I remain puzzled by how many of my fellow progressives are supporting Howard Dean – a centrist Democrat – in the primary. Some of them natter on about “electability” – but the way a candidate proves himself electable is by proving he can win the primary. That’s what the primary is for.
Instead, progressives are simply giving up without a fight, refusing to support a genuinely left candidate like Kucinich. But if Dean wins because the opposition gives up, how meaningful is that? It’s not like George Bush is going to give up, too.
A Christopher Caldwell article (via Dale Franks) about Dean in the Weekly Standard explains why, I think:
As for the general election, Republicans seem unaware of how riled up Democratic activists remain, even three years after the 2000 elections. A substantial segment of the party’s base has been radicalized to the point where it does not recognize the legitimacy of the Bush presidency. This is a very different thing than mere dislike of a president. It means that Democrats are prepared to fight this election as if they were struggling to overthrow a tyrant.
Dean may be a centrist – but he’s a pissed-off centrist, and to many lefties that seems to matter more than his substantive positions.
As for myself, I’ll probably vote for the Democratic candidate (regardless of who it is – I don’t understand lefties who say “I’ll vote for a centrist democrat like Dean, but never for a centrist like Lieberman!”) if the outcome looks at all close come November 2004, because I’m hoping (perhaps unrealistically) that Justices Stevens and Ginsburg will retire if a Democrat is in office. Otherwise I’ll vote for the Green candidate (who I hope will not be Nader).
But it’s not November 2004 yet. What’s at stake in the democratic primary isn’t if Bush serves a second term; it’s which views in the Democrats will have a voice in the party for the next few years, and which views will be even more marginalized. Most progressive democrats are, in effect, voting to keep progressives like Kucinich as marginal as possible. I don’t understand their decision; but it certainly adds to my suspicion that there’s no longer a place for progressives in the Democratic party.
Related link: Check out this interesting debate at The New Republic over if Dean is electable or not. And also this appeal from Kucinich to Green Party members to support his candidacy – a bit of outreach that I’m not expecting to see from any other Democratic candidate. (Via Blargblog and Body & Soul)..
“that Dean will paint himself into a corner by automatically taking the position diametrically opposed to the president’s.”
I’ve seen analysis arguing that this has been a central tenet of the Bush administration where Clinton is concerned, to very damaging effect (e.g. North Korea).
Both the Weekly Standard and The New Republic have agendas that certainly aren’t mine, but I do agree with the Standard’s analysis here of the Dean phenomenon. I support Kerry, in part because Dean is too far right for me (100% NRA rating), and in part because Dean and I do not click. For one thing, I don’t like candidates who misrepresent the other eight candidates, which seems to mean Dean and Lieberman just now.
Possibly too off-the-cuff comment: if Dean is really just a centrist, why does the DLC hate him so much? I suppose it could be just because he isn’t their hand-picked candidate, but I think it’s at least as likely that he’s really too lefty for them…
My problem with Kucinich is not exactly with his electability, it’s with his grip on the realities of government.
I’m surprised that someone who has been in federal office for so long doesn’t understand what would be problematic about a Department of Peace that attempts to deal in both foreign policy and domestic issues (like intimate violence),
or why the war in Afghanistan was an appropriate response to 9/11 (though obviously it could have been prosecuted much better than it was).
I am afraid that next to Kucinich, Bush will look like someone who has some command of reality.
This would be very bad, as in fact Bush lives in the alternative BushWorld universe, in which UNFPA funds forced abortions and there is no hunger in Texas.
Is anyone else really tired of hearing the word “electable”?
On issues of the war in Iraq, health care and gay rights, Kucinich has been generally more in line with my thinking than Dean. In fact, aside from Kucinich’s “pro-life” record (which he as renounced since announcing his candidacy), Kucinich is far more representative of my progressive views than Dean. I have a great deal of respect and admiration for him. And he grew up poor, something that speaks to me personally. So why not support him?
Well, I don’t mean to “natter on about electability” but I guess I’ll have to. Kucinich is simply not electable. That is not a self-fulfilled prophecy, but a foregone conclusion. The difference? The overall conservatism of our country, the skepticism with which the electorate views candidates with consistent ideological positions (Dean has a certain advantage in being able to shrug off inaccurate claims that he’s a “raging liberal”), and the fact that much of Kucinich’s critique of class, race, sex, etc. is what we’ve been saying all along until we were blue in the face—but have you noticed how this critique just falls on deaf ears? That doesn’t mean one gives up, but it does mean that one should recognize the distance between one’s ideals and the reality one lives in, and then split the difference. More often than not, elections are difference splitting time.
Dean makes a good split. In fact, so does Kerry. They are both center-left professional politicians practiced at the art of compromise, which is not a bad quality to have in a pluralistic democracy like ours (one which would be greatly improved by instant runoff voting and proportional representation, but that is a topic for another post). John Isbell makes a good point that Kerry is in fact a bit more left than Dean. But the factor that makes me lean Dean’s way is the war: he came out early and consistently against it. Yes, critics point out he let up a bit when the war started, but, c’mon, the whole country was holding its breath (save for the brave souls protesting the war during its early days). Kerry on the other hand dithered, registered his grave concerns, then voted for the stupid resolution authorizing Bush’s war anyway. Blegh.
Dale Franks is right that Dean’s passion is attractive. But what attracts me more is knowing that there is a reasonable Democrat whom the left can work with. Again, the same could be said of Kerry, and if Kerry gets the nomination, it’s not a bad thing. I think Dean makes a better candidate for the general election (and why wouldn’t you consider the general election when voting in the primary? Why wouldn’t you consider the long term consequences?) because he’s got the fire in the belly and obviously the ability to motivate grassroots involvment.
As for Lieberman, if he and Bush run against each other, what would be the point? A vote for Lieberman is a vote for Bush in the most substantial sense. Moreover it would signal the triumph of the DLC over the Democratic party’s base. At which point, just abandon both parties completely and join the Greens.
Anyway, all of the above simply goes to answering Barry’s puzzlement over why progressives would support Dean, but I doubt any of it is a convincing argument. Partly because I didn’t try to mount one. Coffee is still brewing, after all. But I hope it at least explains what I think is a fairly common position among progressives I have talked to.
Is anyone else really tired of hearing the word “electable”?
As opposed to…?
I sympathize with your annoyance, because I got tired of hearing it when I cast my votes for Nader in 2000 and 1996. But in 2004 we face a very different set of circumstances. Not just that Bush and his cronies have been far worse than one could have imagined, but because the fears generated by September 11th and the constant warmongering since have created an environment so poisoned that we are closer to fascism than we have been in 50 years. And I do not use the “F” word lightly. There is room for maneuver for progressive politics, but not much. Oddly, an impassioned establishment type like Dean makes a good tonic right about now.
