onto Obama.

formerly bookgirl

by masslib1 on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 07:31:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't get Dean supporters (none / 0)

Rorschach Candidate:

You ask a group of people what do they think of what candidate Y said about issue X or you ask them what do you think of candidate Y? Given what the candidate has specifically said, if each person is coming up with their own perception (and often doesn't realize they are doing it) and these perceptions if taken together are not only incompatable but conflicting (he's so smart he's faking it, he's smart because he know's he needs to compromise- which is it? because it can't be both) then I tend to call that a Rorshach candidate. Here, with the "He's like Dean, He's not like Dean" debate. Really, it's people projecting what they want him to be onto an pretty amorphous candidate who is smart enough to let people do the projecting on to his skillfully never quite going left or right language.

by bruh21 on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 07:41:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't get Dean supporters (none / 0)

Yeah, it's skillful alright. Except I disagree. I think liberals believe he's one of them because of the breif speech he gave opposing the Iraq war. He has always been quite upfront about his kumbya approach to politics, and he attracts those voters as well. The more liberal wing doesn't see it.

formerly bookgirl

by masslib1 on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 07:45:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't get Dean supporters (none / 0)

I agree in part. Definitely on the war. His record in Congress doesn't reflect his speech in 2004 and yet most gloss over that with "he doesn't have a choice between he wants to be responsible while we are at war." Convenient analysis that allows them to focus only on the first act of going to war rather than subsequent actions.

by bruh21 on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 07:53:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't get Dean supporters (none / 0)

Well, that and he wasn't in the Senate at the time.

formerly bookgirl

by masslib1 on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 08:00:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't get Dean supporters (none / 0)

thats the core point. he wasn't in the senate. its easy to find virtue in something that requires no accountability. its harder to find it with a complicated candidate. idealism is important, but so is looking at the truth of a candidates record.

by bruh21 on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 11:24:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't get Dean supporters (none / 0)

We have Obama's voting record, and he's consistently voted the party line.

That sounds pretty partisan to me.

If you want to be an effective president, you have to appeal to a majority of the electorate. That doesn't mean that you're sacrificing your values.

The truth about McCain

by nstrauss on Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 02:53:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

here's why some former Dean supporters (none / 0)

are for Obama, as far as I can tell:

1. 2002 vote on AUMF is an absolute deal-breaker for them. That rules out Clinton, Edwards, Biden and Dodd, and also Richardson, since he was not an early opponent of the war.

Alternatively,

2. There was a romantic aspect to Dean's people-powered movement (record crowds, buzz in the air, massive online community). Some people are drawn to Obama for similar reasons.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

by desmoinesdem on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 07:46:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: here's why some former Dean supporters (none / 0)

I agree with this too- the one guy I know who is ferrent supproter- ie, going down to canvas in other states was variously a Nadar supporter in 2000, Dean in 2004 and now Obama. There's a pattern of behavior that fits.

by bruh21 on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 07:54:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: here's why some former Dean supporters (none / 0)

Well, I think it naive to assume he woud have voted against AUMF. He may have, but his record doesn't really demonstrate that, IMO. So, to vote just based on that is unfortunate. Dean's movement was about the poeple, I find Obama's movement to be about Obama. I liked Dean. Kerry was my Senator but I was more drawn to Dean and Clark. I just don't think there are a whole lot of similarities, but to each their own.

formerly bookgirl

by masslib1 on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 08:03:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I agree with you (none / 0)

Just look at Obama on funding the war--as a candidate for Senate, he said Democrats should stand up to Bush and not get "steamrolled," but as a senator, he voted for every Iraq War supplemental except for the last one.

I am far from convinced that Obama would have voted against the AUMF if he had been in the Senate at the time.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

by desmoinesdem on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 08:54:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yeah, I don't see it at all. (none / 0)

I guess it's a purity thing. Some Dem's want to just feel like they are not voting for anyone who voted for AUMF. Then they reach a candidate by process of elimination.

formerly bookgirl

by masslib1 on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 09:11:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yeah, I don't see it at all. (none / 0)

these Dems you speak of, the pure ones, seem like the very Dems who are Nader voters at heart. I'd bet many even voted nader in 2000, yet are still holier-than-thou. I hate those types.

My problems or potential problems with any of the candidates has nothing to do with Iraq.

McCain is defining Obama, and Obama is neither defining himself, nor McCain. This is awful.

by jgarcia on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 09:27:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yeah, I don't see it at all. (none / 0)

Yes, I see by you tagline. We immensely disagee on Ms. Clinton. However, I would suggest that based on Kyl-Lieberman, Edwards is far more suitable than Obama, who niether participated in the vote, or spoke up about it until after the fact.

formerly bookgirl

by masslib1 on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 10:14:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yeah, I don't see it at all. (none / 0)

I would never vote for Nader (as a third party candidate) in a million years, but I still rank Iraq as the number one issue.

