My take on Dean's Success...

[KissMyAsscroft]

In my opinion, it all boils down to one thing.

He was the first person who stood up to Bush.

I remember the first time I heard him speak out against Bush. It was awhile ago, Im not sure how many months...the "Im sick and tired to listening to fundamental preachers, I want my country back" speech.

At the time, there was this "unsaid rule" that Bush was not to be spoken ill of. I had all but given up hope that America had lost its friggin mind. When he uttered those words I wanted to kiss him. Everything he said after that was so direct and so in Bush's face I wanted to just support the guy any way I could.

This is the key to his success. When a lot of the other candidates had their finger in the air, testing the wind, he just came out and said what we all were thinking. It is this single thing that galvanized his support.

It's like that feeling when you are in a bar with a group of friends and one person is being an obnoxious asshole, and no one will speak up but everyone is tense and getting tired of the obnoxious jerk. Finally when one person just jumps up and tell them to "Shut the Hell Up!" it is almost orgasmic. This is why almost every person I know supports Dean. And than, hearing his views he has a reasonable agenda that works for middle America but doesn't sell out liberal causes.

I think there are a lot of people that believe Dean is pandering, but I think they forget how much Bush pandered to "win" in 2000. I mean "compassionate conservatism?" Give me a break! No conservatives believed that crap! Dean has to say some crap to get elected, give the guy a break.

Thoughts?

[Julien Sorel]

1. All politicians pander: it's what they do.

Only the naive think 'their' candidate doesn't do it. The real question is what standards they have -- what groups they choose to pander to, and how they choose to do it.

[ThirdWheelLegend]

2. " He was the first person who stood up to Bush."

I prefer to see it as "He was the first person to get alot of media coverage while 'he stood up to Bush'".

Lets go back 1 year and 9 months ago.

February 2002,

Some guy named Dennis Kucinich gave this speech..

http://www.kucinich.us/speeches/speech1.htm

snip>>>>>>>>
"Because we did not authorize the invasion of Iraq.
We did not authorize the invasion of Iran.
We did not authorize the invasion of North Korea.
We did not authorize the bombing of civilians in Afghanistan.
We did not authorize permanent detainees in Guantanamo Bay.
We did not authorize the withdrawal from the Geneva Convention.
We did not authorize military tribunals suspending due process and habeas corpus.
We did not authorize assassination squads.
We did not authorize the resurrection of COINTELPRO.
We did not authorize the repeal of the Bill of Rights.
We did not authorize the revocation of the Constitution.
We did not authorize national identity cards.
We did not authorize the eye of Big Brother to peer from cameras throughout our cities.
We did not authorize an eye for an eye.
Nor did we ask that the blood of innocent people, who perished on September 11, be avenged with the blood of innocent villagers in Afghanistan.
We did not authorize the administration to wage war anytime, anywhere, anyhow it pleases.
We did not authorize war without end.
We did not authorize a permanent war economy.

Yet we are upon the threshold of a permanent war economy. The President has requested a $45.6 billion increase in military spending. All defense-related programs will cost close to $400 billion. Consider that the Department of
Defense has never passed an independent audit. Consider that the Inspector General has notified Congress that the Pentagon cannot properly account for $1.2 trillion in transactions. Consider that in recent years the Dept. of
Defense could not match $22 billion worth of expenditures to the items it purchased, wrote off, as lost, billions of dollars worth of in-transit inventory and stored nearly $30 billion worth of spare parts it did not need."
snip>>>>>>>>

Thats just a teeny piece of the speech, go to the link to read the rest.

Just a mere 5 months after 9/11, when we all needed to hear someone speaking for us...

In fact this speech is what started the movement to DRAFT Dennis K. into the race.

Rather than campaigning, he was speaking from his heart and speaking for the people.

I myself read that speech a few days after it was delivered and said to my friend, "Man, I wish he would run for President."

TWL

[Julien Sorel]

5. You miss the point.

Dean was the first ex-governor of a small state with the initials H.D. to criticize Bush. Kucinich doesn't count. Don't ask me why though. Maybe it's because of the way he looks: maybe there's an appearance component that distinguishes true criticism from the fake criticism that Kucinich leveled. Maybe if Kucinich got plastic surgery, his criticisms would be first, but until then, Dean will criticize first, even when he doesn't, because he has the power. Or something like that.

[killbotfactory]

20. He wasn't a candidate in 2002.

Dean was an official candidate about a year before Kucinich.