That “I won’t vote for ___” gets me. I really Really REALLY don’t like Lieberman’s positions on a lots of things — and I mean REALLY! They don’t make caps big enough to express it. But if the choice were Lieberman or Bush, I would vote for Lieberman without hesitation, because that isn’t even a choice. Lieberman is really not who I want — but Bush is unacceptable… period. I’m quite convinced that getting Bush out of office is not just what I want, but is imperative for this country to remain some semblance of what it should be. Lieberman would, IMO, help make this country over in ways I don’t want it made, but Bush is bent on destroying this country and what it stands for. That’s an enormous difference.
I’m basing my decision on the possibly pessimistic assumption that the Democratic president elected in 2004 will be faced with a Republican Congress. The ideological difference between a centrist and a progressive just doesn’t matter that much–neither is going to be able to sell their whole agenda to Congress, and the items with the least chance are the ones that are furthest to the left.
What does matter is how good the President is at fighting the conservative attempt to set the agenda and drive public debate. We need a President who can forcefully denounce Republican ideas and convey to the people just how bad they are. Right now, it looks to me like Dean is the best candidate with the best chance of battling an opposition Congress. Like Clinton, he wouldn’t be my first choice for enacting a progressive agenda, but for fighting defense he seems pretty good.
I believe that people should vote for whoever they want to vote for using whatever reason they think is appropriate.
I haven’t yet decided whether to vote against Bush, or to vote for someone who actually represents me. It’s an extremely difficult decision, because I can see both sides of the debate with the same clarity and passion. But I won’t be bullied into one vote or another with “electable”s.
Compared to other Republicans, Bush is unelectable, and look what happened to him. (Actually, he was unelected. Heh.)
PS. I do appreciate hearing other people’s reasons for why they plan to vote the way they plan to vote, as long as they’re reasonably polite. I add them to my stockpile of potential rationales.
Lieberman would, IMO, help make this country over in ways I don’t want it made, but Bush is bent on destroying this country and what it stands for. That’s an enormous difference.
I respect that position. And if my only criteria were getting rid of Bush, that would work for me. But I also want to get rid of the rightward tugging that Lieberman and the DLC stand for, turning the Democratic Party into Republican Lite by creating policies that punish the poor with perhaps less fervor than the GOP.
That’s really what the primary season is for in my view: alienating the DLC, making Lieberman out to be the lame alternative that he is. Folks like Dean, Kucinich and Moseley-Braun make that possible by consistently attacking the DLC as sell-outs. Lieberman’s little speech the other day only estranges their milquetoast positions even further.
Still, if Lieberman gets “the nom”, I will seriously consider a Green, even a Libertarian. If the Greens actually have someone worth voting for, that is. But I doubt it, so I may have to eat crow, not write-in Bullwinkle as I have sworn to do, and vote for Lieberman with as much gusto as, well, I get up to go to work in the morning.
Although…now that I think of it, and sorry for yet another thread, Barry, but…Oregon is a heavily Democratic state. It would probably go Lieberman’s way, anyway….hmmmm…..what harm could there be in giving a decent third party candidate the nod? Which is exactly the kind of speculation that drives my fellow Dems crazy.
And if my only criteria were getting rid of Bush, that would work for me. But I also want to get rid of the rightward tugging that Lieberman and the DLC stand for, turning the Democratic Party into Republican Lite by creating policies that punish the poor with perhaps less fervor than the GOP.
I’d like to get rid of that tug too — I’d like to see a much more leftward slant myself — as I’ve mentioned here before, on the order of the NDP in Canada, especially the way that party often runs things in the central provinces. Very much in the original Tommy Douglas spirit — fiscally responsible and socially progressive. But I also think another 4 years of Bush would dig us a hole so deep that people like Lieberman would seem far-left to Americans, and that doesn’t bode well for creating a future with a balanced America. I think this is a situation, much more so than with Nixon or Reagan, where arresting the slide is critical.
That said, I also think the best approach for the Democrats is someone who is seen as very different from the GOP, not someone who’s seen as conservative. Otherwise you get in a position where even though I think there actually is a big difference, many people would say if there isn’t that much difference why not keep the status quo. I think that a Democratic candidate who is very obviously not the staus quo has a better chance in the election. I also think that most of the talk at present of various front-running Democrats as being “unelectable” is nonsenical posturing for attempted position. It oughta be dropped, IMO.
I think the thing that has lifted, separated, cross-your-hearted him into the “fastest growing populist” candidate was initiated by his “logical (pragmatic?)” anti-war stance.
What has kept the moment growing is the sense that he’s interacting with the electorate…he makes them feel like he’s listening (hell, he sent me a personally written email (or as it would seem, and perception is realitiy)) to what the people have to say.
It also helps that he comes off, at least most of the time, as very charasmatic.
If Dean and Kucinich had swapped their tactics–IOW, if DenKu had come out as the angry, pragmatic antiwar candidate–then followed it up with the energetic interactive presence, I think what you would have would be Dean struggling somewhere along with Edwards and Graham as a melancholy also-ran, and DenKu fighting it out with Gephardt as a niche-y 3rd candidate. (and let me qualify the niche-ness comment–both Gephardt (labor) and DenKu (progressive) appeal more strongly to a specific demographic–not good, not bad, but they do.)
It doesn’t really matter, tho, because whoever wins the dem nomination will win the general…as long as we remain vigilant and don’t let the idot in chief slither away…
Not just that Bush and his cronies have been far worse than one could have imagined …
Um, no. Bush and his cronies were exactly as bad as I and a lot of others imagined they would be, and we had to sit through watching a bunch of people say, “Oh, they won’t be that bad,” knowing that in three years they’d all be walking around acting as if they had no clue what they were supposed to expect with these farkin stunned looks on their faces. Hey, he’s a foamy-mouthed fascist! Gosh, who knew?
Dean is my candidate. He’s mobilizing, and yes — his pro-gun stance is a positive thing for me. I never thought I could ever vote for a pro-choice, pro-gay, pro-gun Democrat in my life. He got me to register Democrat, finally.
And then there’s that little civil unions thing. Yes, I want marriage, ultimately. Nothing less will suffice, and Kucinich SAYS he’ll support gay marriage. Well, Clinton SAID he’d lift the ban, too — did he? You know what would happen, and if you deny it, you’re lying to yourself: Kucinich would get in office, try to institute gay marriage, end up failing and running into a shitload more opposition than he ever imagined, and end up waffling, backing down, and putting somem crappy thing in place like DADT that’s worse than what we started with. Civil unions aren’t ideal and they AREN’T a stopping point, but Christ, it’s more than what we had.
Don’t tell me what you SAY you’ll do. SHOW ME WHAT YOU’VE DONE. Dean has DONE something. And he had to wear a kevlar vest after he signed it, because the same people who would kill ME would have wanted to kill HIM. That’s gets a guy on my good side.
