OK, Dean supporters. Explain to me this ultimate mystery.

[WilliamPitt]

I have a confession to make. I envy and admire Green and very Left people, especially those who post so eloquently on this board. My envy and admiration do not come from any political activities that have taken place in the last four years. It's a lot simpler than that.

Basically, I'm a whore for the Democratic Party. I have hitched myself to that wagon because they have the national machine to defeat Bush, period. I will endure, and have endured, an amazing load of moral and ethical contradictions in this. I'm OK with that, because I do believe that the perfect is the enemy of the good, and because defeating Bush is the bull moose gold medal winning number one priority in my life.

But that does not make things easier when I am alone with myself and have to face my own eyes in the mirror. That is why I admire the Green/Super-Lefties. They were born without this nasty pragmatism gene I endure, they can and do stand on righteousness (which I think we all have to admit is there, whether we like to face it or not). They are the 'beautiful losers' in this corrupted and compromised political culture whose souls are strong and pure. We would be lost without them. I cannot and will not do what they do, but damn, I envy the sleep of the righteous they must enjoy.

So here is the mystery. How in the world did a centrist like Howard Dean win the hearts and minds and activism of these people? A lot of Dean's standard beliefs do not align with the Green/Super-Lefty program. He is not a liberal, period. I will name some DU names, if this doesn't get this locked: IndianaGreen and Eloriel. I respect these DUers immensely, and we have gone round and round and round again. Unless I have completely spaced out, these two exemplars of the Awesome Left are for Dean.

I ask because I believe this phenomenon to be the POWER behind this campaign.

How did he do it? Was it the Iraq war vote alone? Was it the fact that he raised his voice? How do those two things overcome the substantive policy disagreements between the two ideologies? I'm asking because I have an opportunity next week to speak to Kerry, and I'd like to whallop him with some electoral reality.

Standard dislaimer: I swear to God, I am not trying to start a fight here. If I said anything offensive, please tell me what it was so I can edit/apologize. I am, and have been for a while, genuinely curious about this phenomenon.

[La_Serpiente]

1. *duck*

[Jonte_1979]

2. I'm not a super-lefty

But I think it has to do with the fact that Dean courted this group in a fairly non-condescending manner.

[WilliamPitt]

3. Was that a hint?

[Jonte_1979]

5. No

I actually don't find you condescending in the least.

[WilliamPitt]

6. *whew*

Thanks.

[bearfartinthewoods]

151. the real hint lies in your questions.

was it the war and the anger? this is what worries me. if the answer is yes, then that means they support him because of things of the past that will have no value in the future campaign or in his administration. if a campaign is based on anger at bush and the war, what does one do, in the general, when both of those issues need to be mainly muted to appeal to the broader electorate.

and in the end, if we win, what have we won. a D instead of a R? i'm getting old. i wonder if i'll live long enough to see a real liberal as president again.

[KittyWampus]

4. I Am A Socialist Who Understands The Importance Of Using A MODERATE IMAGE

to sell a Progressive package.

Image Is Everything.

The Eye follows the Hand.
The Hand follows the Mind.
The Mind follows the Heart.

We see what we want to see.

Image IS EVERYTHING.

Whoever controls the Image controls Everything.

So controlling Practical Material Things involves Understanding and Manipulating IMMATERIAL Things.

Dean hooked onto people when they were vulnerable and created an image of an anti-war candidate.

[joeybee12]

10. Bull, bull, bull

It's because people are angry, and they are looking outside the Washington establishment for someoen to resuce this country from the mess Dumbo and his evil henchmen, and the Dem enablers have created.

Dean comes across as angry, and willing to do something to stop this onslaught.

All I see from the others are policy platforms that they've been yealling about for years, but haven't come close to enacting. Why are we supposed to believe that they will miraculously get things done if elected, when they've been impotent in Congress for so long?

[KittyWampus]

18. Dean Is NOT Outside The Washington Establishment

But the image Trippi has created has certainly taken in quite a few people.

It'll be interesting to see if the image holds through more intense scrutiny.

[Hawkeye-X]

19. Same here.

I'm a socialist at heart. Dean has the correct image to sell a progressive package, while remaining moderate to centrist. That is what attracted me the most about Dean. He doesn't regard Americans like us a chip on the shoulder..

That what made me attracted -- he stays consistent on his message, and what's more -- I was a Gore supporter from 00 until his eventual droppage in early 2003. I was shocked, like with the rest of us DU'ers from earlier this year that we laughed and talked about Gore's SNL appearance. It was quite a shakeup, and we have since then moved on.

I looked at candidates after candidates, and watched the debate on TV. I looked at Kerry, I look at Edwards and found several faults on my issues regarding them. Gephardt was out because of his faults with Iraq and his failed attempts on presidency. You see, I have fallen into politics since I was about 7 or 8, when I read an newspaper article in the Rocky Mountain News "We hit Libya" - reference to Reagan's decision to bomb Tripoli twice, so I followed politics, was a brief Bush supporter vs Dukakis 1988 run. I even remember reading about Gary Hart's scandal with Donna Rice. I'm only 27, and I can remember 20 years worth of politics on a very young mind. I supported Clinton. My sister worked for the WH during Clinton's first term working with Gore. So we have a lot of political influence in my family.

And I'm taking Intro to Politics -- almost finished, and I'll tell you about the great debate I had in class yesterday, and look for it on the GD thread that I will make in a few min...

Hawkeye-X

Hawkeye-X

So I developed my own way of thinking on how to find the best candidates

[La_Serpiente]

7. Not a Dean supporter

but I think Dean's candidacy mean's more than just getting him elected. I think his supporters want change overall, in the party and in the nation. I think we are changing the geography here. Am I right or wrong?

[AWD]

8. I signed up online....

...and ever since then, I get this packet of Kool-Aid in the mail weekly. Or so some would have you believe.......

Seriously, he captured my support by standing up and fighting the way I want a President to do.

I'm not interested in what he said in 1995....as they like to say, 9/11 changed everything. It also changed the way we are angry with our government and the way we should be fighting back against them. I certainly wasn't this angry in 1995, and I probably had some political beliefs that have changed drastically since then.

Howard Dean just seems to connect with my attitude on many levels.

[CWebster]

9. nasty...

writing for the DLC now?

Maybe because you are full of crapola with your sweeping generalizations - and many Progressives are pragmatic but not complete sell-outs.

Sorry, I really don't want to not like you, but it just can't be helped considering your continuous flamebaiting.

[WilliamPitt]

11. I am not talking about

the legions of progressives who have signed on with Dean. Their decisions are pretty clearly obvious. I'm talking about Green types and Far Left types who have also signed on.

[CWebster]

25. Those aren't progressives?

I guess I should ask my Mother, she is a Red with a Dean sticker on her car. Why don't you ask how these Kucinch socialists can support Clark (if you can find one not posing as a Lefty in a proselytizing mode--;-))

[WilliamPitt]

30. I hope the smilie in your post

means you understand the distinction I'm trying to draw.

[CWebster]

49. Kerry has a long and admirable record in the Democratic party

but he is running a horrendous campaign and his political instincts are awkward and inappropriate. That one vote tripped him up and he never recovered and found his winning niche. It is probably too late for him now and his going negative makes him seem petty. He is always pontificating and it seems artificial. He doesn't connect.

Does he really want it? He acts more like he doesn't want Dean to have it than he seems to want it for himself.

Kerry does have redeeming qualities, although the things he uses to promote himself - like his macho war hero crap, are not the things the Left is generally impressed with.

I would have less of a problem voting for Kerry than some of the others--even with all his attacks on Dean. Kerry just never found his own voice. He just should've been himself and not taken the advice of anyone. It was the same thing that handicapped Gore.

[Schmendrick54]

42. Maybe I'm just dense, but I do not see the flamebait here.

Perhaps I am biased because I share with Mr. Pitt a deep conviction that unselecting the usurper is the most important thing I can do for my children and grandchild, but the original post comes across to me as a sincere question. It is a question which I have as well.

In many ways I am a "super-lefty"; at least my positions on most issues is closer to John Kerry than Howard Dean. I know Dean is not as liberal as I am on many issues, but I am still supporting him because he was willing to stand up to the fratboy who would be king when others seemed to be too polite to criticize him.

Maybe the most important factor is this; when I was enraged by the fact that the wartime deserter was misleading our military into an elective war; driving the economy into a ditch, and trashing our environment, Howard Dean asked ME to help him take our country back. He didn't just ask me to vote for him at some future date. And I NEEDED to do something. So I have constructed stages, handed out VIP passes, washed cars, reproduced DVDs, talked to neighbors, travelled to NH to canvass, put bumperstickers on my cars, donated money, attended meetings, and written letters.

I do not have the gift for beautiful prose that some here do, but I will not be silent while the Crisco Kid violates the constitution he swore to uphold. So I will do what I can, a little every day, to try to remove the Neo-Con Artists from power. I will be proud to stand with Mr. Pitt in that effort. If I thought there was an insult to progressives in his post, I would probably still work with him -- but I just don't see it.

[littlejoe]

56. I couldn't agree more.

It is a valid question. One worth pondering. But no one is perfect, and I believe that many of the far leftists realize that. I lean far to the left, and I am tinged with the pragmatic belief that the most important thing now, is to find a candidate we can believe in, who walks the walk and talks the talk, who will have a REAL chance to beat the man in the White House. (I cannot even bring myself to mention his name) I believe that Howard Dean cares about us, and that he will work to undo the wrongs perpetrated by this administration. And if democrats and progressives and greens would get behind him, the way that republicans circle the wagons we can have it.

[Jerseycoa]

65. Nice

I thought you said this beautifully. There's no missing your good will. I'm a super-lefty, too, have been for 40 years, but it's become a luxury I can't afford this election, so I don't think about it. I am very pragmatic all of a sudden. My friends are horrified.

[sendero]

66. I also...

... take this as an honest question. Mr. Pitt is unlikely to ever fall into the viper pit of agitators we have here anyway.

As a Dean supporter (who is also pretty impressed with Clark I'd have to add) for me it was simple. Dean is the anti-pinkTutu. We've had enough poodles trying to do a pit-bull's job, let's try a real pit bull. To the "you can't win on anger alone" crowd, I say pull the veil off your eyes, Dean has spoken about his hopes and plans as much as anyone. Even so, he has plenty of time to drive that home after the nomination.