And it's not really a matter of difference between the candidates' solutions to the problem. I'd trust Clinton, Edwards, and Obama to solve the mess and get us out.

The problem I have is with electability. Obama was against the war from the start and, most importantly, didn't vote for the war in 2002. Edwards and Clinton, though, have electability problems because they did vote for the war. I don't want a repeat of 2004 with our candidate switching positions. I want our candidate to have gotten it right the first time.

Do you really want Huckabee, Romney, or Rudy to stand next to our nominee at the debate and say, "I didn't vote for this war. You did."

by Kal on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 10:34:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yeah, I don't see it at all. (none / 0)

Huckabee or Romney are not going to say that. They think that the war is a good thing so why would they attack someone for voting for a war that the majority of their party supports. As far as Obama goes, well, he voted to continue funding the war so he would have the same issue. If you're against it, why did you continue to fund it? You could have voted no right?

No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!

by Ga6thDem on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 10:57:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yeah, I don't see it at all. (none / 0)

Politically speaking, it would be a great line for the Republicans to deliver. As it stands now, their position is somewhere between "We probably shouldn't have gone in, but we have to see it out 'til the end" and "The idea of going in was fine, but it was poorly executed." Very few Republicans support everything we've done in Iraq for the past four years. None of the Presidential candidates have that viewpoint. They all criticize something.

And voting to go to war is a much more salient and understandable issue than the war funding. The authorization of use of military force is a clear-cut issue, while voting for the funding can and will be mucked up. Either you voted for the war or you didn't--that's easy. But when it comes to the funding, you can vote to fund the war, vote for money for the troops, vote against the troops, vote to bring the troops home, vote to deny them resources, etc. There are so many ways to spin it that, politically speaking, you cannot compare the Iraq War authorization vote with the subsequent funding votes.

by Kal on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 11:10:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yeah, I don't see it at all. (none / 0)

Where were you in 2004? Of course funding is going to be an issue. Obama himself called declining to fund the war "playing chicken with the troops" but then later on voted against funding. When did he decide that not funding was no longer playing chicken with the troops? He's waffled all around the issue and will be an easy target.

And just because you see the AUMF as the end all and be all doesn't mean that the voting public will see it. The public supported it in the beginning so they are in the same place that Hillary/Edwards are with this.

No Republican says that they shouldn't have gone in except for Ron Paul who has a snowball's chance in hell of getting the nomination. They all say it's been poorly prosecuted because that's saying the obvious. All of them are for staying in for the long haul except Paul who has a better stance than most Dems.

No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!

by Ga6thDem on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 11:43:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yeah, I don't see it at all. (none / 0)

Obama has a very easy out when it comes to the funding. Something along the lines of: "I voted for the funding to support the troops, but I couldn't vote for George Bush's/John McCain's surge."

And, like I said, funding can be spun a dozen different ways. You can't do that with the original bill to go to war.

Do you really think the average American would be more willing to support someone who was duped by the Bush administration than someone who had the judgment and vision to get it right the first time? It is a sign of weakness and an electoral liability to be forced to say "I'm gullible." The public doesn't want a President who's as fallible as they are. They want Superman. As much as I respect Edwards and his willingness to learn from past mistakes, the public wants a candidate who is right 100% of the time, is all things to all people, and who has a clear and understandable platform. See: Bush vs. Kerry.

I can definitely see a Republican saying, "We can argue for days about whether or not we should have gone in. But the Senator here did vote for the war. Now our job is to figure out how to stabilize the region that these Washington insiders have messed up. They broke Iraq, and we bought it."

As Iraq gets worse (or, more importantly, as public opinion regarding the war gets worse), the Republicans will try even harder to distance themselves from the war and pin the blame on Bush or anyone else. I know I'll feel a lot better having a candidate who was against the war from the start.

by Kal on Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 12:49:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yeah, I don't see it at all. (none / 0)

Again you might be right if Obama hadn't used the phrase "playing chicken with the troops."

GOP: When did Obama decide to start playing chicken with the troops? They're using his own words here against him.

You're elevating the AUMF to the utmost important thing in the minds of voters whereas I don't think that they will care. McCain polls very well against Obama and he voted for the AUMF.

No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!

by Ga6thDem on Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 08:43:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I think the AUMF (none / 0)

vote is the deal braker for many.