Get out of the theoretical perfect plane and stop trying to be ideologically pure — and try to solve some problems. When faced with a choice between a candidate who will hold the line of ideological purity versus one that will actually accomplish something toward the goal, I’ll take the second please, Alex … I’m trained as a hard scientist — don’t tell me why your theory SHOULD have worked if the world were perffect. Tell me why it DOES work, or don’t open your mouth.
Kevin Moore writes: “Kucinich is simply not electable. That is not a self-fulfilled prophecy, but a foregone conclusion.”
Show me the data that supports this statement. I’ll believe this when I see a poll of “If the election were held today and your choices were (Dem candidate name here), GWB or no vote, how would you vote?” for each of the 9 Dem candidates, broken down by registered Reps, Dems, Grns, Libs, Socialists and unaffiliated.
My question is what percentage of Dems would vote for Kucinich in that case? Do you really think it would be significantly less than would vote for Dean, Lieberman, et al? If so, what makes you think that? Or are you worried about appealing to registered Republicans? How about the 3rd party/independents? Will they prefer Bush over any of the 9?
The reason someone is unelectable, without hard data, is self-fulfilling. I won’t vote for X in the primary because he can’t win the general election is a self-fulfilling prophecy unless you have the data to back it up. Self-fulfilling because you don’t vote for X in the primary.
I hate to keep harping on this subject, but I gotta. Opinions of unelectability are just that. Opinions. I want to hear no more of it until I see supporting data.
But then again, maybe there is data and I just haven’t seen it. If so, I know that you will kindly & politely point me to it.
Interesting thread, with this great line: “I haven’t yet decided whether to vote against Bush.” You don’t see that every day in an Amp thread (OK, I admit I cheated and cut the second half of the sentence).
David, you ask this: “if Dean is really just a centrist, why does the DLC hate him so much?” IIRC, he used to be one of their golden boys. Now they just fight and fight.
And I’m going to repost the sentence in its entirety, just in case Fox News stops by:
I haven’t yet decided whether to vote against Bush, or to vote for someone who actually represents me.
Do I need to add a “BUSH SUX!” disclaimer?
I’m sorry, Hestia, it was completely unethical of me to quote half a sentence like that, it just cracked me up when I read the first half. You notice I didn’t attribute it, though.
Oh – BUSH SUX!
I have no data. I am dataless. I have only hunches. I am hunchful.
“A substantial segment of the party’s base has been radicalized to the point where it does not recognize the legitimacy of the Bush presidency.” Just curious, Barry – emphasis yours? ‘Cause, you know, many of us never recognized the legitimacy of the Bush presidency. :)
Soooo, does anyone besides me fear that if our supposed 2nd Party caves on this Help America Vote B.S. that Pacifica and Greg Palast have been talking about, it won’t matter two shits which Dem gets nominated because we’ll end up with a replay of Florida in ’00 and Alabama in ’02, only bigger ?
Just wondering…
Oh, yeah, and screw Lieberman. If the Democrats want a fucking Right-Winger to run and still bring in the Jew vote, they should dig up Barry Goldwater and persuade him to switch parties. Re-animated after forty-odd years, he’d still have about ten times the charisma that Lieberman does alive. Bleah.
Hmmm…. while it’s true that Kucinich’s positions are more truly aligned with mine, I agree with the commentator above that said that a K v. B2 match up would make Bush look like he had the more solid grasp of reality.
Why do I like Dean? I have been thinking about this quite a bit. And it comes down to trust a bit. And the fact that I think politicians that have spent their careers in the legislature are usually not the right pick for Chief Executive. Dean seems less of a “politician” — less of an opportunistic deal-maker. I want a LEADER in the Oval office. Someone who is aggressively pursuing an agenda they have campaigned on and educating the public and the congress to follow. [Of course, I want a leader who wants to lead in the direction that I respect].
No prob, John. I recognized the joke; I’ve just become extra paranoid.
Elayne, the emphasis was in the original, not added by me. And yeah, I’ve never thought Bush was legitimately elected, either. :-)
Instead of launching a thousand threads on Barry’s blog, I decided to respond to this whole discussion at my blog. You can rail at me there, if you wish.
Coupla things:
1. Kucinich would lose to Bush in a general election, no question. The country’s mood is really conservative right now, and I think a lot of the people (at least the ones I’ve heard) who think K could win against W live in really liberal places. I live in Iowa, which is a bit to the left of the rest of the country politically, and K would have no chance here. Seriously. This doesn’t mean there’s no point in making sure he has a decent showing in the primaries (for the sake of pushing the Dems to the left), but it means I’m really glad he won’t be the nominee, even though I like his policy positions better than anyone else’s.
2. Dean’s policy positions aren’t great, but oh well. He’s basically a centrist with a few lefty points, but I’m prepared to put up with it because I think voting for Dean is an excellent strategic move, both for the left and for the Dems. here’s why:
Dean thinks the left actually matters. His campaign strategy right now is a conscious attempt to reinvigorate the traditional Democratic party base by talking up his lefty credentials: support for universal health care, signing the civil unions bill, opposing the war. He’s going to move right in his self-presentation for the general election, but he’ll still count on the support of the left – not because any Dem should have it, but because right now he’s working for it. So he’s going to owe us if he gets to be president, and he’s already showing that he thinks the left matters.
Dean may also be the Democratic candidate with the best chance of winning. He’s got a grassroots organization and internet presence that any of the other candidates would kill for. We can’t beat Bush on money. He’s always going to have more. Dean has the strongest alternative. And I think that Dean’s approach to grassroots/internet organizing is the beginning of a dramatic change in American politics – something as big as the mid-20th-century shift from parties to candidates as the center of campaigns. The internet changes the economics of mobilization in such a fundamental way that Dean can raise a lot of money in small donations. This is great, because it means he’s going to put a lot more effort into targeting less wealthy people – maybe not poor people, but not the very wealthy who have increasingly been the targets of political mobilization, and thus the most vocal political forces. Dean’s the only one who’s doing that, because it relies both on tech savvy and on some way of linking an internet presence to actual face-to-face communication (meet-ups, in this case). I think campaign cycles after 2008 will rely heavily on the tools he’s developing; that may make it possible for him to win now, since he’s the only one taking advantage of new and very powerful tools, or he may just be the brilliant innovator who gets none of the benefit.
anyway, you heard it here first. and for the record, BUSH SUX!
If I may wax frivolous for a moment, here is one tragically simple reason why Kucinich wouldn’t win the general election:
He has a funny three-syllable name.
Over the past 30 years, Americans have shown a distinct preference for Presidential candidates with two or fewer syllables in their names, and all-American names at that.
If Kucinich wins the primary, watch for the Branch Karlrovian strategery to focus on conflating “Kucinich” and “Dukakis.”