[La_Serpiente]

3. Let me take a stab here

Yeah, last year when they were voting on the Iraq resolution, I was just furious. They gave Bush a blank check to go to war and I just became blind with rage. I was so angry.

If you look at that time, nobody was being critical of the president. Kucinich was pulling behind the scenes move in the House to stop the Iraq war resolution. However, probably due to the media coverage, they didn't really focus their eye on Kucinich. However, they did so to Dean.

I was just so happy. Here was a guy who actually realized that what was going to happen to this nation if we didn't do something soon. How did he help? He helped foster an environment where it was OK to criticize Bush. I thank him for that. I really do. If it wasn't for him, I think Kerry and the rest of the gang would be doing half-ass attacks against the President.

It also made the party actually listen to the anti-war crowd. I mean, that's what the party was historically. The Democratic Party's roots are pro-multilateralism and pro-peace. Too many Democrats have drifted from that core set of values that define us.

So I was for Dean, but now I am undecided. Is he still on my list? Sure. However, even though Dean has done many wonderful things, I am not going to vote for him based on the war issue alone. I will question him, just like how other people are questioning their own candidates as well.

What can we learn from the Dean candidacy? Well, I hope that the Democrats in Washington have finally realized that we're not going to take anymore of their BS. The DLC doesn't dictate who the party is. They don't represent my views. It's about time they start listening to the left side of the party or else we'll just go Green again.

[JNelson6563]

4. Yes, it's true, Dean is outspoken

While I have to disagree, he wasn't the first to speak out against Bush (I think that would go to Kucinich), he certainly did speak out. While many who would have us elect them our leader were playing it "safe" Dean basically said the war is wrong and Bush is an asshole.

Now the war is going terribly awry and the world knows what an asshole Bush is, those who played it safe aren't feeling so wise anymore.

I saw a previous comment about pandering. Let us assume this to be true and that everyone running for Prez is/was pandering. This is very telling. Just who was everyone pandering to? Who were Kerry and Clark pandering to? I know now that Clark doesn't like this war but I swear that when I caught him on CNN I sure didn't get that impression. Kerry supported this war and we all know the volume of calls going to his (and other Senators') office that were against the war. Was he jumping right to a GE state of mind and trying to win Pug votes, assuming the Dems were behind him no matter what?

We may never know. It's interesting though, to kick the pandering theory around.

I like Dean and he's proven all the naysayers wrong so far, I think he can take this thing all the way to the WH. People are aggravated and frustrated. They want change. Rock on Dean!

Julie

[KissMyAsscroft]

6. Regarding Kucinich...

Im sure Sharpton was criticizing Bush even before Kucinich. It was the WAY Dean attacked Bush that was a relief. It was what he was saying and how he was saying it.

Im sorry but Kucinich is not electable. Americans want a "tough-guy" President. As much as I believe that is ignorant, that is just how it is in America. Kucinich comes across as wimpy and odd looking. He is not presidential material. There is showbiz involved as much as I hate it.

And Dean broke the ice and made it ok to attack Bush directly, which is the broader point I was making.

[Julien Sorel]

7. LOL

You could have cut-and-pasted my post above and saved yourself some typing.

[KissMyAsscroft]

8. No actually I couldn't have..

you were being sarcastic, I was being dead serious.

[La_Serpiente]

11. Hmmmm

let's be respectful of other candidates here. I think every candidate has their strengths and weaknesses. So Kucinich doesn't seem as androgenous as some other candidates. Big Deal. I think Kucinich has a heart of gold. Does Dean have a heart? Of course. But I think Kucinich has a better sense of what is going on in the world, and I can relate to that.

[Julien Sorel]

12. Oh, but I was being quite serious.

[quaker bill]

9. First to get major media to cover his opposition

Many were against the war. I don't know when Dean made his mind up about it. I know Dennis Kucinich was in there plugging away as well.

Like Dean or not, his campaign has shown consistent skill at getting the media to pay attention to what he is saying and print it. This is why he seems to have been first. I don't expect he actually was the first with the idea.

[Bombtrack]

10. that's complete bull, his campaign is rooted in bashing democrats not Bush

you're completly revising history, by your own intent or not.

Dean's support is about being anti-war and anti-democrat

[JNelson6563]

13. cluelessness

is a blight on mankind, wouldn't you agree? ;-)

Julie

[Julien Sorel]

15. Mirror mirror, on the wall...

[Julien Sorel]

14. But if he's bashing Democrats for not bashing Bush enough,

isn't that the same as bashing Bush? Or is it simply opportunism, and pandering to angry people who are watching the politics of the country drift away from them, and they want someone to help them to pretend it isn't happening?