It very nearly was for me.

by fladem on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 10:29:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think the AUMF (none / 0)

Exactly. It's a very strong lure.

If Iraq is going to continue to be a major issue in 2008, and the Democrats are going to have an anti-Iraq platform, wouldn't it be grand to have a candidate who has been against the conflict from the start? Obama has a position that can be marketed as being consistent.

Edwards and Clinton, on the other hand, will have more trouble marketing their stance on the war. Edwards will have to explain how he was duped and then did a complete 180, while Clinton will have to explain the details of her nuanced position.

For electoral victory and selling your candidate, simple is better. I think Bush definitively proved that in 2004 when his "straight-forward, you know where he stands" platform beat out Kerry/Edwards' "Nuances/Explanation needed" platform.

by Kal on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 11:15:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think the AUMF (none / 0)

Unless we ignore reality and the lessons of 2006, Iraq will be in the number one issue in 2008. Therefore, our nominee better have a solid (or at least defendable) record on the issue.

We're not trying to win over the conspiracy-theory Republicans who see every newspaper and encyclopedia and full of liberal propaganda. We're trying to win over the more apolitical independent/moderate. These people trust the news. These people doubted Kerry after the Swiftboaters and turned against the war after they had seen too many charred bodies. It is with those people that having one clear position on Iraq will be a big winner.

Frankly, I see Hillary's position on Iraq as being a repeat of 2004. It makes sense to me. I can understand why she voted the way she did. However, to most people out there, her stance(s) will be just as confusing as Kerry and Edwards' stances were in 2004. Her position requires way too much explanation to be understood by the people who have better things to do than read policy papers. Edwards would be slightly more marketable ("I was lied to and it was a mistake"), but Obama's would be the best.

I think Edwards, Clinton, and Obama will all be excellent Presidents. But I think Obama is the most marketable because of his early opposition to the war.

by Kal on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 11:39:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think the AUMF (none / 0)

Its a deal breaker because we were betrayed by the dems in congress. They should have stood up to Bush and the patriotic--damn near fascist-- crap that was being shoved down our throats. But instead they capitulated. We felt very alone and betrayed.

You let them off the hook if you support Clinton or Edwards.

by aiko on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 11:53:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think the AUMF (none / 0)

When I think about Edwards, Dodd, Clinton, and Biden's vote for the war, all I can think is, "What in the world did Byrd, Durbin, Chafee, Wellstone, and freakin' Ron Paul know that those guys didn't?"

by Kal on Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 12:37:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think the AUMF (none / 0)

Okay but Obama wants to capitulate to these people even before anything gets going. I think perhaps Clinton and Edwards have learned their lesson but Obama hasn't. He wants to use the same strategy that Pelosi and Reid use-negotiating from a point of weakness.

No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!

by Ga6thDem on Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 08:46:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: here's why some former Dean supporters (none / 0)

As a former Dean supporter who's now an Obama supporter, may I suggest another option:

3. They like Dean and Obama for completely different reasons, i.e. they believe there is more than one way to run for president.

The truth about McCain

by nstrauss on Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 02:57:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not The 2nd Coming Of Dean (2.00 / 1)

I supported him because he called out the fundamentalist takeover of our national dialogue

This is why I became involved in politics, and this is why I oppose Obama, who is a symptom of and not a solution to fundamentalist hegemony. His religious rhetoric is offensive, and I do not believe it has any role in American politics. And can anyone ignore the McClurkin gay bashing tour in SC?

by truthteller2007 on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 07:32:21 PM EST

Re: Not The 2nd Coming Of Dean (none / 0)

He's a lot like Dean, but better. Dean the Baptist delivered his head on a platter, the messiah follows with broader appeal and a more inclusive message. Loaves and fishes to locusts and honey. We won't say who is Salomé in this parable, but the comparison is surprisingly apt. Merry Christmas.

by Shaun Appleby on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 08:00:51 PM EST

Re: Not The 2nd Coming Of Dean (none / 0)

Anything and everything is surprisingly apt when one succumbs to an utterly tendentious allegorical impulse.

by truthteller2007 on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 08:06:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not The 2nd Coming Of Dean (none / 0)

Funny you should mention impulse.