I told you I was frivolous…
I think you got this right – it is a matter of “tone.” But I also think that one shouldn’t discount the importance of anger. We should be angry! It was because Democrats were so afraid of appearing angry at Bush that they voted to give him the tax cuts. It was because Democrats were so afraid of Bush that they voted to allow him to go to war. I used to dismiss arguments about “personality”, but I saw how Clinton’s personality undermined his ability to push through a progressive agenda, and how Bush’s personality has allowed him to impose a fascist one. So, yes, I don’t like centrists, but I also think that policies alone won’t stop the swing to the right. I am starting to think that Dean is the only one smart enough to not only gain office, but to do something while he is there. While Bush keeps Rove around after he helped engineer the campaing, Clinton dismissed his “War Room” staff and failed to put the same kind of energy into Health Care reform. I think Dean understands that every policy he pushes through will require a fight, and I think he also knows how to win it. Just look a the brilliance of his planned trip to Texas!
On the other hand, politics isn’t just about confrontation – it is also about building alliances and making deals. I’m not sure that Dean can play that game and this is what worries me most. Lieberman is obviously good at that kind of thing – but that is precisely what turns most people off about him as a presidential candidate. Like a Republican, he says that he thinks gay marriage is immoral, but then he acts like a Democrat and opposes laws to make gay marriage illegal. Don’t we need someone who can send a “message” and not just play games?
Has Dean actually stated that he thinks gay marriage is “immoral”? Or has he just said that ‘marriage’ can be left up to churches and states? His whole message on this point is to turn the debate to EQUAL RIGHTS which is where it belongs. I’m not gay, so perhaps I’m too pragmatic about this, but I don’t care if you call it FOOPIEDOOZIE or CIVIL UNION or whatever, as long as the same rights under the law are observed.
As for ‘playing the game’ I refer you to this Sunday’s WaPo article (the Press is starting to get a clue and actually do some research) about his approach to governing in Vermont. Sometimes both the left and the right were annoyed with him (for different things) but he was able to accomplish stuff. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A15326-2003Aug2?language=printer
Also, the DLC (who are bitter about him now) were praising him as a model Dem governor back in the 1990s. And, IIRC, he was head or chair or vice-chair or something of some governor’s association (no specifics.. I just recall thinking hmm, leader among leaders, even…)
Dean is pro death penalty and wants more troops in Iraq. This is not a progressive candidate….and while he may not be establishment (DLC doenst like him) he ISNT progressive in the least.
I support Kucinich….reform is about voting one’s conscience.
Maybe I, as a straight male, am not the best person to make a comment on this, but I’d like to say a bit about civil unions.
Personally, I’m offended by them. I think they’re a bad idea and would like to have a good long chat with whoever first proposed the idea.
The question, as I see it, is not just about equal protection under the law but is also about social acceptance. While civil unions would grant gay couples the same rights as straight couples the gay couple would not be married and that makes a big difference. It’s at least partially a semantic issue, but it is a semantic issue with big consequences.
When one decides to spend one’s life with one’s life partner, one doesn’t unionize, one gets “married.” The state does not issue “civil union certificates” to straight couples wishing to become married, but instead issues “marriage licenses.” When one considers this, it quickly becomes apparent that marriage isn’t a religious issue but is a governmental issue.
Also, and this is a big one, so long as a gay marriage is not called a marriage bigots are allowed to have some justification in spitting drivel about how gay marriage isn’t a real marriage. This is why the issue of gay rights, and civil rights in general, isn’t simply about equal protection but is also about being accepted by society. What black man would be entirely okay with being legally allowed to live in a white neighbourhood and yet still be ostracised by his neighbours? In the same way, why should gays be content with being allowed equal protection under the law when there’s still a heavy implication that gay relationships are somehow less real or less significant than straight relationships?
All I can say is that if the DLC doesn’t like him, he must be good for the Democratic Party :-)
Great argument by PDP. I’m buying.
Frankly, I think the government should get out of the business of marriage altogether. Marriage, as people like W tell us all the time, is a sacrament. It’s done by the church (broadly defined to include all religions). And if you can find a church – any church – to marry you, you should be able to get married, and it should have no legal effect. Then, if you want the legal benefits, you should go get a civil union. And everyone, in whatever kind of marriage, should have to get a civil union to get the civil benefits of marriage. I think separating the religious and civil aspects of marriage would do a lot of good for both aspects, especially since in many ways we’ve had a de facto separation for a long time.
Dean’s deal with civil unions was that he was forced to sign the civil unions bill by the Vermont State Supreme Court, which said that straight-only marriage violated the state constitution. He opposed issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, and let the legislature do most of the work in writing the civil unions bill. Thus, he was in no way a leader on the issue, but he is currently talking it up, which I think is good. Kind of like the Kucinich conversion on reproductive rights.
Also, I don’t think wanting more troops in Iraq, at least in the short-term, is automatically not a progressive position. what’s the alternative? Pulling out completely is incredibly irresponsible until there’s a stable government. I personally would like to see the US turn all control of military operations in Iraq over to the UN to avoid massive exploitation by the US, but have the US go on funding most of the expenses on the theory that we made the mess so we have to clean it up. This would almost certainly involve a lot of troops, many of them US troops, in Iraq for a while longer. It sucks, but seriously, do you have a better idea?
John Steppling wrote: “Reform is about voting one’s conscience.”
John, I disagree- reform is about evicting GW Bush and his cronies from the White House. Holding fast to ideological principles is great, until it runs smack into political reality. Didn’t we learn anything from Nader 2000?
Howard Dean is not 100% in line with my political priorities, but I believe that he is the candidate best suited to get the job done. This nation cannot afford another 4 years of ShrubCo, Inc. The damage done to the environment, to the judicial system, to education, to budgetary sanity will be incalculable.
Dean’s “evolving” position on the death penalty is well reported here. As an opponent of the death penalty, I find his change of mind/heart/strategy annoying. Not troubling, however. So far, he has expressed support of the death penalty for what he considers “the most heinous crimes”—killing a child or killing a cop (the latter raises a few other uncomfortable issues)—and now adds terrorists to the list. While I disagree with the death penalty being used in our quite unjust justice system, I can’t say such exceptions are egregious; in fact, they are quite understandable. Besides, it’s not like he’s interrupting his campaigning to fly back to Arkansas to authorized the execution of a retarded black kid. That was troubling. To say the least.
Isn’t “electability” defined by the Constitution? If you meet the Constitutional criteria to run for President, then you are “electable.”
As for the primaries, I am for Dean. If the final nominee is someone else, even Lieberman, I will support him (or her) before voting for some third party loser. Beating Bush is more important than making a “statement.”
Larry King: What are your personal feelings about gay marriage?
Howard Dean: I’ve never thought about it.
And he’s off. He’s beginning his move for the center. Too bad it had to happen this early. How can this guy – who had to sign a state law creating civil unions – never have thought about this?
I realize that this is setting himself up to be able to answer Bush attack ads later on, but…… geez, how about, “I don’t have strong feelings one way or the other at this point in time?” At least that isn’t a blatant lie. I guess this is yet another effect of the influence of money on politics.