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

16. Dean went to the people

His campaign is people driven. This is what has endeared him to me. He has the priorities straight-we are the sovereigns, the President is our elected servant. Seems that this little fact has been forgotten.

[fsbooks]

17. I think that is it

A friend got me to meetup. I still go. Our town has 100 members, about 7 are regular are 20 show up. None of us are democratic machine members, most of us are generally aware, we usually do the little thing that the Dean campaign wants us to do, then sit around and just talk. The feeling is that Dean listens. That even if we disagree with him on an issue, or do not know what his policy is yet, it is OK. Hey our group cannot agree on everything, or probably anything exactly, but Dean's opinion is always something we can live with, a reasoned opinion, a broad umbrella that carries the essence of what we believe. That is presidential.

[Scott Lee]

18. A grassroots dislike of party establishment

That's what I think is the keystone to Dean's success.

He not only speaks directly (to the chagrin of the Rightwing and Democratic statists alike), has has found the "button" to set off action in an increasingly politics apathetic population.

Does he stick his florsheim in his mouth now and again? Sure he does. All of them do. That's politics. But in the end, you have to look at the Democratic lineup and ask yourself "Who among these folks energizes the party, and the vote at the same time?"

At this time that choice would clearly be Dean.

[ibegurpard]

19. Gore was doing it before I'd heard of Dean

then when Gore was left to twist in the wind by the Democratic power-brokers and all the "it's my turn now," potential candidates, I started paying attention to the next person in line who was echoing those sentiments...that person being Dean.

[ShimokitaJer]

21. Dean's appeal is similar to Bush's in 2000

I guess I'd better clarify that before I get flamed up the wazoo.

What you call "pandering" might be better called "generating empathy from the crowd." What the crowd wants is somebody who will talk straight to them without lying and without the perception that he is saying only what they want to hear. Bush was able to capitalize on this by playing against Clinton's attention to polls and semantic half-truths. In contrast, Bush was a straight talking, tell it like it is, ignore the polls type. Now that the image has been exposed as just so much smoke and mirrors, the people will not buy into that again.

The new straight talker is Dean. No, he was not the first to speak out against Bush, but he did speak out before it was "acceptable" to do so. And many Democrats saw the contrast between that attitude and the Dems who laid down on the IWR, the Patriot Act, and election 2002 -- that contrast had a very strong appeal. Yes, maybe it should have been Kucinich who got his due, but for whatever reason, Dean was the one to tap into the cache of both Bush distrust and distrust for the Democratic party who refused to stand up to him.

This explains Dean's supposed "Teflon" quality. If Kerry, Gephardt, etc. now speak against the war, they are perceived as simply following the popular sentiment at the time, while Dean is perceived as standing up for his principles. If the other candidates attack Dean for misspeaking on the confederate flag set, the public forgives Dean and resents the other candidates for deliberately misrepresenting the intent of the remarks.

Momentum is a powerful force, and right now Dean has it.

[ThirdWheelLegend]

22. "but for whatever reason, "

I know what that reason is, media coverage.
I really do think its that simple.

"but for whatever reason, Dean was the one to tap into the cache of both Bush distrust and distrust for the Democratic party who refused to stand up to him."

Kucinich had been doing this since early 2002. He led a large number of reps in the house to oppose the war. He has been taking Bush to task for longer and been a stonger voice.

But how many times has Dean been on TV, on the cover of magazines, mentioned in newscasts, given twice as much time in debates. The disparity is truly disturbing.

Someone posted once, but I don't have the link. They posted the coverage contrast of Dean and Kucinich during pre-war days. Both were polling very close to each other, Dean like 5% and Kucinich about 3%. Then in the next month or so Dean had nearly 10-15 times as much media coverage and appearances. If anyone has this info could they please post it.

TWL

[ShimokitaJer]

23. I think you're right

And no, maybe it's not fair that it should be more important than the issues, but that's where we are.

Clearly Dean's campaign has done an exceptional job of creating media buzz surrounding his candidacy, and I think we've all learned a lesson or two about the power of the media to mold popular opinion in an election.

[blm]

24. Yes, yyou're right. Dean and Bush campaigns are very much alike.

Bush ran as if he wasn against the Republican party excesses, and Dean is running as if he was a fighting populist. Too bad neither have records that backed up their campaign rhetoric.

Conason said in August 2002, that Kerry was the one person who srood up against Bush most substantively. But, I guess you weren't paying attention back then or Conason doesn't know what he's talking about.