"Life can only be understood backwards, but it must be lived forward." - Soren Kierkegaard

by SixthElement on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 08:10:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not The 2nd Coming Of Dean (none / 0)

Pascal on prolepsis comes to mind unbidden. I recommend the French, not the English translation.

by truthteller2007 on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 08:10:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not The 2nd Coming Of Dean (2.00 / 2)

Dean is Moses leading us out of the wilderness, he can't enter the promise land, but Obama sure ain't Joshua, maybe he's Caleb.

by Jerome Armstrong on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 08:13:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not The 2nd Coming Of Dean (none / 0)

If we ever had a Moses I would have guessed Lincoln. Moses united the tribes of Egypt with Abraham's flock, from memory.

by Shaun Appleby on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 11:00:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not The 2nd Coming Of Dean (none / 0)

How is he like Dean?

by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 09:39:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not The 2nd Coming Of Dean (none / 0)

An insurgent purist who attracts a strong and loyal following but to whom notoriety is fatal. But a pioneer of new constituencies. The message is carried on by others, using the core group of followers of the Baptist, but enjoys a wider appeal from a less ascetic and more forgiving messenger. As for Salome, well, it seems to fit too. It was a brutal year for Dean supporters.

by Shaun Appleby on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 10:58:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Dean Lost, Obama is something new (none / 0)

Dean was the candidate of small donors. By the end of the year, he had around 260K? 280K donors? Obama is sitting at 459,975 Unique donors. Obama has outdeaned Dean.

Dean was also the candidate of big crowds. Dean had crowds around what size? While Obama has had a crowd of 28K in Columbia, SC - 23K in New York City, NY - 20K in Austin, TX - 10K in Oakland, CA. Obama has outdeaned Dean.

People keep trying to compare the two, when in reality, Obama is something different.

"Life can only be understood backwards, but it must be lived forward." - Soren Kierkegaard

by SixthElement on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 08:06:33 PM EST

Re: Dean Lost, Obama is something new (2.00 / 4)

That's the essence of the Obama Movement, isn't it-- seeing only the concept of numbers, and marketing them even better by leaving out the substance.

by Jerome Armstrong on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 08:22:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dean Lost, Obama is something new (2.00 / 1)

What is your problem Jerome? These are parts of what made Dean, Dean. He wouldn't have had such fluent fundraising if he didn't have a strong appeal to small donors. If he didn't have a strong appeal to small donors, he never would have had a serious run for the white house. If he didn't have big crowds, how would his campaign flex the energy and keep people on their feet with excitement? A campaign that's purely substance is determined to lose.

If you think the Obama campaign has left out substance, I'd be happy to hear what campaign you're watching. You're the guy posting on the frontpage criticizing his Health Care Plan. How can you criticize a plan if he has no substance? Please, bring the conversation ABOVE a 2nd grader status. Quit the petty arguments and bring something real.

"Life can only be understood backwards, but it must be lived forward." - Soren Kierkegaard

by SixthElement on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 09:35:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Read him again (2.00 / 3)

Dean got small donors based on WHAT HE SAID and STOOD FOR, not because of his "charisma." Obama has very little in common with Dean on substance.

by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 09:42:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Except that they were both against the (none / 0)

War before it started.

I am surprised how quickly this gets lost.

Beyond that I would argue their political backgrounds are very similiar. But then I was a Vermont resident from 1980 to 2000 and never understood how Dean was elevated to Sainthood.

by fladem on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 10:32:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Except that they were both against the (none / 0)

The reason it gets lost is what happened subsequent. i really have a problem with selective analysis that leaves out inconvenient facts. Candidates must be looked at in their entire approach. Not simply one moment that was symbolic.

by bruh21 on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 11:19:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The CAMPAIGN (none / 0)

See, you can asking us to judge Dean thr Governor, not Dean the candidate.

by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 12:08:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dean Lost, Obama is something new (none / 0)

Given your constant criticisms of Obama's policy positions, this comment of yours makes no sense. Are you pretending to be dense again?

by Kal on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 10:29:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dean Lost, Obama is something new (none / 0)

On voting day numbers count for a lot.

by Shaun Appleby on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 11:01:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dean Lost, Obama is something new (none / 0)

Will Oprah serve as a precinct captain on 5 FEB? Will McClurkin manage a GOTV operation in gay precincts in NYC?

by truthteller2007 on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 11:59:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dean Lost, Obama is something new (none / 0)

No, but the boatload of cash Obama has sure will come in handy. ;)

by Kal on Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 12:34:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Numbers (none / 0)

Hmmm. My understanding of elections is that they are based on numbers. Numbers of volunteers, numbers of dollars raised, and finally, numbers of people that come to the polls. The ultimate irony is that Obama is being criticized (by you) for getting tons of people interested in politics...rock star crowds a a political event? Shame on him!

Is his message fluffy and annoying to political jocks like us? Sure. But does it get people excited and lead them to take political action? We'll see...

by mcdave on Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 12:37:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

After Dean, politics became something new (none / 0)

Don't confuse the campaign tactics and historical trends, as well as far more widespread voter outrage over the administration, with a basis for straightforward comparison. It's apples and oranges.