[…]I support Kucinich….reform is about voting one’s conscience […]
No, it’s not. Reform is about voting for the candidate who has made the maximum number of concrete steps in favor of your opinions.
I say this again — DON’T TELL ME WHAT YOU THINK. SHOW ME WHAT YOU’VE DONE. If you just care about staying in the theoretical perfect plane with your ideas, then vote Kucinich, who hasn’t got a snail’s chance in hell of implementing any of them. Sure, nothing will have gotten any better and Bush will trounce him, but you’ll have voted your conscience, and that’s really all that matters, right?
Not the layoffs and the people who are out of work, not the women who will do without abortions they need, not the minorities who will have their rights and opportunities ripped away, and not the old-growth forests shredded into nothingness.
That doesn’t matter. What’s inside your head matters. It’s all about you.
If you care more about your own ideological purity than actually improving the world, then vote Kucinich. But if you truly care about kicking Bush out and getting something done, vote Dean. Do you really care about the world as much as you claim to, or is it all about you and what you believe and how ideologically pure you come across as?
I agree with what Kucinich SAYS. But I agree with what Dean has DONE. Game over, no contest — Dean gets my vote.
Janice writes: “But if you truly care about kicking Bush out and getting something done, vote Dean.”
That’s hilarious. You realize, of course, that that is exactly what Lieberman, et. al. are saying about Dean, right?
Janice also writes: “That doesn’t matter. What’s inside your head matters. It’s all about you.”
Apparently. Whenever somebody casts a vote it is all about that person. We all vote for what we think is of most value. Your opinion just differs from Kucinich supporters the same way Lieberman supporters opinions differs from yours. People who live in glass houses…..
I’m sorry. I gotta say it. All of you who are insulting others for their ways of voting are full of shit. You don’t have any facts to support your position, you just have opinions, and strong ones, about the proper way to vote. But don’t we all? If you want to state why you think a vote your way is the best, go ahead. You may even convince others. But this shrill, insulting tone just makes you look like a fool.
Don’t let your political passions carry you into believing that your guy is THE ONE. None of them are. Cast your vote where you think it does the most good. Unless you’re thinking Bush;)
Janis, I’ve gotta agree with Jake – your post doesn’t seem to have much content besides throwing personal insults at everyone who doesn’t agree with your view.
“Whenever somebody casts a vote it is all about that person. We all vote for what we think is of most value.”
Indeed — what values are satisfied by voting for someone? That is the question that I believe Janis has crystallized. For me, it’s not enough that I find someone to agree with me ‘the most’ — if I wanted that, I should just run for office myself. Instead, I believe it’s important to look at and understand political reality, to look at and understand the mess that the country is in, to look at and understand the lock that the rightwing has achieved on the media and on the DAMN VOCABULARY of the debate, and to vote for someone who has the best shot of undoing this and starting to move the country in the right direction.
2004 is not the election we can fritter away hoping for a great progressive savior — whether it’s Kucinich or someone else. The country is so … ill, that that kind of cure will just be rejected.
I never ‘feel good’ about my votes – that’s not my goal. But the broad abstract value I seek to satisfy is “effective, pragmatic change.” Maybe after a few election cycles we can start aiming higher than that, but for too long we’ve left the right set the terms of the debate. That needs to change first. And Janis is correct to point out that ignoring this fact, and voting just to feel good is irresponsible and disregards the real, on-the-ground damage that has been and is being done to citizens of this country by this Administration.
First, change course. *Then* set new goals. But changing course is going to be hard, and will require an effective executive to lead the way. Kucinich ain’t it.
In my opinion, Kerry and Gephardt might be able to effect change if elected, but I don’t think they will stand up against the Bush/Rove/Media juggernaut. Dean’s the only one who’s shown any signs of being able to fight back. And, dammit people, he’s fighting on the side of the light! He’s not perfect, and I disagree with him on a few things, some very important things, but the man has repeatedly shown that he’s more interested in facts than ideology (as a scientist, this is extremely important to me) and is in fact actively encouraging people to become involved in the process again. He also admits that he’s being propelled by a wave of grassroots energy, not leading it — his campaign has shown itself to be agile and sensitive to requests and questions and concerns from random, unwealthy supporters. The man listens and deliberates and his instincts are as true as anyone’s in the race. If this isn’t enough for the progressive left, *given the current state of the country and the media right now*, then nothing is ever going to be.
Great post, Jake.
All – i have lived in Vermont for the past 7 years and have worked at IBM for all 7. Howard Dean is personally responsible for the loss of over 2000 jobs at IBM. Due to the lack of State interest in the future of IBM in Vermont, and also due to the fact that the lions share of the state budget went to ONE state hospital upgrade that is 120% over budget, I fear that I may lose my job. Did you know that the IN STATE tuition to attend The University of Vermont is the highest in the country? The reason why is due to his so called “balanced budget” and useless spending. He also is famous for his “sharing pool” concept that essentially taxed “rich” schools to improve “poor” schools. Folks– last time I checked, we were did not live in a socialist country.
OK…enough for now. The bottom line is that Howard Dean does not have what it takes to be the leader of the Free World. Keep looking…
When it comes to slugging it out in the general election, where a candidate stands on the issues is essentially irrelevant. Electabilty is all about packaging and selling and Kucinich comes off on TV as damaged goods. He creeps people out.
Packaging politicians like soft drinks may not be what the founding fathers had in the mind, but to ignore the basic realities of mass media persuasion will result in a loss for the democrats. George Bush is Pepsi, sickly sweet and lacking any fizz. The democrats need their candidate to be Coke – not RC Cola. That’s how I gauge electability.
So far, the only thing the democrats have going for them is George Bush’s horrendous job performance – which may be enough as long as the eventual nominee doesn’t come as an off brand close-out.
Hey, Mike Dunbar, could you make up your mind? When it comes to school funding, you’re grumbling about socialism, but when it comes to your keeping your job, you seem to want the state to prop up the company you work for.
Saw Dean live on Sunday. Not terribly impressed. Suprise. End of story.
“…George Bush is Pepsi, sickly sweet and lacking any fizz. The democrats need their candidate to be Coke – not RC Cola. That’s how I gauge electability…”
Ummm… whatever. Have you pondered perhaps upgrading your obsession with “electability” to one of “register-ability.” That is, the Coke Vs. Pepsi model you and too many other espouse seems to be doing a piss-poor job of getting most Americans to see the value of voting in the first place.
“…That is, the Coke Vs. Pepsi model you and too many other espouse seems to be doing a piss-poor job of getting most Americans to see the value of voting in the first place.”
I didn’t make the world, I just live in it.
I love reading these lefty blogs.
You Deany-boppers should read your own comments above in support of Dean. You Dean supports are lost in a socialist haze.
Dean’s rhetoric is straight out of the far-left liberal playbook. See Dukakis ’88.
