Would we have been better under Howard Dean?

[skibunny4dean]

I haven't been here in a while. I used to be really active back in 03/04 when I was 19 a huge Deaniac. How life has changed in 8 years. I was SO hardcore Howard Dean back then and was super pissed when he self destructed and we got stuck with Kerry. And I did not like Kerry AT ALL. Like not even a drop. I ended up voting against him because I could not stomach him. I mean we had THE PERFECT CANDIDATE in Howard Dean in 2003. I thought he personified my personal values and SO could have taken it to Bush/Cheney better than Kerry/Edwards. I'm getting kinda mad now just thinking about it.

Anyway, if Dean had got the nomination in 2004, do you think he could have won? And if so, do you think he could have survived the economic collapse of 2008 (because I personally think it would have happened no matter who was in office,) and brought the economy back around? And if so, how do you think it would have impacted the political landscape in regards to the current cycle. Who do you think we'd be seeing running on both sides?

I know that's a lot of "what if" questions, but I for sure think we'd be better off right now if we had been in President Dean's second term. I just want to see if anybody else has even thought about it.

[bluestateguy]

1. The media would have chewed him up and spit him out

Which is what they did in the 2004 primaries and Dean couldn't handle it. That is the mark of a candidate who is not ready for prime time: not being able to handle the media's BS. It sucks and it is not fair. It is also the way things are.

The Bush team had another playbook to use against Dean had he been the nominee. While Kerry was depicted as a flip flopper who shifted with the wind and you didn't know where he stood, Dean would have been depicted by the Bush team as crazy, unhinged, extreme left in contrast to the steady hand of Bush, and in dangerous times around the world, we just can't have Dean's unhinged leadership right now! :eyes: Dean's lack of foreign policy experience would also have been played up. You would have seen the so-called Dean Scream on TV every 15 minutes after Labor Day 2004. This is talked about some in the documentary "So Goes the Nation".

If you voted against Kerry in November 2004 then I hope you only did it because you were in a solidly Blue or Red state. Not like Barbara Ehrenreich voting for Nader in Florida in 2000.

[skibunny4dean]

2. Um...

I was living in Vermont at the time. Now I live in Colorado, both of which went blue in their respective elections. Colorado is a swing state, believe it or not. Would I have voted against Kerry in 2004 had I been here? ...I think so just because I was so off-put by Kerry at the time and I just didn't want to see him as President.

[skibunny4dean]

4. Then again

I have been sort of on the outs with the Democratic Party since Deanie lost the nomination. In 2008 I backed Hillary, and I wasn't happy with the way she was treated by the media during the primaries. She deserved the nomination and there was a lot of slime hurled at the Clintons back then. In the end I voted for Obama, but only because John McCain is a senile old coot and I didn't want to see his face on television every day for the next four years. To be honest, I never really disliked Sarah Palin as much as a lot of my friends did. I mean, she's fun to watch, but I didn't really see what everybody's big problem with her was. I just don't get the "dangerous" vibe from her that everybody else seems to get. Then again, I have kind of mellowed out politically in the last few years. I'm less likely to get all worked up over some stuff that would send me into hysterics 8 years ago.

That being said, I don't think it would be unhealthy for the Democratic Party to hold a primary. The Republicans are getting lots of time to get their message out because they have like 10 candidates. We have one. Lets have a debate. Why not? If Obama wins the day, so be it. If someone else wins the day, so be it, but we really SHOULD have the debate.

[EmeraldCityGrl]

10. Compared to what? Bush'e vast foreign policy experience?

[Tesha]

3. He didn't "self-destruct"; the whole "Dean Scream scandal" was manufactured.

The media, in large part, made him and when it suited
their needs, the media broke him (so that Kerry could
lose the election for us). Notice how Howard's fortunes
changed when he started discussing how irresponsibly
the media has worked in this country.

And yes, we would have been far better-off with Howard
than any of a number of alleged-Democrats who have been
fronting for the party over the last several decades.

Tesha

[Rageneau]

5. You're 100 % correct in all particulars!

[karynnj]

12. The Dean scream is NOT why Dean imploded

The Dean scream followed Dean losing Iowa to Kerry by 20 percent! This in a race he was favored to win. If there had been no cream, the difference is the media would likely have given more coverage to Kerry's win AND covered "why Dean lost". The latter would have repeated every misstep Dean made - ignoring the many good moments. This is what happens in any race - especially if the favorite loses.

Kerry would still have received the momentum that ANY winner of Iowa gets. There were many NH voters who knew Kerry and liked him but had bought the media line that he couldn't win. The fact is that Dean had far more advocates in the media and he had the most money in Iowa. Kerry did a better job on retail politics - winning over voters one by one.

[davidwparker]

18. In 2016, one of my criterion for who I will select is that

it be any candidate which Iowa does not pick. If a candidate wins the Iowa caucus, then there is certainly something wrong with him/her and I will choose someone else.

[Kurmudgeon]

16. Amen on that! And to think they focused on that "scream" when you look at what else they ignore now.

[davidwparker]

17. I was listening to one of his speeches live on C-SPAN. He

talked about the need to break up the media conglomerations. I knew it was over then.

It was. The media turned on him.