I respect every single candidate for the Dem nomination, any of them could debate Bush* into a corner with half their brain removed. But Dean was the first to connect with the large number of people who are fed up with the weak responses, in word and in deed, to the power grab the Reps have engaged in for 3 years now.

And IMHO, the reason Kerry and Gebby are not doing so hot because they are seen as part of the problem, not of the solution. Whether that is a fair conclusion is irrelevant. This is politics, and perception is reality. Those who cannot create perceptions are doomed to fail.

[WilliamPitt]

71. Thank you

and very well put.

[mdmc]

122. i dig the cut of your jib, schmendrick

welcome to du... :dem:

[calimary]

168. You do not have the gift for beautiful prose? I disagree!

Someone who refers to the Crisco Kid, and uses a phrase I myself have been trying to promote - CON-ARTISTS (as in republi-CON-ARTISTS), my dear, you wax utterly poetic!

Your points are well-made and well-taken, and shared by me.

Dean spoke out against the war while the pansies in the Senate (who now would be our president) rubber-stamped it. HE had the courage to oppose it when the polls were all saying he should get behind it.

The first MeetUp I attended, in February, had 10 people, including a former Vermonter. The former Vermonter had lived there when Dean was his governor. The former Vermonter had nothing but good things to say about Dean, and spoke in such a way as to reveal himself as very informed, well-educated and well-read. That's how everybody else at the MeetUp appeared, also. I pay attention not only to what a candidate says and does, but what the people behind him say and do. And if an educated, informed group of people supports someone, I take that seriously and it IS an inducement to explore further.

I like his stands on almost everything. Even guns. I don't share that view, particularly, but I can very easily live with his explanation, and actually I can agree with it somewhat, that it should be up to the individual states. I like his stand on choice (a HUGE and uncompromisable issue for me), and the fact that he's a doctor with such a stand (he oughta know). I like that he's a doctor, period. Who better could bring intelligence and wisdom to the problem of health insurance? As a mom I like the fact that every child was NOT left behind in Vermont, but was fully covered for health care until age 18. I like that he has a wife strong enough to have and maintain her own identity and that HE is man enough not to be threatened by it. This is a guy who doesn't need a Stepford Wife on his arm to make him look like, or feel like, a man. I like that his record as governor shows he came in with a deficit and went out with a surplus, and apparently he created more jobs in the state of Vermont than bush has so far in the entire country. Sure, he didn't go to Vietnam, but he lost a brother there, so - to me - that means he can truly relate to what war really means and how much it hurts. He's seen, firsthand, what combat can do, even if he has not seen actual combat firsthand.

Mainly, I deeply and profoundly appreciate that this Howard reminds me so much of the fictitious Howard Beale in the movie "Network," which remains one of my all-time favorite movies. Howard Beale got "mad as hell" and urged everybody else to get in touch with their rage and not to take it anymore. The wording in the script was powerful - "he articulates the popular rage." Howard Dean is doing the exact same thing, acknowledging and giving voice to the rage that's risen in me, by the day, ever since December 2000 when our democracy was summarily hijacked by extremist, narrow-minded, manipulative, power-mad, Machiavellian thugs. My rage has grown week by week as it, as well as the rage of many other Americans, is continually dismissed, smeared, jeered, misrepresented, and ignored. And he's the only one who's consistently given voice to it, FROM THE GET-GO. Other candidates have started to "get religion" about this, but he was there from the start, and he stuck his neck out very early, and took the risk, very early, unlike Wesley Clark (whom I actually think I could also support, by the way).

That's why I'm still a Deanie.

[zeemike]

12. First Will

You need not apologize for whoring for the Demos. I think most thinking people fully understand that they do have the machinery to get the job done and it is only pragmatic to use it. There is nothing wrong with this as long as you do not sell your soul.
And most of us realize that it is going to be a long and winding road ahead to undo all that has happened over the last few years (or decades if you go back to Reagan) and it will have to be stepwise.
It is only a dream that one dynamic leader can take charge and do it all at once, and dreams are fun but not likely to happen.
Dean has my heart because I believe that he has good intentions and will listen to people and try to set things right. That is all I want just a good effort and a stepwise movement forward.

[hippiechick]

13. Grassroots

I think it's because Dean appealed to the 'mousepads and shoe leather' group who - from my own experience - has felt so alientated from mainstream discourse because we aren't the big donors,
we don't have the Statehouse connections ... what we have is alot of energy and brainpower to
offer, if a candidate would only connect with us and ask.

The "Dean People" probably knew from the get-go that Lieberman, Edwards and Kerry would have the 'mainstream Dem constituency' sewn up, so they hit the pavement and tried to (and did, successfully, IMO) activate the dormant arm of the party.

In short, Dean's outreach gave us a sense of inclusion and empowerment.

Does that make any sense ?

:hippie:

edit: dang carriage return !

[WilliamPitt]

14. It does.

[Eloriel]

82. It makes sense except for the part

where you made Dean's "appeal" a conscious decision by him and Trippi. It wasn't. It was something that happened. They were smart enough to take advantage of, as Dean put, "the energy" he encountered among early supporters -- those first MeetUp groups and other appearances where the crowds were considerably larger than they "should have been" at that point in any campaign.

No, this has all been spontaneous and then well-capitalized on.

Eloriel

[TLM]

139. It was a dam ready to break...

And the other dems were standing around because nobody had the guts to step up and tap it. They all waited fro Dean to take the heat, and he did, but with it came the support of this mass fo people who were full of brains, and energy, and anger, and hope... The meetups started without any action from Dean. They just started poping up through blogs and message boards the wrod got out.

In a few months time thousands of folks were meeting and the Dean campaign took notice. Where others would say hey great... Dean saw a change to build a massive greass roots network.

Dean steped in a put campaign resources into outreah and oranization. It worked... he reached people like nobody has before and did ti at just the right time.

[lastliberalintexas]

15. As a super lefty myself

I can say that the first thing that drew me to him and his campaign was his willingness to stand up to Shrub and this evil cabal in power. Especially since this was at a time when our Congressional Dems and the DNC/DLC were bending over backwards to make Dim Son's life as easy as possible. I am not trying to bash the other candidates here, sicne I too am willing to vote for either of them. But Dean seems to exemplify the By God Backbone that I want in our elected officials.

It is also because I too have a pragmatic streak. I realize that my perfect candidate does not exist, and that the person with whom I am most in agreement politically is too far ahead of the nation to be elected AT THIS TIME. I think Kucinich will be a wonderful pres candidate after he serves a term or two as Ohio Senator or Gov and can garner more nat'l exposure.

Now back to Dean- But it is the fact that Dean can actually stand up to this administration while being a moderate leftist that appeals to me. He holds many of the moderately left positions we probably need to win in the general, while still drawing a line in the sand for the repubs. He personifies for me the exact opposite of what happened in 2002- the go along to get along crowd.

Plus, I don't think he can be pigeon holed as liberal/moderate on certain issues. Though I am a lefty myself, I admire his fiscal responsibility. Deficits are awful for working people- from less money available for social services to higher interest rates to higher debt servicing fees- and I like the fact that he tackles this issue head on.

I also agree with his stand on guns, since I've never been in favor of very much gun control legislation. I actually think this is the traditional liberal stand, since it is favoring the individual over the gov't, a la Jefferson v. Hamilton.

But more than anything, it is his willingness to stand up to this administration and ignore the DLC's pleas of compromise.

[WilliamPitt]

16. Thanks

That makes a hell of a lot of sense.

[Cleita]

17. As an environmentalist and socially conscience person,

my first calling is very close to the Green platform. I think though that the extreme left belongs as a caucus in the party that leans left, the Democrats. I would also like to see a women's caucus within our party.

Since our system is really only comfortable with a two party system, introducing parties outside of the main ones accomplishes nothing. It actually even works against our goals. One of the reason Democracies often don't work in many countries is because multiple parties gridlock the issues and no meaningful legislation is passed to help the country function.

I think the real problem is in not listening to the various factions within our party and coming to an agreement, which is satisfactory to all. The DLC element of our party has done just that, pandering to the center and not listening to the left, and this is why we have Greens and Libertarians, who should rightfully belong to the party of the working and middle classes.

[wyldwolf]

20. Since you brough it up...

... I, too, have wondered the same thing - some of Dean's weaker points appear to contradict the things greens stand for.

On edit: I know what I consider my candidate's weak points. I also know what I consider Dean's weak points.

[mzmolly]

21. Well, If I may speculate..

I've always voted Dem and thought Clinton was a great President *in spite of the fact that I didn't always agree with him*

I also worked for The Wellstone/Mondale for Senate campaign in MN, and considered briefly a vote for Nader in 2000. In the end, I'm most glad I didn't vote Nader, because I have much more respect for Gore, and think he would have been an outstanding President.

I do have a hypothesis on this subject however, though I'm not a former Green, I have friends family who are:

First of all, Nader isn't even a member of the Green Party. But, he wanted a fundamental change. Nader sought to return "power to the people" and Dean seeks to do the same. Some people criticize Dean for being a centrist in Vermont, and feel his supporters have been hornswaggled, but that is not so.

Dean is liberal on the issues that matter much to Greens/Leftist Dems. He has 'evolved' in a positive direction on the issues he should have. *Much like Kucinich has* and I for one respect a person who is willing to 'evolve.' I trust that Dean will tell the truth, but his constant desire to seek the truth, has caused some to say he's 'flip flopping.' He has said all along that he remains open minded (which I appreciate) and he is capable of changing his mind given evidence to do so.

That said, I think that Greens/Leftist Dems are attracted to Dean for many reasons.

1. He is very outspoken and has taken a stand - albeit unpopular at times.

2. He is not beholden to corporate interests

3. He is running the best grassroots campaign ever in the history of the United States

4. He is feisty, and we need someone not afraid to speak about the issues to go up against *. We need an anti-politician

5. He is working harder than anyone else in this race, and has been right on the issues that matter most. People try to spin his position on the war, but Dean followers know his position has been consistant, regardless of spin.

6. I think Dean compromises on the issues that need compromise. And, I think he is solid on matters that don't. I feel he is a pragmatic progressive/liberal.