There is an ocean of people that haven’t heard of Dean yet, and are going to really hate him when Rove gets his fangs into this pinko commie and exposes all these pie-in-sky schemes for tax-and-spend liberals like my favorite ‘universal healthcare’ that is like supporting a mars colony – sure, I’m for it – but it ain’t gonna happen you dolts. I wish you liberals would stop with your pseudo-intellectual word-barf and just hurry up and lose the general election with your unelectable far-left, blame America First poster boy.
Howard Dean has no idea what to do about the economy or Iraq. Raise Taxes, cower and hide, and throw out marriage: great platform, guys!
Bush in 2004!
“I didn’t make the world, I just live in it.”
Well, there’s the slogan all the great world-shakers (King, Ghandi, Anthony, Addams) used. For sure. That would sure get me up off my ass to vote in a heartbeat, Yessir.
Gee whiz Paul. Do you think that Nixon was a “pinko commie” and a “tax-and-spend liberal”? Remember, Mr. Nixon proposed both universal health care paid for by tax money AND a guaranteed minimum family income (which no “liberal” candidate that I know of is proposing).
All – i have lived in Vermont for the past 7 years and have worked at IBM for all 7. Howard Dean is personally responsible for the loss of over 2000 jobs at IBM. Due to the lack of State interest in the future of IBM in Vermont,
Last time I checked, IBM was a mature multi-national corporation with more money and assets than God. What the hell is going on that they would need a kickback from Vermont to keep 2,000 people on the job? If they were trying to strong-arm it out of the State, good on Vermont for locking up the treasury. If Vermonters are anything like the people I grew up with, they don’t pay taxes to butter up multi-national corporations– though they might pay them to fix a busted hospital.
The people who are “personally responsible” for any job loss are the managers and directors of IBM, period. If they gave a rat’s ass for more than their own bank balances, those jobs would be there.
pericat’s a dirty Pinko Commie !! Somebody sic the dogs on ‘im !! :p
Paul… wow. You have no idea what any of the following terms mean: leftist, liberal, socialist, communism. Hint: they are not interchangeable, and most if not all of them do not apply to Dean.
Anyway, I just wanted to get out my crystal ball and let you all know which way Idaho will go:
*concentrating*
*allowing the vision of the future to enter my mind*
*I’m getting something…*
*Ah yes!*
Idaho will go to Bush.
Now that the horrible, confusing issue of which way the nation’s most conservative, republican state will go has been cleared up, you may all continue. At this point, all I really know is that I’m going to vote for not-Bush.
(snicker) I’ll cop to lefty. But I’m a ‘er, not a ‘im. I realize that’s not exactly obvious. My apologies for creating confusion.
That just makes your transgressions against the sacred Free Market even worse, pericat. Why aren’t you home washing dishes and windows for your kindly IBM-exec. husband ? :p Stop mocking God and get straight, Girl !! :p
“Well, there’s the slogan all the great world-shakers (King, Ghandi, Anthony, Addams) used. For sure. That would sure get me up off my ass to vote in a heartbeat, Yessir.”
It may not be a slogan worthy of King and Ghandi (though I am not sure they would reject the concept of practicality), but it is a slogan worthy of a party that desperately needs to win the next general election – for all of four sakes.
We don’t need a world shaker to be the next president, we need someone who IS NOT a republican.
And my point, Riff, is that if the only selling point a candidate has is that they’re “not Republican,” you can kiss your hopes of regime change good-bye. A candidate who wants to not only mobilize their traditional base, but mobilize THOSE WHO FEEL IMMOBILE, will not simply flog the same warmed-over, reactive sound bites again and again. And while I’m at it, simply looking to the day that your opponenet is gone is not enough. Try looking to ten days after he’s gone. Or a month, or a year. Dean leaves a bad taste in my mouth reminiscent of Clinton. Perhaps I’m being too hard on him, but too bad. The last twenty years have been damn tough on me.
Paul: There’s one *big* difference between Dean and Dukakis, at least I hope….
When Rove and Bush hit Dean, he’ll hit back, and much harder.
Let’s face it, Paul……when he landed on the aircraft carrier, your boy Bush looked like Dukakis in the tank….and that can easily segue into where Shrub was in 1972 and 1973, when he shirked his Air National Guard duty to do whatever….
While I agree that it is essential to mobilize the base that is an incremental strategy. Convincing people who haven’t/won’t vote to first vote and then vote for your candidate is much tougher challenge than convincing repeat voters to vote for your guy. The sweet spot has been and will always be in the middle. Many DLC democrats acknowledge this reality, but their solution is seriously flawed when they select middle of the road, republican-lite candidates as their standard bearers. The democrats need a democrat who is not embarrassed about being a democrat as their nominee. And, equally important the nominee must satisfy the “packaging” requirements inherent in a national, mass-media campaign. I believe the middle, swing voters will embrace a real democrat as long as he/she can overcome the mass-media packaging challenges. Kucinich may be a real flesh and blood democrat, but he will never overcome the creep factor I believe he projects on TV. I also have my concerns about Dean. He has strong organizational skills, he is clearly motivating the base, but he has mixed results on TV. The rules of conducting a national campaign may suck, but to ignore them in a singular effort to “mobilize the base” is a recipe for disaster.
You could be right, Riff, but please remember, there are a hell of a lot more non-voters than swing voters out there. The strategy you’re talking about did not work in 2000 nor in 2002. Maybe both strategies need to be pushed at once. A victory based solely upon a slender margin of swing voters will turn out to be pyhrric in any event. Clinton, as far as I’m concerned, proved that beyond a doubt.
Haven’t read all the comments but I am one of those progressives who will vote and activally work for Howard Dean. And I can do that with enthusiasm and without guilt. For me it’s not “Anybody But W” (though I do admit a visceral dislike for the jerk), it’s that I think of all the candidates Howard Dean is the one who can really make a difference as President, even if he has to work with a Republican Congress. Howard Dean can change peoples minds and if enough people want change he can make it happen.I don’t think he will ever bite off more than he can chew. This is not about settling for half a loaf, this is about getting the best loaf. (sorry for all the cliches!)
Amy, please note, I am not suggesting that the democrats choose a middle of the road candidate to attract swing the voters. On the contrary, I believe the only way to attract both the middle and the base is to nominate a democrat who proudly stands for democratic principles and can articulate those principles effectively within the ridiculous constraints of a national campaign. Most people respect a candidate who actually stands for something even if they may disagree on some of the details.
Check out this cartoon about the “Baby Eating Alien Party.” http://www.salon.com/comics/boll/2002/11/14/boll/index.html
I’m not sure Dean’s the guy, though it will be interesting to see if he can transcend his grass-roots effectiveness on to a national (media) stage. If bush wasn’t such a miserable failure, the democrats wouldn’t have a chance. I hate to admit it, but I’m kind of hoping Clark decides to run. From what little I have read about him, he appears to be on the right side of most issues, and he does good TV. And, whether I like it or not, his military background will insulate him from the majority of attacks the right will throw at the eventual nominee. Winning in 2004 is the only thing that matters – hell, I’d vote for Sharpton, if I thought he could win.