If you want to really come to it, the support structure of the Ron Paul campaign is probably more like Dean's. (The humorlessness about all of this is enough that I guess I should add the obligatory disclaimer: I absolutely oppose Ron Paul as a candidate and wouldn't vote for him in the general.) Which is to say that it came out of nowhere and the big, successful ideas have been coming from grassroots supporters as much as the campaign staff.

Yes, Obama is popular. But he's been campaigning for a year by now. By this time in 2003, Dean had been getting some attention over the summer and started getting crowds numbering in the thousands in late August, early September ... which was earlier than anyone had ever started getting crowds that big. It changed the whole game. This time, everyone started campaigning just about as soon as the hangovers wore off from celebrating the 2006 election, after they'd already been testing the waters for a while.

The entire cycle has become attenuated. MySpace and FaceBook are on the scene in a way they weren't in 2003-2004, and don't underestimate the impact of that. All the candidates have interactive websites with blogs and comments, while back then, Dean was the first.

That campaign started it off, even though they lost, which was to some extent about the new structures they employed as much as the candidate. Even the Kerry campaign changed because of it, and his 2004 general election run was other than it would have been, with a more interactive online presence and an unprecedented number of small donors. What has Obama's campaign staff pioneered this cycle? Or any of the rest of them?

Don't act like nothing's changed since then, is all I'm saying. It's not the same political world.

by Natasha Chart on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 11:33:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not The 2nd Coming Of Dean (none / 0)

Sure would feel better about him if he was qualified...

by my nickle on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 08:35:51 PM EST

he is qualified (none / 0)

My concerns about him are that he's never been tested in a tough general election campaign, and temperamentally, I think he would be too compromising and would move too far toward the Republican position on various issues.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

by desmoinesdem on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 08:57:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not The 2nd Coming Of Dean (none / 0)

Dean was a real partisan and that's why I sent money to him and voted for him in the NY primary. Kerry lost because he practiced the Kumbaya politics of not attacking Bush. What a dull Democraic convention. Couldn't watch it without going to sleep. The Republican convention seemed really effective, although I couldn't watch it because I was protesting it. Kerry and the Democrats just seemed weak.

Even though I was a Deaniac, I love when Gephart called bush a miserable failure. That is real American politics. Never thought that Kerry was a fierce enough fighter, and Edwards never seemed to get his point across effectively in the 15 seconds allowed on TV news. I thought Gravel might have gained momentum, but people just saw him as crazy. I just think the retail politicking out of Iowa doesn't train and select our candidates for real world politics in Ohio and Florida.

by maxstar on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 09:18:18 PM EST

Re: Not The 2nd Coming Of Dean (2.00 / 1)

You all in deep trouble once the word about this thread reaches the undisclosed location of 'Operation Hope and Audacity'.

The Obama cultists will infest this place in an instant.

by Pericles on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 09:28:54 PM EST

Question (none / 0)

I'm curious - who are these Obama supporters who are whining that they aren't getting the Dean treatment? I don't see them.

Obama is the most talented speech maker to come around for a while - that's his draw. I don't see the Dean comparison.

The one thing that DOES fluster me is when bloggers support Hillary. Very perplexing.

by mcdave on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 09:53:05 PM EST

Re: Question (none / 0)

I'm not going to link to every DailyKos commenter with an Obama fetish who feels put upon because the former Dean people didn't all flock to their candidate. If you can stand it, the pool of long knives awaits.

And I do support Hillary, but only because the people who attack her annoy me the most out of all the candidate attackees, which I could stand to do because she doesn't criticize Democrats with the words of a Republican. But I won't be heartbroken if she isn't the nominee.

I'm just not that invested in any of them.

by Natasha Chart on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 11:38:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Question (none / 0)

I'm just not that invested in any of them.

So on major issues like healthcare, poverty, foreign policy, climate change - have you come to the judgment that all the candidates are pretty much the same?

Keep it short. DemocraticShortList.com

by Rob in Vermont on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 11:57:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not The 2nd Coming Of Dean (none / 0)

Obama has many similarities with Dean, and I think that is what draws former Deaniacs to him. The movement feeling, the people-powered politics, the vast amount of small donors, the huge crowds of supporters, and the early opposition to the war.