7. I appreciate his honesty in saying "dont fall in love with me" (because I'm bound to piss you off) my paraphrase, because it's true. Any of our beloved candidates will piss us off from time to time, and I frankly think Dean is being honest about that.

8. Dean has been their for his supporters when we needed a voice, it's a mutual relationship.

9. Dean is raw

10. Dean was there when I needed a voice against the war. I needed a 'centrist' to speak out. He is indeed the only centrist running, that didn't stand with * the IWR.

11. He has maintained constant communication with his supporters.

Check it out here:

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=press_releases


12. He is gonna kick *'s ass all the way back to Texas, and I will have one helluva party when he does.

13. He will fight to then end if 'they' try and steal this election.

14. He is human, which I find appealing. Call him the 'anti-Bush' if you will.

15. *Edited to add: Hey man... Dean is not a 'phenomenon' he is the best choice for President in 2004! :loveya:

I don't know that this was the most eloquent of explainations, and it's just my opinion, but I wanted to 'weigh in'. :)

My apologies for the repetitive speculation with in this post...

[WilliamPitt]

24. You weighed in well

Thanks.

[mzmolly]

29. Thank you my respected comradEEEE...

;) :hi:

*Edited for speeeeling.

[WilliamPitt]

32. It's comrade with an 'e'

They put you in Lefty Prison for blowing that one. ;)

[mzmolly]

36. OY! I was gonna check that on... I mean... one :)

Thanks :)

[WilliamPitt]

41. Prosit!

:)

[proud patriot]

22. For me it is the Fire in the Belly Courage

and he has listened to us grassroots folks
(makes us feel like a difference is made by each
of us individually )

peace be with all the candidates and their supporters :hi:

[rucky]

23. Myth: Liberalism & Pragmatism are mutually exclusive

Left-Liberals are characterized as being all-or-nothing types, but I don't think that's necessarily true. I beileve most of us will accept incremental change in the short run - the small victories - as long as we're on the right path, and we keep fighting for our ideals. Centrists are more content to stop at the incremental change - if a compromise has been reached, then mission accomplished: move on to the next issue. Liberals keep chipping away.

In this way, I don't believe that Howard Dean is a pure centrist - but he's an unashamed pragmatic, but still has ideals. His campaign is focused on what he thinks we CAN do - not necessarily what we/he want/s to do. One example: In one of his earlier speeches, when he rolled out his healthcare plan, he admitted it wasn't perfect. Single-payer would be ideal - and his plan eventually leads to that - but Hillary tried it & failed. He's promoting a strategy that would get us there, but focusing his message on the first steps - what we can do.

Even if Howard Dean doesn't get the extreme lefties all the way there, there is a precedent he'll be setting that will help pave the way for long-term liberal ideal goals. Modernized grassroots campaigning...meetups... this is a language we can understand.

Sure, Kucinich is doing it - and his platform is more in tune with our ideals. Kucinich presents an opportunity for the people to take the expressway to liberalism - all we'd have to do is all hop on board. Many of his supporters may know that America isn't ready for that, but they're giving it a shot.

The liberal movement needs both pragmatic idealists for the small, consistant victories, and uncompromising idealists to keep us focused for the big, long-term fight. Howard Dean & Dennis Kucinich represent those two sides, IMHO.

btw: I'm still undecided.

Edit: I guess I have to show my stripes. Did a nader/gore vote exchange with a Texan in 2000.

[NashVegas]

43. thanks

One other thing: what is "left," anymore?

Many of the people I know who most strongly identify themselves as "left" or "liberal," often strike me as being as authoritarian or patriarchal as any conservative - they just want different things than conservatives do. Compare that to a campaign that encourages people to use their own creativity and there's the difference.

The thread in LBN about master/slave components is a perfect example of this type of social liberalism at its worst. The guy who says guns should be the states' issues is going to look attractive to those of us who see aspects of social liberalism, like the above example, as running amok.

[Eloriel]

87. Very good. I like your liberalism/pragmatism line a lot. n/t`

[Webster Green]

26. I'm registered Green Party.........

and about as far left as one can be. I like Kucinich's platform, but reality dictates that I will probably support Dean. The reason: In this respect, bush is a "uniter". I think Dean has the best chance of defeating the little weasel bastard. I like to vote Green if I can, but try to determine if it is a wise strategy to do so. I liked Camejo, but voted for Bustamonte in the CA recall.

[childslibrarian]

27. I have a degree in community organizing

and this man is a genius in this area. His ability to mobilize is incredible. He also has the ability to get to the political point with a razor sharp intellect. I love reading his press releases.
And I'm not even a Dean supporter....

[mzmolly]

74. Yes, he's "intelligent and passionate" ~ A great combination.

;)

[matcom]

28. simple for me

only candidate EVER to 'recognize' us. the Internet base. the TRUE patriots. he listens, he 'seems' to actually CARE what we say, think and advocate.

that, to ME, is HUGE!

[Cleita]

34. That's exactly it matcom.

He listens to "us" the voters not "them" the politicos.

[matcom]

45. nail. meet head.

everyone ELSE considers "US" "Fringe"

they may be right but at least SOMEONE gives a damn about their "fringe" :D

[Bandit]

31. I am a far left liberal

I haven't yet decided on any candidate but I'll tell you what I admire about Dean and it has nothing to do with him being a liberal or conservative. He has stood up and said exactly what he sees as being wrong and corrupt with this administration. He doesn't try to get along to go along. To put it bluntly he has a pair and isn't afraid to let that fact be known. I feel Kerry is probably the stronger candidate but I feel Kerry sticks his finger in the air to see which way the wind is blowing before he speaks. Dean doesn't do that. Granted it gets him in trouble occasionally but I like his spirit. I don't think he is going to get the nomination to tell the truth. I believe Senator Kerry will win out at the end of the day. I just wish all our candidates would take a page from Deans play book. It would be quite beneficial for us. I want the party to go left and away from the "center" which is really Republican from a decade ago. Nixon would be more left than half our candidates today.

[Closer]

33. You know what I think is an ultimate mystery Will?

Why you constantly go from one extreme to another.

I've noticed this. It's almost like bipolar disorder.

For example, just last week, you made a post about how Dean/Clark can/should/and will be the winning ticket. Yet other posts, within mere days of this one, you'll post negative inferences about Dean. (not this one per se, as this is a fair ((albeit potentially baited)) question)

It's just odd. I don't usually trust folks like that.

Don't get me wrong, you're a wonderful, gifted writer. But I don't trust you as far as I could throw you ;-)


Oh, and in your int'v with Kerry, you gonna tell him, too, that you think Dean/Clark is the best ticket? Or do you still think that today? Perhaps you'll change your mind tomorrow. :hi:

[WilliamPitt]

40. I am totally bipolar

On the one hand, I am a Dem whore. On the other hand, my soul is elsewhere.

I put my soul in a box for this race. The last race, I was out collecting signatures to get Nader on the Massachusetts ballot in the hot July 2000 sun. And then I got scared, and voted Gore. And then I realized how scary things really are, and became a Dem whore. So I post threads like this when I am feeling one way, and wax rapshodic about a Dean/Clark ticket when I feel another.

I often oscillate. I can't help it. I'm not making fucking policy statements when I post on DU. I do what I did when I first came here and post what I am feeling when I arrive at the keyboard.

You're not wrong. But I might suggest that someone who is frozen into an idea, and not enduring an internal argument, and not willing to change, and not having that internal dialogue which changes from day to day, is really and truly the person who can not be trusted any further than you can throw them.

[zeemike]

44. This is very true

But I might suggest that someone who is frozen into an idea, and not enduring an internal argument, and not willing to change, and not having that internal dialogue which changes from day to day, is really and truly the person who can not be trusted any further than you can throw them.

[mzmolly]

47. Exactly...

"You're not wrong. But I might suggest that someone who is frozen into an idea, and not enduring an internal argument, and not willing to change, and not having that internal dialogue which changes from day to day, is really and truly the person who can not be trusted any further than you can throw them."

You share some of the many qualities I admire about Howard Dean, Will.

:toast:

:hi: I'm outta here for now...

~Peace

[MuseRider]

59. Will, I did not know

or even suspect that. Thanks for sharing your "green" moments. I can't figure it out. I started with Dean but left when I heard Kucinich. Whatever Dean is doing it seems to be working but I can't imagine supporting him anymore, as a progressive. This was NOT flamebait, nor was your thread. If we can't open up these issues and if our candidates can't stand the light then we really are in trouble. Thanks for sharing this.

[WilliamPitt]

61. Thanks, Muse. You'll get a kick out of this.

Written a couple of weeks before the election for a tiny website called DarkHorse2000.com.

===

Requiem for a Voter

"You're all just a bunch of fickle mushheads!"

- Diamond Joe Quimby, Mayor of Springfield

http://www.thelastcool.com/dh2k/html/archive-pitt.html

Time to face facts, folks. Unless something remarkable happens in the next two weeks, George W. Bush will be President of the United States. I don't discount the possibility of a miracle, a hail-mary pass intercepted and returned for a touchdown with the clock ticking down to zero...but I am not holding my breath.

The usually-reliable CNN/USA Today poll has Bush leading by 9 points. They have him pulling 50% of the popular vote. I find that disturbing right down in my soul. If you believe the poll, half of America finds Bush an admirable, competent, capable man of honor. Thanks to Michael Moore, I am eloquently reminded that this number represents the voting American public, an important distinction. There's the pesky matter of 100 million voters who have removed themselves from the equation. They quit, for whatever reason, so I am spared the ugly truth this poll wants me to believe.

It has a bitter edge, however. I understand the discontent, disgust, and even rage felt out there in the body politic. So very many people just don't give a tinker's damn about this election, and they have good cause for their opinion. I could never hold such feelings against them, but I am losing my ability to comprehend them. I cannot fathom, as hard as I try, a man or woman who has strength of will or inertia of apathy enough to avoid the voting booth in the face of a Bush presidency. The man is not winning. The majority of the voting American public is simply not on the playing field.

I started writing here as an ardent Nader supporter. I collected signatures for his candidacy, and I wrote tomes to friends about the nobility and certitude of his campaign. The crux of Nader's strategy, and the unspoken strategy of those of us who wrote in support of him, was to flush out the non-voters. Startle them like geese in the reeds, and as they take wing, blast them with a double-barreled burst of revolutionary invective laced liberally with patriotism. I honestly believed the man could win, if he could debate, if he made enough noise that the media had to pay him some mind.