We like Dean because he is a fighter that stands up to Bush and can motivate crowds. It has more to do with his personality than policy. Personally, Kucinich comes across as a cook (regardless of whether or not his policies are cooky or not, which is a seperate debate). Dean’s also whipping up a populist fervor like no other candidate before him.
And Dean is progressive on some issues and others not. He’s a centrist simply because a rough average falls there. He’s really independent minded and decides thinga based on facts rather than ideologues. Facts were why he change dhis mind on needle exhange and why he wants an FDA study before approving Medical Marjuana. After four years of an ideologue like Bush this is refreshing. This independent mindedness and his internet campaign will bring new voters into the process. For some reason, Kucinich’s ideological check list doesnt seem like it will do that.
Oh another thing that concerns me about Kucinich is his voting against theraputic stem cell cloning, which occured after he had flip flopped on abortion,
By the way, Dean is also reaching out to Green party members. For instance, Anna Private one of the coowner sof the Unofficial Dean blog is a Green in Texas and was invited bty Dean to come along on his Sleepless Summer Tour.
Kucinich is a cook? He’d have a real advantage if we could replace one of the debates with an Iron Chef competition.
I just for the life of me don’t understand why people consider Dean a populist. And having now seen him in action, I have to say that his speech was generic and not terribly interesting. I also found some of his wiggling around difficult issues annoying for someone whose been hyped up the wazzoo as the Great White Anti-Bush. For instance, he proclaimed that *he’d* never send “our brave men and women to a foreign land without a damn good reason.” No explanation of what that reason would be, and no explanation of… oh, I don’t know, possibly BRINGING HOME the ones who are overseas now. Sigh. Also, no mention of women’s rights, glbt rights, abortion, and so on. Are we now supposed to assume that his support for these things can go without being emphasized or is he already embracing the worst part of being the designated front-runner: Being as non-committal as possible in hopes of not offending any future converts to his campaign ?
Whatever. Obviously Dean’s charm is one of those things I’m doomed to remain immune to, like that of Springsteen and Petty, both of whom were blasting over the speaker system while we all roasted in the noonday sun and waited for the candidate to show up. Dean couldn’t have annoyed me more if he’d called me at home in advance at 4 AM Sunday morning and said, “So, Amy, what can my handlers blast over the speakers to piss you off the most as you roast alive for almost an hour thanks to my plane being late ?” :p
Oh, well. I’m at least glad to hear people saying that they want to vote for Dean because they genuinely like the guy and believe he’s on the up-and-up. That, I understand even if I don’t agree about how much there is to like and/or trust. Frankly, Dean would have had to have been Woody Guthrie, Martin Luther King, and FDR all rolled into one to have lived up to all the hype I’ve been hearing about him. I hope Kucinich will show up in town to speak, as well, so I can compare. In his case, he’ll have to babble about flying saucers and talking dogs in a voice like Emo Phillips, dressed in mismatched shoes and one of those fish neckties, to live down to all the awful things I’ve been hearing about him.
As it happens, I am as disappointed as you are. As a non-interventionist conservative, I was hoping the hype wasn’t only that, and that Dean was truly an anti-war candidate. But it appears he is not. Kucinich might have been, but he will not be nominated.
So I and my conservative friends, horrified at the emergence of the New American Century and equally put out at the thought of the US staffing and paying for a UN global empire, will likely vote Green right along with the “true progressives.”
I rotated the antenna by hand on a pole outside buy soma my living room window. I could tune to 88.5, point somalogy it NNE and get WAMU from Washington, D.C., over cheap soma 220 miles away. Then I could point it WNW and get online soma WFDD from Winston-Salem on the same channel, with buy soma online no interference on either station. And neither soma had huge signals. The farthest stations I could phentermine get reliably were in Morehead, KY, Athens, OH and
I have a question that I really haven’t heard a good answer for: why is Kucinich the person that the progressives seem to be rallying behind? Mosley-Braun is much more articulate, and more importantly, doesn’t seem to be focused upon smearing the other candidates.
Kucinich seems to forget that the #1 thing that the dems can’t afford to do in this primary is beat up on each other. Not to mention that I disapprove of the concept of creating cabinet-level departments with vague mandates…
The answer, Jerry, is that Kucinich is politically to the left of Moseley-Braun (although I agree she’s more articulate).
I haven’t been following the primaries closely, so I’m not sure what the particular critiques Kucinich has made are. I agree with you that he (and the other Dems) shouldn’t attack the other Dems in ways that are likely to haunt us in the general election (for instance, by making criticisms that the Republican party can recycle, such as Gore’s Willie Horton advertisement). On the other hand, I think it’s useful and good if Kucinich is attacking the other candidates in specifically left-wing ways.
With Dennis Kucinich’s campaign apparently too enlightened and ahead of the curve for 2004, Democrats in Iowa and elsewhere have a choice: Either support Dean, or let a pro-war DLC Democrat get the nomination. I hope that you will support Kucinich if you still believe in your heart he has a chance, but if you are reconsidering, I hope Dean is your second choice. If you see things shaping up as I do, I hope you will urge people to support Dean.
Sincerely,
Mike Hersh
Why I’m for Dean
Mike Hersh Endorses Howard Dean and other Dean articles at MikeHersh.com.
“Dean is opening the possibility of transforming politics–shaking up the tired, timid old order, inviting plain-wrapper citizens back into an active role–and that’s why so many people, myself included, are for him.”
– William Greider, author of “Who Will Tell the People” and other insightful books.
Why I’m for Dean by William Greider – The Nation magazine, November 26, 2003
First, the rivals saw him as a McGovernite lefty from the 1960s. When that didn’t take, they decided to depict him as a right-wing clone of Newt Gingrich who wants to dismantle Medicare and Social Security. Finally, opponents sold political reporters on the story of Mr. Malaprop, an oddball from tiny, liberal Vermont so insensitive to the nuances of American politics his mouth will destroy him.
Howard Dean surged ahead through all this. The other candidates and witting collaborators in the press got him wrong every time. Howard Dean is an odd duck, certainly, in the milieu of the contemporary Democratic Party. He is, I surmise, a tough and savvy politician of the old school–a shrewd, intuitive pol who develops his own sense of where the people are and where events are likely to take public opinion, then has the guts to act on his perceptions. That approach–leading, it’s called–seems dangerously unscientific in this era of high-quality polling and focus groups…. [For Link to Complete Article]
HOWARD DEAN FOR PRESIDENT
Ted Rall Nov 23, 2003 – Key excerpts:
I don’t regret voting for Ralph Nader in 2000. Given the information we had at the time…. Boy, was I wrong. To paraphrase National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice, who could have imagined back then that a dozen maniacs would hijack our democracy, bankrupt the treasury and subvert our basic values?