We flocked to Dean mostly because he was saying what all the Democrats in DC were afraid to. He was against the war from the start, when Edwards, Clinton, Biden, and Dodd were selling us out. Obama was similarly against the war, and that's a strong appeal.

by Kal on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 10:16:50 PM EST

Re: Not The 2nd Coming Of Dean (none / 0)

I really think this diary underlines the nervousness many of us have about Barack Obama. I don't dislike him. He's impressive in some ways. But he has gone into a realm of his own that bears no edges; no willingness to really fight and he never, to my knowledge, been willing to identify the enemy that must be defeated. Those are harsh words - enemy and defeated. But we cannot afford to forget them. The GOP hopes we will have the same kind of blind faith that Obama seems to have and they will then proceed to take him down.

Wake up Obama.

The Facts: Please Read

by Regan on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 10:32:41 PM EST

Re: Not The 2nd Coming Of Dean (none / 0)

The GOP hopes we will have the same kind of blind faith that Obama seems to have and they will then proceed to take him down.

That sounds a little extreme. I have heard nothing from Republicans to make me worried about Obama's chances in the GE. The best they can come up with is that his middle name is Hussein? And then you hear the complements he gets from moderate Republicans.

With the Republicans in such disarray, I am confident that the Democratic nominee (whoever it is) will roll over the GOP candidate. So this year, for once, we can put aside these silly electability arguments and vote for someone we actually like. So you may like Clinton, fine, but don't say that Obama or Edwards are going to get killed in the GE.

Besides, Obama has laid more blows on Clinton than vice versa. So I don't know what the reference to "no willingness to really fight" is all about. And if you're talking about fighting the GOP, then, well, over the years Clinton and the DLC have been much more willing to pick fights with the left than with the right. Wrong enemies.

The truth about McCain

by nstrauss on Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 02:17:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I think Obama's appeal comes from... (none / 0)

...his ability to gain supporters. When Obama talks about post-partisanship, he's not talking about compromising his progressive ideas. He's talking about making people believe in his solutions.

He's the ultimate Wilsonian candidate. He's not going to settle for middle ground. He's going to package his progressive ideas so that the "political center" will buy them.

If, while President, Obama comes out with a comprehensive, progressive solution to a problem, he's not going to give up and give the Republicans everything. He's going to go around the country, holding rallies and convince the public that he's right. And where Bush and Wilson failed with Social Security Reform and the League of Nations respectively, Obama could succeed because he's so darn likable and convincing.

by Kal on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 10:43:03 PM EST

Re: I think Obama's appeal comes from... (none / 0)

post partisan is one of those cute phrases that when you get older you realize is a marketing ploy that is meant to snare the terminally romantic. in reality it means nothing - no more than other such language means anything. it's a buzz word that makes you feel a part of something. that doesn't make it real. no more than the buzz words from teh dot com era were real, no more than a few years ago when everyone in the gay community was saying words like post-gay, all of this is just fad. That's the scary part. Many of you are probably not teenagers, but you act like it when you use these terms.

by bruh21 on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 11:22:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think Obama's appeal comes from... (none / 0)

If we break down language to that level, we can't communicate at all. Post-partisan has a definition. Whether or not that ideal is attainable is up to debate (I personally don't think it is).

In my mind, there are two types of post-partisan politicians. There are the kind who act like they should belong to members of the other party, such as Republicans who act like Democrats and Democrats who act like Republicans (Schwarzenegger and Lieberman). They're post-partisan because, look! They defy their party label!

Then there are those who act like their party label and use their rhetoric and convincing arguments to get others on board. We will be in a post-partisan environment when everyone agrees with the Democrats, won't we? It is in this category that Obama falls. Ideally, he wants to create a post-partisan environment by making everyone support Democratic/Progressive positions. It's the grand Wilsonian tradition of going directly to the people for support.

All this comes down to is getting more support than the other guy and emphasizing your victories to make is seem like you got more than 51% of the vote. Democrats can create a post-partisan environment in 2009 because they would have chased all the Republicans out of town. That's how I define post-partisan.

by Kal on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 11:31:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think Obama's appeal comes from... (none / 0)

Post partisan is a marketing term that makes you feel all warm, and cuddly inside. I live in NYC. It has the feel of hipster Williamsburg-isms. The kind of guy who walks around scruffy because it's cool that everyone else does it.

In fact, everyone I know who is a serious obama fan is often of that variant. They voted Nadar in 2000, they voted Dean in 2004 and now Obama. He even had Obama girls. But that's what this is about right- hip. Your boredom. Etc.

All of it- fad. I skimmed your post because all I kep thinking was hipster. That's a turn off for me because none of this is real. That's why you bitch about politics being well you know- politics. That's too real for you.

I mean seriously- Lieberman? The man was a prime force for the war and continues to be (he wants us at war with Iran- and this is your example of post partisan?).