It didn't happen. In fact, I don't think a single non-voter has decided to pull the lever because of Ralph. Everyone planning to vote for Nader would have voted for Gore, perhaps holding their noses. But they were going to vote no matter what. We didn't flush any geese this time around. The fact that even a minimally viable Nader candidacy is possible speaks volumes about the problems we face today, but this does not motivate. I assess my efforts this way: my work in support of Nader has aided him to secure exactly enough of Gore's voting base to virtually ensure the election of George W. Bush, and 100 million people will still not vote on November 7th. It's not all my fault, I know. But it stings nonetheless.

The astute politicos I speak to don't give a fig for polls, however. The game is in the Electoral college, that archaic holdover from the glory days of exclusivity, when only land-holding white men could cast a vote. Those 270 Electoral College votes guarantee that the American public will not be burdened with the sole responsibility of electing a President through a popular vote. We have had in our past Presidents who lost the popular vote but were swept into office by an Electoral College victory. Until a week or so ago, Gore enjoyed a moderate lead in the Electoral College. That lead has absolutely evaporated. USA Today has Gore with 172 and Bush with 153, but Orvetti's numbers have Bush with 321 and Gore with 217. The truth is likely somewhere in between.

So there it is, big as life. The voters who plan on exercising their right are apparently flocking to Bush. 100 million people are again preparing to sit this one out.

I honestly thought I had already witnessed the silliest, most egregiously shallow Presidential campaign that could ever be run. Recall, if you will, 1988. Somehow, a burning American flag and the size of Dukakis’ head became vital campaign issues. This, in the face of eight years of Reaganomics: skyrocketing poverty and homelessness, AIDS, piles of radioactive material stored in rotting casks out in the desert, collapsing schools, and the prospect of a man centrally implicated in some Byzantine conspiracy potentially holding the office of President.

Recall how a man walking down the street wearing a T-shirt emblazoned with an American flag and the words, "Try to burn this!", became the standard-bearer for everything that seemed to matter in 1988. The media was deeply complicit in this. They have outdone themselves this time around. Pardon my French, but liberal bias my ass.

It appears the Republicans only win when they campaign successfully with an "image" platform devoid of any true substance. That success depends, simply, on whether or not the media allows them to get away with it. For reasons that are as simple as the geometry of the marketplace, the media decided the people wouldn't watch their advertisers or buy their newspapers if the stories were all about Social Security, Medicare, the Supreme Court, or the state of the environment in Texas. It's all about sighs, folks, and maybe some smirks. Throw in some stuff about whose clothes are better. Let's have our pundits wrangle about earth-tones and the echo of illicit oral sex. It'll be a good setup for Showbiz Weekly.

100 million people cannot see this smokescreen for what it is, apparently, or else believe their massed votes could never change the way things are. Thus, they help guarantee no change at all. I'm going to be cutting my Thanksgiving turkey in a nation piloted by W. It's enough to put me off my cranberry stuffing.

It appears Nader will get the 5% of the vote he needs to qualify for Federal Matching Funds for the next Presidential election. He got a surprising amount of face-time on the news this fall, particularly when he was barred at the door of the first debate in Boston. That has puzzled me. What did they think he would do? Charge the stage? However it happened, there has been more attention paid to outsider politics, thanks to Ralph, than at any time in my memory. That in itself is something of a victory. A few lines of print, maybe 12 seconds of time on the nightly news here and there, represent stunning coverage.

Like the rest of us, Nader will be four years older in 2004, and it bears remembering that he's been around so long that most of the people who plan on voting for him this time around have never heard of a Pinto, or even seen pictures. To make a bad pun, he's not exactly a ball of fire on the stump, and I am forced to wonder what four more years worth of mileage will do for his viability as a candidate. There ain't another Nader, folks, and if you think the Green Party can offer up a suitable replacement, you are fooling yourselves. Ralph's politics and the Green Party have little in common, at the core; when Ralph is gone they'll fade like yesterday's sunset.

The shame of it is that the Nader people would have likely found a certain affinity for a Gore presidency. The man accurately believes the internal combustion engine is the greatest threat to mankind since the Black Plague. He's actually a fairly honest man who has vowed to sign the McCain-Feingold bill into law if it reaches his desk. The man is a closet liberal from the old school, one of the great ignored issues of this campaign. I plan to vote for him, and I will sleep the sleep of the righteous after I do.

There is no hope for Hagelin, Brown or even Buchanan to crack that 5% mark. Buchanan is an asterisk and sinking fast. The Reform Party is a ghost ship, routed by his culture-war Mujeheddin. There is only one scenario I can think of which might jettison the Democrats and Republicans from center stage. Mark my words: the best thing that could ever happen to third-party politics would be if John McCain bolts a Bush-led GOP and revives the despairing Reform Party in 2004. That mob of 100 million non-voters doesn't seem to be inspired by anti-corporate tirades, but I'll bet you my bootheels they'll stand up and cheer for a bona-fide war hero, his Goldwater DNA notwithstanding. If we break the two-party habit once, you can believe we'll do it again.

Ahhh, but that's tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow, as the poet once said. Tonight I am faced with a dismal truth. I wanted a man whose ideas inspired me to become President, and by helping him I did my small part to ensure that a man who genuinely frightens me will be sworn in by Judge Renquhist this January. I am faced with the knowledge that the non-voting majority segment of the public cannot see George W. Bush for the nightmare he is, enough so that they participate. I am faced with the knowledge that a majority of those Americans who plan on voting seem to think Bush is capable of performing the job he seeks.

The Supreme Court will be his for the molding. Roe v. Wade will cease to exist. Campaign finance reform will become a joke told in the Congressional cloak room between bought quorums and corrupted roll-calls. The death penalty will become a gleeful national pastime. FDR's promise of Social Security will be gambled on the caprices of the stock market, making Alan Greenspan more powerful than God Himself. The cries of the poor will be hurled against institutional deafness, as they were during the 1980s. That this deafness promises to be compassionate is of little comfort.

My boss is a barnstorming nun named Barbara. "I threatened to leave the country when Reagan won in 1980," she told me the other day. "I'm still here."

This is my last refuge. I am not going anywhere. If George W. Bush wants to be President of the United States, he will have me to contend with. I did my small part to help Nader blow Gore out of this race and give George the job. It becomes my responsibility, therefore, to stay right here and remind those who voted of the mistake they made. It becomes my responsibility to remind the non-voters of what they allowed to happen. Can I sustain such an effort for four years?

Watch me.

[never cry wolf]

175. I know I am very late to this thread...

the holiday and all. But Will, you have answered your own question about Dean, please viddie this paragraph, me groody:

I started writing here as an ardent Nader supporter. I collected signatures for his candidacy, and I wrote tomes to friends about the nobility and certitude of his campaign. The crux of Nader's strategy, and the unspoken strategy of those of us who wrote in support of him, was to flush out the non-voters. Startle them like geese in the reeds, and as they take wing, blast them with a double-barreled burst of revolutionary invective laced liberally with patriotism. I honestly believed the man could win, if he could debate, if he made enough noise that the media had to pay him some mind.

Dean had flushed the geese, pure and simple. He was the lone voice of protest at a time when others were complict, or at least seemingly so. I know Dennis has always been against the war but for some reason, Dean struck the cord of many of the silent 100 million. I am not enough of a political scientist yet to understand exactly how but I learn a TON daily here on DU. Maybe he shouted the anti-war message louder and found a way to allow the geese a voice and something to activly do about it. But there is no doubt in my mind, he found a way to startle the geese and fired both barrels. The other candidates have watched and are trying to catch up, but the ones that had a voice were silent at a time when Howard was shouting.

There have been alot of wise words in this great thread. I am still not very sure how "left" I would classify myself. I have not missed an election since McGovern but really have been quite apolitical until the last 3 or 4 years. The more I contemplate my positions as I educate myself, the more radical left I feel I am. My heart belongs to the greens, or to Dennis, bet they cannot startle those damn geese we need to take back out country.

[CWebster]

60. You would make a good politician, eh?

There are times when it is essential to be sure and solid while still evolving within a changing landscape. But there has to be that single-minded determination of purpose and direction as a foundation. That is not rigidity.

[WilliamPitt]

64. When did I sai I wanted to be a politician?

You shift ground alot in your arguments. Weak.

[CWebster]

72. I thought you just claimed that you are always shifting ground

Like a politician. Yes I suppose some consider that to be weak.

It a good thread though, lots of well-thought out posts. I'm just kicking it up.

[WilliamPitt]

77. No, you're trying to pick a fight

But given that it is almost Thanksgiving, and that this is a good thread despite your efforts, I will refrain from taking the bait.

[CWebster]

81. No I'm not

I am just killing time when I should be vacuuming the rug.

[AP]

35. It's the libertarian in Dean that left-liberals see and like.

To me being a liberal, whether it's Green or Democrat, is about spreading wealth and political power to the middle class. That's the heart of being a liberal. Some people don't agree. (Blumenthal and others refer to these people as identity politics liberals.)

Dean is a libertarian. I think you have to accept this. It's the unifying theme of his political philosophy. And the thing about libertarians is that they appeal to identity politics liberals who don't want the government to tell them what to do. But libertarians also don't want the government to tell businesses what to do either. In many ways, that's how Dean governed (lets set aside his website for a moment).

I think the freemarket conservativism (or libertarianism) is way to big a price to pay, and actually verges on disqualifying one as a Democrat or liberal, no matter how liberal you are on the social issues.

You throw the social issue liberalism (including civil unions), the IWR posture, and being from VT all together, and you find that a lot of people who don't really care about the economic issues in the first place are going to get very passionate about him in a way that baffles people like me who take the economic, tax, middle class opportunity issues the most seriously.

[Classical_Liberal]

176. Excuse me, but the dlc type democrats that you

support are closer to the Libertarian then Dean. You are a supporter of Edwards. Does Edwards offer stronger Unions, or a living wage. or to even break up the media monopolies that are killing us? Unless he does you are full of it.

[many a good man]

37. "A man who is NOT a revolutionary at age 20 has no heart...

a man at age 40 who is STILL a revolutionary has no brain."
- old spanish saying (translated)

I think the current White House occupant has sobered a lot of people up to the present reality. This administration is a juggernaut of all leftist nightmares come true. The corporatists, backed by all the mainstream media, have manipulated fear to push their agenda and tear down traditional safeguards. The opposition's voice was silent.