I’m a charter member of the 2004 ABB (Anybody But Bush) society. Whether the nominee turns out to be a right-winger (Clark, Lieberman) or a colorless bore (Edwards, Kerry, Gephardt), I’ll vote for him over Bush, in the same spirit with which the late Afghan warlord Ahmed Shah Massoud reportedly toasted a meeting of anti-Soviet factions during the ’80s occupation: “First we kill the Russians. Then we kill each other.” But I have a preference:
Howard Dean has the best chance to beat Bush. Dean’s got lots more going for him, not the least of which is running as an insurgent small-state governor disliked by his own party’s top leaders (the ex-governor thing casts him as even more of an outsider). Polls show Dean leading his nearest rival, John Kerry, 33 percent to 19 percent in the crucial New Hampshire primary. Coming out early and hard against the war in Iraq wins him major props with the liberal base and makes him seem ahead-of-the-curve to everyone else.
Most importantly, he’s his own man. “He doesn’t really owe his current standing to any of them, not to labor, not to minority groups, not environmental organizations, so he’ll have more leeway as a nominee to follow his own course,” says Darrel West, a political science professor at Cornell. But the rubber would really tear up the road at the presidential debates, where Dean’s dry, sardonic Long Island wit would devastate the hapless Bush–and charm television viewers.
His natural pugnacity could help Dems deal more aggressively than usual with the nasty attack ads they can expect in the campaign ahead. Frankly, the other Democratic contenders don’t have what it takes to stand up to Karl Rove’s brutal war machine. [For Link to Complete Article]
With Dennis Kucinich’s campaign apparently too enlightened and ahead of the curve for 2004, Democrats in Iowa and elsewhere have a choice: Either support Dean, or let a pro-war DLC Democrat get the nomination. I hope that you will support Kucinich if you still believe in your heart he has a chance, but if you are reconsidering, I hope Dean is your second choice. If you see things shaping up as I do, I hope you will urge people to support Dean.
Sincerely,
Mike Hersh
Why I’m for Dean
Mike Hersh Endorses Howard Dean and other Dean articles at MikeHersh.com.
“Dean is opening the possibility of transforming politics–shaking up the tired, timid old order, inviting plain-wrapper citizens back into an active role–and that’s why so many people, myself included, are for him.”
– William Greider, author of “Who Will Tell the People” and other insightful books.
Why I’m for Dean by William Greider – The Nation magazine, November 26, 2003
First, the rivals saw him as a McGovernite lefty from the 1960s. When that didn’t take, they decided to depict him as a right-wing clone of Newt Gingrich who wants to dismantle Medicare and Social Security. Finally, opponents sold political reporters on the story of Mr. Malaprop, an oddball from tiny, liberal Vermont so insensitive to the nuances of American politics his mouth will destroy him.
Howard Dean surged ahead through all this. The other candidates and witting collaborators in the press got him wrong every time. Howard Dean is an odd duck, certainly, in the milieu of the contemporary Democratic Party. He is, I surmise, a tough and savvy politician of the old school–a shrewd, intuitive pol who develops his own sense of where the people are and where events are likely to take public opinion, then has the guts to act on his perceptions. That approach–leading, it’s called–seems dangerously unscientific in this era of high-quality polling and focus groups…. [For Link to Complete Article]
HOWARD DEAN FOR PRESIDENT
Ted Rall Nov 23, 2003 – Key excerpts:
I don’t regret voting for Ralph Nader in 2000. Given the information we had at the time…. Boy, was I wrong. To paraphrase National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice, who could have imagined back then that a dozen maniacs would hijack our democracy, bankrupt the treasury and subvert our basic values?
I’m a charter member of the 2004 ABB (Anybody But Bush) society. Whether the nominee turns out to be a right-winger (Clark, Lieberman) or a colorless bore (Edwards, Kerry, Gephardt), I’ll vote for him over Bush, in the same spirit with which the late Afghan warlord Ahmed Shah Massoud reportedly toasted a meeting of anti-Soviet factions during the ’80s occupation: “First we kill the Russians. Then we kill each other.” But I have a preference:
Howard Dean has the best chance to beat Bush. Dean’s got lots more going for him, not the least of which is running as an insurgent small-state governor disliked by his own party’s top leaders (the ex-governor thing casts him as even more of an outsider). Polls show Dean leading his nearest rival, John Kerry, 33 percent to 19 percent in the crucial New Hampshire primary. Coming out early and hard against the war in Iraq wins him major props with the liberal base and makes him seem ahead-of-the-curve to everyone else.
Most importantly, he’s his own man. “He doesn’t really owe his current standing to any of them, not to labor, not to minority groups, not environmental organizations, so he’ll have more leeway as a nominee to follow his own course,” says Darrel West, a political science professor at Cornell. But the rubber would really tear up the road at the presidential debates, where Dean’s dry, sardonic Long Island wit would devastate the hapless Bush–and charm television viewers.
His natural pugnacity could help Dems deal more aggressively than usual with the nasty attack ads they can expect in the campaign ahead. Frankly, the other Democratic contenders don’t have what it takes to stand up to Karl Rove’s brutal war machine. [For Link to Complete Article]
======================
“I’m tired of my party being bullied by the right wing.”
— Howard Dean, Oct. 6, 2002 – Dean for America
MikeHersh.com
Confused about Dean?
He’s a fiscally conservative liberal. Yes, they do exist. Republicans in power have finally show their cards, and they’re not interested in anything but lining their pockets with tax payer money. They do this by spending it on dispoable weaponery and “pork” handouts to corporate sponsors and ignorant yet hardworking constitutents of middle America.
The pendullum has swong too far the right this time. Jobless economic recoveries, extended military enlistments, undeniably huge deficit, and superficial overhaul of medicare, are all fanastic reasons that the Bush administration is on it’s way out.
Why?
Because they have lost their consitutents appeal. They’re loosing middle bible belt America. And when they listen in on the debates with Dean (he’s going to get it), they’re going to be pleasently surprised to hear what he has to say.
come on you democrats get behind Dean. We need him to run against GWB so we can be sure of winning. Hopefully he’ll screw up you left wing wackos so bad that it’ll be 1972 all over again!! Stay away from Lieberman he’s a rational serious man, stick with the crazies like Dean and the Black KKK man Sharpton. This is better than catching Hillary in bed with Rosie!
So bitter. So sad. Don’t they have the Spice Channel and beer in barrel-sized bottles for people like you, reppie-poo ? Tsk.
Who cares?
Howard Dean is now toast at the hands of the media.
Because Howard Dean couldn’t possibly have affected Howard Dean’s campaign. What a bizarre thought.
Pingback: blargblog
Pingback: Keywords
Pingback: karmalised