This is what happens when you throw out slogans first, and figuring out what the hell you really stand for second. It leads to confused ramblings trying to define what was a essentially a made up term to make you feel better

by bruh21 on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 11:42:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think Obama's appeal comes from... (none / 0)

If you don't want to have a seriously discussion, then why are you continuing to reply to my posts? All I ask is that you read what I have written and appropriately reply to it.

I would define Post-Partisan as the theory that public policy can be made without a liberal/conservative, Democratic/Republican, or Red/Blue divide. It comes along with the idea that essentially, Americans all want the same things.

As Democrats, this meme benefits us. The American people largely back our policy solutions. How awesome would it be to present our solutions as the only ones?

Lieberman is a type of post-partisan. The kind of person who calls themselves a Democrat, but acts like a Republicans. D/R labels mean nothing to Lieberman. You could call him a Green and he'd be the same pro-war nut.

The post-partisan rhetoric is also extremely marketable. The media and the public have a very bad perception of "partisan politics." They complain about there being too much division in Washington and not enough cooperation (while at the same time paradoxically saying that there's no difference between the two parties).

Rallying against the partisanship in Washington is a proven and winning strategy. And it benefits us, the netroots and progressives, when a candidate can convince people that his liberal policy solutions are (magically) non-partisan. If Obama can sell that to the American people, we're talking about a Regan or Johnson-esque electoral mandate.

That's why the post-partisan rhetoric is important to us. It's an electoral winner.

by Kal on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 11:58:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think Obama's appeal comes from... (none / 0)

I dont have serious discussions about marketing terms. Because yo are substanceless it's important to you, not to me. Good luck.

by bruh21 on Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 12:03:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think Obama's appeal comes from... (none / 0)

Marketing is the same thing as electability. And it certainly matters to be whether or not our candidate gets into the White House.

We can have the best candidate in the world, but if they can't win in November, it doesn't mean a thing.

by Kal on Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 12:32:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think Obama's appeal comes from... (none / 0)

You can spin this the way you want. It's still a fad, and once more in this post you show you know this.

by bruh21 on Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 08:33:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think Obama's appeal comes from... (none / 0)

It is a complete myth that all Americans want the same thing. We don't, and we will never be warm and fuzzy and bipartisan.

by who threw da cat on Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 01:24:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think Obama's appeal comes from... (none / 0)

When I say "Americans", I don't mean all Americans. I mean the significant percentage of Americans needed to swing an election in our favor.

Roughly two-thirds of voters are not Democrats. We have to reach out to them somehow. I think the best way is to frame our progressive policy solutions as being non-partisan (ie: common sense).

by Kal on Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 01:55:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think Obama's appeal comes from... (none / 0)

And like all marketing campaign you don't really mean Americans- you those you can get to manipulate with the language of the tool. "You know you want to buy that diet coke" because that's what it means to be middle class. Blah blah blah. Completely marketing like Madison Ave would do it.

by bruh21 on Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 08:32:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think Obama's appeal comes from... (none / 0)

Well, "manipulate" is one way to put it. I prefer to say that we're convincing an important part of the electorate to vote for our guy through a good campaign. This includes good press, good themes, and good framing.

We have no more Lincoln-Douglas debates. Political marketing is what today's campaigns are all about. And it is very similar to corporate marketing. We might care about the differences between Clinton, Edward, and Obama's policy solutions, but most Americans don't. They are for who is marketable.

by Kal on Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 10:22:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think Obama's appeal comes from... (none / 0)

Kal, I agree with the premise you present, I'm just am not convinced that Obama is selling the Progressive/Democratic point of view in a post-partisan light on issues like social security and healthcare. He seems to be all about transcending politics, which I don't think is possible.

by Kingstongirl on Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 08:54:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not The 2nd Coming Of Dean (none / 0)

thank you for your opinion.

by truthteller2007 on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 10:48:53 PM EST

Re: Not The 2nd Coming Of Dean (none / 0)

this is a response to kai's comment, which is nothing but a string of bilge.

by truthteller2007 on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 10:49:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

My opinion is all I've got (none / 0)

And if you could see my bank balance and student loan statements, you'd know just how true that is.

by Natasha Chart on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 11:41:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: My opinion is all I've got (none / 0)

Natasha,

THe comment was a response to Kai, not to you. I agree with your assessment.

by truthteller2007 on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 11:58:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

thanks for clarifying (none / 0)

The comment nesting here gets me a little lost sometimes.

by Natasha Chart on Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 12:39:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not The 2nd Coming Of Dean (none / 0)

Dean supports and supported grassroots candidates, while Obama only campaigned for those with support from Party organizations.

by truthteller2007 on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 10:58:05 PM EST

Barack Obama is not Howard Dean (2.00 / 3)

Barack Obama is Barack Obama. Looking for the "next Howard Dean" is as silly as Republicans looking for the "next Ronald Reagan".

by RandyMI on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 11:01:23 PM EST

Re: Barack Obama is not Howard Dean (none / 0)

I agree wholeheartedly. While Obama and Dean share some important similarities (opposition to the war, large people-powered movements), they are different people.