Howard Dean was the first loud voice of opposition on the campaign trail. He had my support for that reason alone because I wanted him to influence the tone of the debate to come. I think he has succeeded in that.

He also has a clever approach that softens the edge on some core progressive wedge issues, such as race, gender, abortion, regulation, health, and foreign policy. Its a pragmatic, incrementalist approach that might really succeed in lurching the nation leftward. It would indeed be a sad statement that a self-described Rockefeller Republican becomes a standard bearer of the left...but these are troubled times!

He speaks with a mixture of passion and pragmatism that gives hope that the tide may turn. I probably prefer Kerry for his record (and advisors), Edwards for his populism, and Kucinich for his ideals and honesty, but 2004 is not the time to make a statement or vote purely one's conscience--too much is at stake. I live in a true-blue state that votes Democratic by a large margin and I have voted Green in the past to show my support for Green principles (and because its safe).

But its gonna be a straight Dem ticket this time no matter who gets the nod!!!

[fabius]

143. A man who is not a liberal at 20 has no heart...

(this is my uncle's version)

...and a man who at 40 is not a conservative has no brain..."

:wtf:

Where did he get that from?

Of course it's BS now, because all the conservatives have no brain. Or else their brain is controlled by their wallet.

My version is,

"...and a man who is not a goddam outraged angry revolutionary after three years of Chimpy has no soul".

[mzmolly]

159. "A man who is not a goddam outraged angry revolutionary after three years

of Chimpy has no soul". Heh heh, I love it! :toast:

[janx]

38. Dean is basically a pragmatist. But he does have a kind

of idealism that is attractive to many different kinds of people, and one of those is the Greens. He does not, however, let his idealism get out of control to the point at which it is no longer useful or to the point at which it alienates people. Dean himself has said how much he dislikes idealism when it gets in the way of actually getting things done.

So I suspect, Will, that the Greens you cite (and don't cite) are smart, pragmatic people. (Of course I'm fond of Eloriel's posts.)

I am an idealist, a writer, and I tend to associate with other idealistic people. But I was dismayed when I found my friends and family (one brother)had opted for Nader in the last election. The only difference, of course, was that I knew a little bit more about Chimpy than they did at the time; I knew what was at stake. Had they known, they might not have voted that way. They weren't wrong. They were just not informed about what a danger Chimpy really was.

Dean offers a pragmatic kind of idealism. He fully admits that all of his supporters won't agree with him all of the time, and he knows how important that is since his supporters are the essence of his campaign. He has a pragmatic vision of returning this country to what it was historically meant to be, to a place at least pre-Chimpy, but ideally pre-Reagan, from what I can surmise. He hates the divisions in our society.

He's basically a moderate, a centrist. He's a fiscal conservative, like the now extinct old Ike Republicans. He's not anti-war, but he knows an out-of-control government when he sees it, and he knows an unjust war when he sees that too. Just today, his brother's remains came home from Viet Nam. He respects the military, and he's pragmatic enough to know that war is sometimes inevitable--but not an unjust war, not a preemptive war built on lies, in which innocent Iraqis and our sons and daughters are dying.

He's an M.D., and a real family doc, not a business doc (like Frist). These are by nature idealists; when they look at people, they see raw humanity. This could explain his support in the civil rights arena. A good physician, if s/he is worth anything, does not see a patient as of a certain race or sexual orientation or anything else (unless that's a factor in a patient's problem--even then, that's only a clinical factor). He or she sees a human body and spirit.

These are some of the reasons that I both support Dean and understand his appeal to Greens and people somehow considered on the very left-hand side of the spectrum. But I think Dean appeals to all kinds of people for many reasons.

Sorry if I babbled. I hope I answered your question to a degree.

[T Roosevelt]

39. One thing - he took a stand

Time and again he has stood up and spoken out when the rest of the Dems (with a few notable exceptions - Kucinich being one) were silent. He represents the anti-Daschle Dem - one who's not going to roll over when the Reps do something vile (which is just about everything they do) because he's worried about upsetting somebody. I don't believe he cares about pissing somebody off when he knows he's right.

He is a fighter, and that it is us that he will fight for. And he makes himself a leader by doing so, because people are looking for someone to follow, and someone to believe in.

On edit: arrrghh those typos...

[Kitsune]

46. Frankly, I prefer Kucinich to Dean

I agree with Kucinich on just about every issue, and I would absolutely love to have him as president. But the media has decided to give him ZERO airtime, and at least Dean seems to have a spine...

I live in Washington anyway, so it's not as though our primary will have any impact anyway. I'll vote for Kucinich there, and then cry when he doesn't win any primaries because he couldn't get his incredibly awesome message out.

This is coming from the guy who routinely scores -8+, -8+ on that 2-axis political test that slowly makes the rounds of the internet.

[RainDog]

48. okay

Will said-

"OK, Dean supporters. Explain to me this ultimate mystery."

Well, Will, sometimes when a man and a woman do the shimmy dance of luv, that dance keeps them united even after that sweaty cigarette afterglow.

A few months of morning heaves later, lo and behold, a baby is born.

Hope that clears things up a little bit.

:)

[janx]

52. And this is what he's supposed to tell Kerry?

? ;)

[WilliamPitt]

53. Ewwwwwww

:)

[janx]

63. I just don't know if it would be very practical advice.

And besides, while I respect Kerry, I somehow can't picture myself letting him in on this particular secret, especially when I picture his face.

[RainDog]

58. you think Kerry may not still know?

I won't hijacketh they threadeth, Will,

...so, tho I don't consider myself a far lefty (whatever that means), I liked Dean because he gave a national voice to my disgust with this current administration.

Kerry seems too willing to play along with Bush, as though he doesn't realize the enormous stakes involved as this congress and this "president" seem bent on screwing up this country and the world. Whether or not this is true, this is the perception for many.

If Kerry would come out swinging about all the corruption, if he could tie these current events to the debacle of the 80s/early 90s that was BCCI, Iran-Contra, and if he could be a voice for those of us who think we're playing for keeps this time, then I could be more excited about his candidacy.

I heard him speak one time, when he talked about things which are also important to me...a vision of a hopeful future, and a vision which includes the American people in a heroic effort, like Kennedy's "man on the moon" and "ask not" moments, to free us from oil slavery and save the earth and stick it to the greedy fuckers in the administration, too.

[specimenfred1984]

50. People Want a Prez Who Looks Like He Can Fight

Dean looks like he'd punch Bush or any other puke, it's that simple. That, and the standing up to the war and healthcare issues.

Testosterone, power, willingness to fight. Geez, how do ya think Swastinazi got in office in CA without even having a platform?

It's pay-per-view full-contact brutality, the outcome of 100+ years of winner-take-all, Darwinistic and capitalistic propaganda. Our poor reflexive minds have been reduced to brainstems with clinched fists, swinging at anything that moves.

More simply put, the republicans are bullies and the people want someone to kick their asses. Personally, I'll vote for whichever dem gets nominated. There's no "whoring" to it, it's vote dem or possibly lose democracy and the right to vote.

[wyldwolf]

51. By that reasoning...

Wesley Clark is the better candidate.

[specimenfred1984]

54. I'll vote for either

It could be our "lastchance" to vote.

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

67. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

83. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mzmolly]

89. $o true....

However, many are on Ignore :shrug:

Such is the life of a "Fanatical Dean supporter." :hi:

[wyldwolf]

91. $o, I'M not on ignore?

I didn't know you cared!

[mzmolly]

94. Not yet...

:) Hey they deleted our me$$ages?! Oh well, they are forever in my memory Wyld... :loveya:

[unfrigginreal]

97. Wesley has hardly been the "natural" that you all are claiming he is.

You keep pushing the theme that people will flock to him because of the uniform, well why isn't it happening? Why is he only at 4% in NH where he's been campaining. Today a poll from SC shows him in 4th place?

His bio is really only useful to get people to take a look at him, he's got to start winning them over while they're looking and so far he hasn't.

[wyldwolf]

104. Actually, it is happening...

In head to head match-ups with Bush, he usually leads the other dems.

This means he's getting more of the independent and swing votes.

Proof?

Go ahead and ask.

[DrFunkenstein]

55. Checkers Vs. Chess

Lunging head on with all out aggression is not necessarily the most useful tactic. Even lab rats know to backtrack in order to get the cheese.

I want someone who has a head for political chess, especially at the international level. All guns blazing doesn't impress me much.

But that's an outsider's perspective. I'm not exactly impressed by Dean. I think he's a checkers player. Clark is an international chess player, and his political legs are getting stronger week by week.

I want passion, but intelligent passion.

[Rose Siding]

69. Yes- checkers

Above board. In a democracy, choices of pols should be on the table so we can see what they're doing. If it's all some hidden intellectual exercise that is tooooo hard for the kids to understand, there is no longer any democracy.

I want intellegent passion that recognizes my consent to be governed.

[zeemike]

100. Wow

An international chess player as opposed to a mere checker player. That’s a big gap.

[LittleDannySlowhorse]

124. Bush probably can't play chess

I bet when he really wants to challenge his mind he whips out the Twister set.

[last1standing]

75. Passion!

Dean gives those on the left something they have missed for so long. Someone who bluntly, and with fervor, tells them not only what they want to hear, but that which they don't.

Dean's not perfect. He has hit some of his opponents too hard and has stumbled over words on occasion, but he has always done it with a passion and honesty that makes even those who don't always agree with him admire him.

Of course, this is what has also turned so many otherwise rational DUers into flamebaiters. With Dean, it seems, you either love him or hate him. There are few in the middle. I think it means he will win the nomination, but the general election will depend on whether his passion catches with independents. I think it will, but then I could be wrong.

[WilliamPitt]

78. Risking a possible flame-starter

It's a pretty pathetic day when a fiscally conservative centrist Democrat gives the Far Lefties what they have missed for so long.

[last1standing]

84. No flaming here, but I do disagree.

I think even most lefties consider themselves fiscally conservative, so long as its long term versus short term. Dean casts himself as a fiscal conservative, but he weighs the true benefits of cuts and spending to see the long term benefits of things like medicare and welfare. Lefties are not spendthrifts, they generally understand that it costs less to provide welfare than to pay for a prison sentence. I consider that conservative in the best way.