[deanfan2]

6. Would we have been better under Howard Dean?

I firmly believe yes. Dean has always had the capacity to grow into any job he undertakes. He immediately learned how to handle the press when he became Chairman of the DNC. When he believes in a policy, and says he does...he sticks to his guns and does not back down under pressure. Everyone, his own party - members from Congress, the DLC, the DCCC. the DSLC all ridiculed his 50 State Strategy and then tried to take credit for it themselves when it succeeded overwhelmingly in the 2006 election by taking back the Congress. Then in 2008 when that strategy was adopted by the Obama campaign and won him the Presidency they tried to claim it as their own. As far as keeping promises....Howard Dean is the ONLY candidate I know who has kept every single campaign promise he ever made.

[AverageJoe90]

7. I always liked Dean.....

If Obama can't run in 2012, why not a Warren/Dean ticket? =)

[onpatrol98]

8. Why wouldn't Obama run in 2012?

Howard Dean doesn't strike me as the type to play second fiddle. Not that VP is second fiddle. I could see him liking the Dean/Warren arrangement a lot better. But, I could be wrong.

[EmeraldCityGrl]

9. We still would be better with Howard Dean. Dems

showed a complete lack of spine allowing a few seconds of film footage
to destroy his credibility. Can you imagine repukes abandoning a candidate
under those circumstances? Hell no! His screech should have become our rallying
call just to throw it back in their faces.

[karynnj]

13. You ignore that Kerry beat Dean in Iowa by 20% before the scream

Kerry then was only single digits behind Dean in NH and, like any winner of Iowa, the good coverage of a win, gained him many of the undecided voters. Think about it - most, if not all, candidates look great celebrating a victory. The scene is one of smiles and excitement. Losing a face you are expected to have won in nearly all cases is sad. At that point, there were a large number of undecided voters - many of whom were deserting Clark as his campaign imploded. Looking at the numbers, Dean did not lose a large chunk of voters. He was ahead, but well below the percent needed to win. He still ended up with about 30% of the vote - second to Kerry. I would doubt ANY voter decided because of the scream.

What hurt him at that point - was not the scream - or even having lost 2 races to Kerry, it was that he opted not to compete in the first multi-state day. That day had states not favorable to a New Englander - SC, MO, DE, NM,AZ, OK and ND. Dean did not have big organizations there and he thought he would do better concentrating on the next group. One thing motivating this is that he found that Trippi had spent nearly all the huge amount of money raised in Iowa and NH. This strategy could have worked had Edwards won the majority of those states and Kerry done poorly. This would have resulted in no real strong frontrunner. Dean could then have capitalized on winning the next set - leading to Dean wins in the big superTuesday races (CA, NY, MA etc). This possibly would have ended with no one having enough delegates - and a convention fight. As it was, Kerry won 5 of the 7 states and Edwards and Clark each won one - cementing Kerry's status as the frontrunner.

[gejohnston]

11. Tesha is correct that the media

had it in for him since he told (can't remember which one)some pundit that he wants to break up the media monopolies. That did not go over well in some circles.
I think Dean would have had a better chance, hacked voting machines taken in account. As for the economic collapse, it would depend on what congress looked like and how fast he could put an end to Reaganomics and other supply side/ "free" trade bs.

[karynnj]

14. Kerry, on the Commerce committee that oversees it, had spoken of legislation to do so

and had introduced it. So, it seems silly to argue that the media, which put Dean on three covers in one week, favored Kerry over Dean.

[davidwparker]

19. +1

That is it.

[Autumn Colors]

22. It was on Hardball where he talked about breaking up media conglomerates (nt)

[GreatLaker]

15. No.

Can't say that Dean has shown much in the past few years. His ideology may be sound, but he's disappeared.

[DFW]

20. Howard has disappeared? Not from this planet, he hasn't

Just try to get a hold of him. He's constantly rushing from Democratic party organizing to Democratic party organizing
doing the same work he did as DNC chairman, just on a lower key. He is running over to London and other parts of Europe,
in big demand over here for help with organizing Democratic and/or Liberal-Democratic (UK) parties. He is grabbed by American
talk shows when they can coordinate time together, which, considering Howard's schedule, is rare, indeed. Howard had more
free time when he was DNC chair than he has now, impossible as that may seem.

Howard isn't into seeking headlines, so maybe he isn't showing up on your TV screen or blog as much as he used to, and
he is still of the opinion that younger politicians need to step up and take the lead on issues. He feels he has had his
run for the big time, but his involvement and energy haven't diminished one bit. The last time I spent a few hours alone
with him was a few months ago, and in between phone calls, we must have covered about 25 different topics. He is into just
about EVERY issue (very active in environmental issues, even if the media chooses to ignore that), and has done anything BUT
disappear, I promise you.

[progsrock]

21. The "controversy"

I never understood how the media managed to turn nothing into a gigantic controversy. Getting excited and yelling at a rally = crazed maniac....really?? That was so ridiculous.

I also did not like John Kerry as our candidate for President. He's a nice guy, good public servant, etc. But he never had the level of charisma needed to blow Bush out of the water.

Sometimes we Democrats are not very good at focusing on electability. We need to get better at it if we want to win more elections.

[fegi052li]

23. I'd say yes

IMO