We can't spend our time looking for the next Dean. Dean wasn't perfect. If he was, he'd be President right now.

What we have to look for is a candidate who can take the things about the Dean campaign that we liked and further them. For some, Obama's anti-war stance and record fundraising numbers make him appealing. For others, his anti-partisan rhetoric seems to be as far away from Dean as possible.

To each his own. There is no Dean this cycle, because Dean's not running.

by Kal on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 11:21:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Exactly n/t (none / 0)

by Natasha Chart on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 11:39:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not The 2nd Coming Of Dean (none / 0)

It seems like Ron Paul is running the campaign that is the most similar to Dean's. In both cases the candidate is not so much the drawing point as the movement around it. That's what empowers people. As far as I see it, Obama's campaign is about himself. His followers are attracted to him, not so much his message because it is hard to believe so many democrats are flocking to the "politics of unity and purpose"

by who threw da cat on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 11:18:06 PM EST

Re: Not The 2nd Coming Of Dean (none / 0)

This post strikes me as a bunch of sore losers piling on one last time.

by aiko on Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 11:55:14 PM EST

Re: Not The 2nd Coming Of Dean (none / 0)

I was a Dean supporter then and an Obama supporter now, and yet I think Obama and Dean are almost polar opposite candidates in many ways. The only similarity I can think of off the top of my head is that they both receive/d overwhelming support from Democrats with college degrees. But that's more an observation about their supporters than it is about the candidates themselves.

The truth about McCain

by nstrauss on Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 01:54:04 AM EST

Re: Not The 2nd Coming Of Dean (none / 0)

Dean was against the war and MSM killed him off with 450+airing of his taking back the states. Obama was against the same war. MSM I'm sure is working on knocking off Obama given the chance. Both of them have good internet donation..

by army193 on Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 03:24:33 AM EST

Re: Not The 2nd Coming Of Dean (none / 0)

Yeah the Edwards vote lingers..
My first arrest was 3/15/03
However Edwards offers a lot of voters who were duped, This
"We were wrong. We must never be this wrong again.
Bush has never said he was wrong...on anything.
We as a nation have been wrong on so many things, now what are we going to do to make it right?

of course this is just a pretend quote..
But to me this is what Edwards is saying...

Grog and Grok for all!

"If you want to end war and stuff, you gotta sing loud"...Arlo Guthrie

by nogo war on Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 08:07:43 AM EST

Re: Not The 2nd Coming Of Dean (none / 0)

We have heard all of Obama's plus's now the problem.... He's not qualified....

by my nickle on Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 11:50:49 AM EST

normally bloggers include links (none / 0)

to claims about how other people feel.

For example, the claim that Obama supporters think he is the second coming of Howard Dean.

I'm not picking up on this.

I have noticed the Clinton camp engaging in distortions of Obama, his positions and his supporters.

Examples include, portraying Obama as a Muslim and a drug dealer, attacking his opposition to the Iraq War and generally being rude to Obama supporters.

Rrrinnggg... Time to change the government.

by Carl Nyberg on Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 12:38:52 PM EST

Re: Not The 2nd Coming Of Dean (none / 0)

I donated to and voted for Dean, but I forget exactly why I found him appealing. I disagreed with him ideologically (I'm closer to Kerry), but I think what appealed to me was his honesty. Dean is a moderate to conservative fighting Democrat, in his campaign he was pretty blunt and plain-spoken and he didn't pretend to be anything but what he was. He did not claim his health reform plan was universal, when he took on Democratic shibboleths he did so directly, and those principles he agreed with he advocated loudly, with no shading to moderate his position.

None of our current candidates have that directness on the campaign trail, which makes it easier for me to align with the candidate I agree with most ideologically, Hillary Clinton. Edwards advocates too populist a position for me, though I appreciate what he is doing, Hillary's rhetoric and positions line up well, she makes her case, take it or leave it, while Obama tries to be all things to all people. Obama says triangulating and poll-driven positions just won't do while presenting the most cautious, triangulated, poll driven positions in the race.

by souvarine on Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 01:43:01 PM 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.