I would also like to hear if anyone agrees or disagrees with my passion theory.

[zeemike]

106. I am not sure what passion is

Some people fain passion and all actors know how to act that way.
But this I know is true, an honest person is not afraid to say “I was wrong” or “I don’t know” or “I have changed.”
So maybe the only passion that is real to me comes from self-examination and contrition.
I have seen that in Dean and it seems real.

[mzmolly]

85. *sigh*

It depends on how you define "left" Will.

Walter Mondale's son is working for Dean in Minnesota. Jimmy Carter has had praise for Dean. Molly Ivins supports Howard Dean etc...

It's tough to hear people describe Dean's success as 'pathetic' when it comes to representing the 'left.' This is the most tiresome issue raised by Dean's "leftist" foes.

Dean does not fit neatly into a left/right package *he himself says he's not an idealogue* thus the claim that he's a *gasp* "centrist" ~ I agree that leftist/pragmatists are indeed 'centrist' however, not in a Joe Lieberman sense of the word. :P

As I said, I think Dean is left when he should be, and pragmatic when he should be, which is why I support him.

So I say, it's not a pathetic day Will, it's an amazing beginning of what is hopefully the end of Bush and co. and a restoration of power to the American people.

[seventhson]

86. It's better than a rightwing Democratic Senator from massachusetts

Who Gives Bush the Go Ahead to sender our American children into a Butcher Shop for Oil profits and global hegemony.

Now HE'S pathetic IMHO.

One of the best things about Dean is that he is NOT Kerry or Kerry-like at ALL.

By the way - PLEASE ask Kerry about Skull and Bones and why he is still in it with the Bushes. Ask if they STILL meet in the St. Lawrence retreat.

And ask Al Franken about the Bush-Nazi articles by Buchanan at NHGazette.com and Buchanan's challenge to Bush in the Primary - Love to hear Franken's take on that stuff.

Peace, Will. I'm sorry your boy is such a screw up. I'll bet you are too.

[Eloriel]

98. No, no

You make a good point, it's just not a logical one.

S/he's talking personality and style, and your're talking policies. Apples and oranges.

Eloriel

[janx]

101. I don't think so. It's a surprise, yes, but the parties have

changed so much.

Look at what happened to the Republican party with Reagan. (Yes, Nixon had a southern strategy going, but it wasn't until Reagan that things substantially changed.) Reagan was an old Democrat that turned to the Republican party for his political advantage. And as he did so, he pulled in a lot of southern, fundamentalist Christian Democrats. They now comprise a significant part of the Republican party. And that's why everyone is in so much deep shit. It goes back to the separation of church and state, something our country was founded upon (this with Thanksgiving tomorrow).

I'm almost 46. I remember the 90's well. That's when it came to fruition. Clinton was wise and adapted to that change. Unless the Democratic party continues to adapt to change, it will never survive. It must continue to adapt. In some ways, the parties actually traded positions--over the years, but particularly as a result of the Reagan years. Think of the time-worn charge by the current Republicans that Democrats are "tax-and-spend." That hasn't been true for almost 35 years. The Clinton years were those of the New Democrats, yes. But what we have to come to terms with is the fact that we have to evolve further; we have to be flexible and tough. Think of it on an individual basis. You can't adjust to cirumstances, say, in one decade and then refuse to adjust from that point on. Democrats cannot just take a stand and expect to "stand there" for twenty years or more at a time, especially not now when everything is so crucial. Ironically, it will be (I hope) Democrats who are defending what used to be some old Republican ideals. But ultimately these are the ideals of one party or another; they are American ideals--one of which is the reluctance to go to war unless it is absolutely necessary.

So I don't think it's pathetic. In a way it's beautiful. We all have to adapt and work together.

(And thanks for the bait, Will.)

[LWolf]

76. I wonder this myself.

Being a "very left" democrat and a friend of the Greens. I'm an idealist rather than a pragmatist. And it has worked for me. Here's an example I know you'll relate to:

I'm a teacher. Every year I start out with the vision of every single student achieving total and complete intellectual, social and personal success. It doesn't matter that it will never happen. I keep my eyes on the goal and keep working towards it. Some days I'm discouraged and I feel like I'm failing. Until the end of the year. When I look back and see how far the kids have come. No, we didn't achieve the vision. But guess what? Every single one of those kids has come farther than if I had set my sights on mediocrity, just so that I could "win." What the high-stakes testing crowd doesn't get: high standards are a goal, but it's the journey that counts. The journey never ends. So at the end of a school year, who really won? Those that just "got them through the year" so that they "passed" their students, or me? Even if I didn't achieve the vision?

As one of those "beautiful losers" who doesn't compromise, Howard Dean has not won my heart or mind. I admire the energy he's activated, and the strength of his support. But he doesn't get mine. Partly because he is, despite all claims to the contrary, a centrist and doesn't "fit" my vision.

I can't speak for other far left voters; I respect their right to use their own judgement and make their own choice. As I have. And my primary vote will be cast for Dennis Kucinich, as a matter of personal integrity. Making sure that my vote fits my vision, and the direction I truly believe our country should go.

This is true of every Kucinich supporter I've met and talked to. They tend to be idealists rather than pragmatists. They relate to 3rd party platforms, even while they remain democrats. Many of them are Greens, independents, and other 3rd party voters who have re-registered for the specific purpose of supporting Dennis Kucinich. I don't know how many will stick with the democrats if Dennis doesn't get the nomination. I haven't asked; I've just welcomed them to the fight, as partners against Bush and for a healthier, more just, more progressive world.

When I have to choose between 2 candidates that don't match me on the issues, I'll go for the lesser of two evils, or for the candidate that comes the closest. But when I don't have to, I won't. I'll vote the vision.

[janx]

80. Judgment (not judgement).

It's that damn pragmatism kicking in again. But I'd guess most understand your point.

[LWolf]

149. Thank you, spell-checker.

Too late to edit. Glad to know you could see past the 'e' to get the point.

[realFedUp]

88. Sometimes Will, you just think too much....

feel the wave. I'll borrow Paul Hawkin's words though
to satisfy your question:

What do I want in a candidate? I want a President who can effectively manage the federal government from a framework that reflects the highest American values. Full stop. I don't want an ideologue running the place, right or left, no more than I want one piloting an aircraft I am a passenger on. I want someone who thinks, is flexible, learns, is experienced, has a sense of humor, can gather interesting people around him and who knows how to create and run an organization. Looked at from that perspective, who's left?

Those who have cast our lot with Dean are not just volunteering or voting for him. For the first time in our lives, we are no longer voters disguised as human being waiting to be manipulated, but citizens who are engaged. This process doesn't feel win/lose, insider/outsider. It feels functional. It feels obvious. It feels like something that has traction and pertinence to American politics long after Dean is elected President. (end, quote)

(I also love his campaign, the coming together of people in
Meetups (that was key in this race) the small donations via the
Internet, the immediate responses to the Bush bandits, the blogs,
the offshoot groups empowered to take back our country)

[CWebster]

90. For me

he represents hope and the campaign represent hope.

It is all I need, the other choices represent idealism or desperation, but Dean represents hope.

[Scott Lee]

92. Howard Dean: Establishment Buster

Just for perspective, I'm a self avowed radical leftist. Here is why I defy logic and reason by supporting Dean in this fight.

No matter what the spin and lies to the contrary, Dean is and was against this war. The current war is only the latest in a long and ugly turn the US government has taken toward a military solution for all it's problems. That is a disastrous path not only for this nation but it's potential victims down the road. The notion of US domination of the planet or else (The Monroe Doctrine, expanded version now called the PNAC) needs to be stopped and dismantled. Dean is the best prospect for this that I see.

Dean has thrown down the gauntlet on party statism, and can bust the stagnate Establishment which is destroying the Democratic Party. Deny it all you want, but the fact that Dean is so viciously opposed by the powerhitters in both parties ought to tell you that he's the one to smash this entrenched oligarchy. To me, this is crucial to keep the Democratic Party as a viable opposition instead of an increasingly marginalized organ of continued election defeats.

Dean has the balls to swat Bush. Do the others? Clark has shown encouraging signs, but I worry about the possibility he leads one or more military campaigns that would stoke the PNAC machine again. Kerry, Gep and Edwards are Insider Disease personified, and Kucinich, as much as I like his positions and eloquence, is just too far from swinging reach.

That's a Cliff Notes version of why this Red supports Dean as the only sensible choice at this time. Dean does not represent all of my core issues as a Leftist, in fact we are at odds over a few things. But all in all he's the best pick to knock the fascist right into the dirt. First things first.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

93. Dean has captured the usual amount of Greens and Lefties

It seems to me he's captured a number of Greens and Lefties, a number of liberals, a number of various different non-right-wing types. I don't see it as a huge trend - Dean has numbers, but they represent a fairly wide swath of the left/center. I don't think Greens/Lefties are his major support.

As far as I can tell, Dean's a libertarian, running as a populist for the primaries. If he can pull it off it will probably change the Democratic party for a long time. In my opinion, some ways good, some ways not so good.

[tinanator]

95. might want to check with the Greens I know

Cant think of ONE who would hang their hat on Dean. Large handfuls getting behind Kucinich, along with very many heavy Democrats. I believe the Green for Dean is a myth put forth by chartreuse types.

[janx]

113. Keep your latte handy!

.

[tinanator]

117. What latte? What for?

I dont get that one. If its a swipe at the Greens it hardly describes the ones Im aware of.

[quaker bill]

96. It is not so black and white

Will,

I am relatively new here, but I am not new to liberalism. I grew up doing relief work in migrant farm labor camps as a teen in the 60's. I helped organize protests, marched, and served as support for those arrested doing Civil disobedience in the 80's and 90's. I organized relief for Nicaraguan war orphans.

I joined with some Friends and staff of the American Friends Service Committee to organize the first statewide Green Party conference in Fla. I was a speaker at the event. I have had the honor of breaking bread with conscientious objectors to all the wars in the twentieth century at one sitting. I am an environmental scientist who chose to make a living enforcing environmental law.

I state these things not as a claim to some great credentials, as many here and elsewhere could easily match my liberal resume. I only state this to let you understand that I have great familiarity with the cause.

I support Dean. But, I do not agree with him on all of his positions.

One thing I have learned through all of this involvement is that causes work when they arise in social context. Out of context solutions, regardless of how well motivated, consistently fail.

I recall some young Friends (Quakers) that came to Fla fresh out of school to work on the Everglades restoration project. They were full of enthusiasm and applied the purest science to their work. They visited our Meeting and their youth and energy was palpable. At the end of their internship and conclusion of the study, they concluded, based on the best science, that water levels needed to be raised in their study area and their team proposed a new flood regime.

They were almost immediately sued by the Seminole Indian Tribe because this new flood regime would place portions of the Seminole settlement underwater for portions of the year. The young folks were shocked that this lawsuit could happen and might prevail. How can they let politics interfere with science? was asked. Didn't they understand that this would be good for the endangered woodstork and all the rest of the creatures that depend on this ecosystem for survival?

The point is that politics always gets into the mix. Which do you support, the endangered species or the indian reservation?

Being pure has it's joys. Getting things done requires the much harder work of consensus and making things sensible in context.

I feel that Dean understands this, thus my support.

[ozone_man]

99. Dean has been my first contribution ever.

I would say I'm a progressive democrat with green, left leanings, a Nader "democrat" in 2000.

He supports the issues that are important to me, while being electable at the same time. He has a winsome personality and can speak forcibly against Bush. I think he is the one to not only defeat Bush, but more importantly, to restore the democratic party to where it belongs, not in the DLC direction as most other dems are headed. He is a major step in the right direction.

[Capn Sunshine]

102. Will, I swear , this is the mojo part no one gets

It's not just what Dean says, it's how. Yet that doesn't fully explain it either. How can a liberal republican and a green see something appealing in the same guy? I don't know. they just DO.

Howard Dean strikes a resonant chord that gets these people on board because, despite the many attempts to categorize him for journalistic or other purposes, Howard Dean is above all else a POPULIST of the first order. I suppose his stump speech speaks to a lot of this : he says "other politicians promise that if you elect them they will solve all your problems for you. I'm not going to say that. The only person that can change things is YOU."

People are SO desperate for a CHANGE from the established framework, and that is what we are working with here. It's a movement whose sum transcends it parts. We all have our hand on the pulse, the very heartbeat of the common american, the body politic! And we can FEEL that! It's not like any other campaign or organization I've ever been a part of. I personally am acquainted with power at it's most base.I work with money after all, huge sums that wield their own weight and demand their own obeisance from the powers that be. Howard Dean's campaign movement is the expressed and manifested desire of all those who have felt the despair of powerlessness watching the Bushco jackals feast on the bodies of the innocent, looting their wallets while we look on in horror. It's SO different it creates this zeal that those who are outside find quite annoying or mystifying. But it's real; it's there; it's TRUE.

This is it, Will. It's magic and it's energy and it's youth and it's sage wisdom and it's the discovery of passion that flickers and glows within all of us like a dormant campfire just awaiting a good stir and some fresh fuel. THAT is what is up.

When you're at lunch tomorrow, ask around . See if anyone GETS it. Some do; some don't. The difference will be plain and clear.

[janx]

107. Capn, your post is great, but may I add that I don't think that

most people were divided in the first place; I think that the current political/cultural climate only makes them *think* they are divided.

And maybe that is what you were trying to say.

And I love your use of the term "liberal Republicans," because maybe it's time for such a term, although most of those don't exist anymore.

[Eloriel]

103. Authenticity.

Character. Integrity.

Fighting spirit. In fact, I have realized since starting this thread about the super-lefties, that he's almost militant (in a very respectable way, of course). That does MY militant heart good. And I also love -- and am awed by -- the fact that we (Dean, his campaign including Trippi and all his supporters) are revolutionaries. We are revolutionizing campaigns, campaign finance, and the democratic process itself. We the People are taking back our power, with his help (facilitation). That alone ought to make everyone anywhere on the left die-hard Dean supporters IMO. Some seem not to get it at all, or getting it, dismiss it. :shrug:

Of course, I can only speak for myself.

I do hope you've had a chance to read something which I found pretty moving, and posted before finding your thread. It's Paul Hawken's endorsement of Dean (excerpted somewhere upthread): http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=782388

And then there's the thread you've probably seen where various Dean supporters talk about what drew them to Dean. It's a pretty good read too: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=782388

I could write a (small) book about Dean and what I see in him. I haven't had this level of excitement and hope since JFK. I wasn't involved politically (some who were tell me Dean is a bit more like RFK), but I was inspired by JFK as my whole generation was. No, I don't think Dean is Kennedy-esque, I think he is a man for our time in the way Kennedy was. He's also Truman-esque and I love that about him too. (Dean says Truman is his political hero.)

Anyway, no books tonight. Check your PM in a bit, tho.

Eloriel

[ibegurpard]

129. I was going to say this but Eloriel beat me to it.

When someone can make a cynic like me believe in them then that's quite an accomplishment. Even if he is just another lying, cheating politician (which I don't believe) he has had an amazing ability to convey this authenticity. He's like Bush's mirror image... everything just rolled right off of him because of his ability to seem like "one of us." That is part of Dean's appeal, I think.

[David Zephyr]

105. "Bipolar Whores"

Listen, I am a socialist and yet, I am a "registered Democrat" and have worked for this Party for decades. Why? Because like you, William, I think some progress is better than none. In the 2004 election, we do not have the luxury of losing anymore.

There is no doubt that Howard Dean got my attention by speaking out against the war in Iraq along with Kucinich (who voted against it) even when it was "popular" and seemed to be "going well". He was speaking for me.

Dean took a big risk and showed himself to have a lot of resolve doing that. He won my respect.

Dean also continues to hint through language that he is really unhappy with the state of an economic system that is threatened by "multinationals".

Dean is a fighter and has run an amazing campaign.

And yet, I am now looking at candidacy of General Clark as well. Why?

Because if we lose in 2004, all further discussions will be academic because America will no longer be the same nation we know.

Al Gore, in his speech to MoveOn.Org, said as much. We are no longer in a cycle of swings from the left to the right. We are on the threshold of an election that will change the very nature of our government for the rest of our lives.

In Les Miserables, Fantine "whored" at night to feed her child, Cossette. That was noble. I am certain that she could look at herself in the mirror with no shame knowing she was providing for her baby.

Pragmatism is not whoring when issues of life and death are concerned.

[janx]

109. I have a question for you. You say that you are considering

Clark in 2004.

"Because if we lose in 2004, all further discussions will be academic because America will no longer be the same nation we know."

True. But what does that have to do with Clark, and how do you reach the conclusion that Clark would be the safest bet?

I respect and admire Clark, but I'm curious.

[David Zephyr]

111. Considering.

Let's not hijack William's thread here (I hate it when it happens in mine), but my answer to your question can be found here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=777592

[CWebster]

120. Must be Clark's progressive views on the multinationals

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/11/20/clark_criticizes_deans_reregulation_plan_as_bad_business/

[CWebster]

112. sounds like whoring to me

No comment

[janx]

116. A bit of advice: people who whore in literature often live in

places other than yours. Please keep that in mind.

(Dammit, I wish I could have been your teacher.)

[zeemike]

108. Wow

I actually read this whole thread
And most of it was interesting.

[janx]

110. Refreshing, isn't it?

?

[zeemike]

115. Beats the hell out of the flame wars.

And it seemed almost everyone had a interesting twist.

[WilliamPitt]

123. Yay!

:)

[Code_Name_D]

114. The mystery can be explained, by the question itself.

The mystery can be explained, by the question itself.

When the Wright Brothers sought to build there first glider, one of the first questions was, "how do birds do it." Quickly followed by, "how do we replicate it." To answer that question, they first turned to the work of scientist, and came across Bernuliye's principle. And this turned out to be the key element needed for man to achieve flight.

And not for a lack of effort by other pioneers. There was no shortage of idea on how man could fly. But they failed, because the did NOT understand what it was that they were doing. Liberal and progressive additues is nothing more than understanding the systems we find ourselves in, and through that under standing, we can make a system to work by our design, and not my natures. And just like the Wright glider, there is really "only one" to do things. They mystery, is about finding that one way.

Conservatives claim to already know that one way. The way of God, as "clearly and plainly" detailed in the Bible. Of course, this is only there position of arrogance. Never the less, there bible blue print gives them a list of pro and con issues. To be a good conservative, you must adhere to every thing on that list. Those who are looking at liberalism from the outside, assume that liberals simply have their own list to adhere two.

Centrists don't even bother with the "one way" argument. They simply take the list from the neo-cons, and the mythical list from the liberals (as defined by the neo-cons) and try to appeal to the greatest common denominator.

But there is no list of liberal talking points. In fact, the core of liberalism rejects such "written in stone" ideology. Liberalism only presents the means to finding that "one way," through research, the scientific method, debate, morality, humanity, humility, religion, and culture, do you come up with answers to critical political and social question. You then go back and review every thing you just did to evaluate how well you just did. Are we going in the right direction, are there unintended consequences that we have to deal with, are there other ways, do we even WANT to do this. And so forth. Liberal and progressivism is in fact a kind of scientific method for things that reside outside the realm of science.

Now back to this "one way." I say this in metaphor only. There are in fact many ways of doing many things. Never the less, for any one task that needs to be done, it should be excepted that there are few effective ways of doing this task, and an infinite number of ways to fail at it. Liberalism is the thinking processes of how to we get to those ways that work. In other words, how do we make a utopia. While progressivism is less concerned with reaching an ultimate goal of a utopia, and focuses more along the lines of simply nudging society closer to that utopia. Of course both insist on looking back regularly and making a critical review of that process. To not make assumptions. Not unlike the scientific method.

With that said, now we can look into your question.

How in the world did a centrist like Howard Dean win the hearts and minds and activism of these people? A lot of Dean's standard beliefs do not align with the Green/Super-Lefty program. He is not a liberal, period.

First off, Dean is not a centrist. In fact, Dean isn't a centrist any more than he is liberal, or that he is conservative. These are empty labels that have absolutely no meaning here. Remember liberal and progressive school of thinking is a means of looking and exploring the world around us, not what we believe or not believe. Just like how Clark is not liberal, just because he is "pro-choice" or "anti-war." In fact the very declaration of "I am pro choice, I am there fore a liberal" in and of itself, exposes him as not being a liberal. For the community to see Clark as a liberal, they must see the reasoning, observations, and experiences that made him pro-choice. Or even pro-life for that mater.

Take John McCain for example. When he was asked, "are you're pro-choice or pro-life" he responded pro-life. Just as the GOP talking points asked of him. But then some one asked him this question. "What if your daughter (who was not married at the time) came home and told you she was pregnant?" Answer: "I would support her decision." Follow up: "What if that decision was to get an abortion?" Answer, "Than I would support it. It's her decision."

The neo-cons jumped over him for that. (The question was designed to trip him up as being inconsistent.) Suddenly, McCain discovers an unexpected liberal and progressive following, despite the fact that he is, and has always said himself to be a conservative. His positions are not as important as to how he came to them, and why he holds them.

But there is more to this. Back to that "one way" and how to find it. It's an old joke that if you ask 10 lay people a question, you will get 20 answers. But if you ask 10 scientists the same question, you will get 1 answer. A question, logically annualized, will always yield the same answer. Just as 2 + 2 will always return a 4, no mater how many times you punch it into your calculator. By principle, liberalism and progressivism should yield the same answer for any given political or sociological question. Not because that is what a liberal believe, but because this is what a logical examination dictates that the answer must be. If there is more than "one way" to do something, than these ways must all fit in the same logical frame work.

To go back to our Wright brothers example. They asked the question, how do we get this to fly. There is only one answer to that question, and that was Bernolies. In step the Wrong brothers (and the particularly cute Wronger Sister. Yuk yuk.) They actively reject the Write brother's conclusion. Perhaps they feel that "if God would have wanted us to fly, he would have given us wings." (Echoing the conservative sentiment.) Or they would conclude, "well all of the other pioneers are building machines with flapping wings, so we must flap our wings too." (To echo Centrisem.) The wrong brothers are asking the wrong questions. They are asking "how can we be better than every one else", when they should be asking "what will it take to fly"

When liberals look at something like healthcare, and conclude that we need to have a national system. It is because the scientific method shows that this is the only strategy to give us the kind of health care that shares the same high regard for life and quality of life that we expect from society. Any thing else, just will not work as advertised, it will not fly. So when Clark openly rejects the positions of liberals and progressives, he is being just like the wrong brothers. Even if he should win, he is still doomed to fail, regardless of how hard Clark flaps his wings. Its not because he is Clark, but because he is embracing ideas that liberals know, and indeed can show, can not work.

Mean while, Dean gathers attention, not because of his positions, but because he has convinced liberals and progressives he is thinking logically, and will respect the natural laws of the universe by not being so arrogant as to claim he can command them. Another way of putting it, is that it is not Dean who is winning over liberals and progressives, but that it is Dean who is moving into the liberal and progressive camp. Because the ideas held there, actually has a chance at working.

[WilliamPitt]

128. You just made this thread solid-gold reading

You and pretty much everyone else who has replied here. Thank you.

[BootinUp]

130. Very nice post, I have 2 comments

First comment, you realize of course that Dean does not advocate a national (single payer) healthcare system.

Second I must take issue with your healthcare example as applied to the Clark candidacy and your deduction from same. If, however, you wish to prove the advantages of a national (single payer) healthcare system you outline I am humbley awaiting to partake of the proof as is the rest of America. (please use a scientific method of proof)

I don't dispute the underlying premises that you put forth with regard to scientifc methods and so forth, however, I think you omit cases where we do not have scientific consenus. When it comes to economics and politics this happens to be the case an awful lot of the time according to my observations at least.

Disclaimer:
I am a registered democrat on a mission

[roughsatori]

132. That reply was wonderful, thanks for writing, and posting it

I read it twice. And when I write "wonderful" I mean that it truly filled me with wonder to read. I agree with almost all of what you write--but it is how you wrote it that I found so enjoyable. I hope you post this as its own thread.

[John_H]

118. Dean is a pragmatic progressive-moderate

Anyone who portrays howard dean as an outsideris ill-informed or a bald faced liar.

But guess what his insiderness is and was a GOOD thing.

When he was a governor he was always right there hobnobbing with the corporate and special interest lobbyists in DC, at NGA and DGA events. But guess what? You shouldn't care. He was raising money to get his agenda in place in Vermont. He was raising money to get a democratic agenda in place in other states. No hobnobbing? Guys like mike leavitt and the chimp himself would be in power instead of tom vilsack, etc.

Dean supporters should be proud of their guy's excellent record. They should stop bulshitting everyone that he's some sort of liberal outsider.

[Polemonium]

119. ultimate mystery? What don't you understand

First, from the Dean supporters that I have met, the energy you speak about doesn't just come from the green/left. It appears to be a very diverse group of people, who all want their country back and are engaged often for the first time in making that happen. Most of the Dean supporters I have met are not green / lefties.

Why does Dean get the support of green / progressives. I can't speak for everyone, but being one myself I would think his support from progressives is due in large part to the fact that his campaign is engaging a diverse group of Americans. His campaign is giving us a sense of hope that we can be a part of the process. I personally have not felt that way in a long time, and that feeling is spreading. People are getting more involved than they have been in recent memory. Involvement from the people leads to government by the people, and that is obviously something most progressives are for. This growing energy is why Dean can and probably will win this election. Don't discount the power of this movement of people with hope, engaging the system again. Go meet some supporters.

Also Dean was originally outspoken when few others were, and he continues to be.

Dean's statements today on the energy bill.

http://www.blogforamerica.com/

"I am relieved that the Senate rejected the Bush administration's horrific energy bill this week, and put the needs of future generations ahead of the wants of a few corporate interests. We are in desperate need of comprehensive energy legislation, but this bill did nothing to protect our economy, our security, our health, and our environment. I hope that the Senate leadership leaves this bill in the legislative graveyard where it belongs, and comes back next year to produce a bill that promotes a new energy economy like the one I proposed last month.

"Unfortunately, this very public victory masks the backroom defeats we faced this week. Without the consent of Congress, the Bush administration moved forward on three rules that will take our country backwards.

"First we learned that the EPA is considering a rule change that would allow low-level radioactive material to be stored in ordinary landfills that are designed only for industrial and chemical waste, and municipal garbage. Then a federal judge ruled in favor of the mining industry and approved the Interior Department's regulation that allows more mining on public lands. Finally, the Bush administration plans to open 8.8 million acres of the North Slope of Alaska to gas and oil development. This development would
put critical ecosystems at risk and would encroach upon the habitat of migratory birds, whales, and other wildlife. If we had an energy economy based on renewable resources and energy efficiency, we would not need to even consider such a proposal.

"Americans demand and deserve a President who acts in their best interest, not one who writes law solely on behalf of large corporate campaign donors."

[mdmc]

121. I only found Dean when Kerry punted the war

And I have always loved Dennis Kucinich. I'm pissed, and Dean tapped into that. Now he's my man, but I'll still vote Kucinich. Please tell Kerry that we love that photo of him -n- Lennon. I would have voted for the guy in that photo. :dem:

[gate of the sun]

125. I am in shock

actually in regards to this I do not support dean at all.....I was a registered Green but now have changed to dem for the election. I support Kucinich.....I do not understand why or how these "liberals" have been brought over to the Dean camp it just doesn't make sense to me.....so many people I know who are intellignet and well informed are choosing him thinking he "represents" them but he does not.

this is my take on it anyway......I know Dean promotors don't like anyone saying anything bad about him but.......this is how I see it.

[Zorra]

126. I guess I'm so far gone

that I don't even see Kucinich as being to the left. His platform seems like simple common sense to me. I look at what is wrong with this country, analyze the problems, and come up with my theoretical solutions. Basically, what Kucinich wants to do is what I would like to do. Left? Like FDR maybe?

Howard Dean has always seemed like a centrist to me. He never said he wasn't, and has said that he is not a liberal. But now he says he wants to regulate the media and energy corporations. In this respect, he is left of the other centrist candidates,
and this is a very important issue to me.

But I have always wondered why so many liberals are such ardent Dean supporters. As a Kucinich supporter, it never made any sense to me. I am mystified by this phenomenon.

I will vote for anyone who is nominated in order to defeat bush. But I do not see the perfect as the enemy of the good. If you go for second best, that is all you ever get, or worse. If you go for the best, sometimes you get it.

I never achieved any goals in my life by believing I could not achieve them. I believed I could achieve them, and then I did. Sometimes you win against all odds if you get lucky and play your cards right.

[maxanne]

127. Dean grabbed me

from the first. He is pugnacious, and he does fight back. That is immensely appealing - when year after year we've watched the Dems in Washington roll over and pant for the Bushistas. They've sold us all out, time and time again.

How long has it been since any of us felt as if we have a voice - a voice that matters? How long since any of us had a candidate we actually believed in - instead of voting for the lesser of two evils.

As a community organizer I appreciate the brilliance of his campaign. The agency I work for is committed to social change through building a progressive grassroots community. Dean knows that people are tired of not having a voice, of not feeling part of, when it comes to the political process. Dean is honest - if he doesn't know the answer, he says so. If he knows a problem can't be solved with a quick 4 year fix, he says so.

He is imperfect. He says dumb stuff sometimes. We Democrats want so badly to have the perfect candidate that we savage all the candidates and each other. You don't see Republicans doing that. They stick together in public. There is no perfect candidate. Dennis Kucinich is closer to being the candidate of my politics - but I don't believe he can win. He doesn't have the fire, or the anger that Dean does.

I met him for the first time in May - and I'll be seeing him Sunday. The first time I heard him speak, he was asked a number of questions on women's issues. He scored high marks with this cranky old feminist. I absolutely LOVE the fact that Judith Steinberg is a doctor first - and not being forced into the looking-up-adoringly-at-hubby role that Nancy Reagan made famous. That he respects her enough to take that kind of a risk is HUGE and wonderful. I am sick to death of my elected officials not representing my gender, and selling our concerns down the river.

In May 2003, in Sandwich NH he said, "In countries where women have full equality, there is no terrorism."

[stevedeshazer]

131. This is a really great thread

First, I have to say that I am so disappointed in the Democratic Party that despite my long family history of Democratic activism, I'm at the tipping point where any more capitulation will result in me cutting my losses and working for a third party, knowing full well that it is a losing proposition. But, as you said in your original post, I consider myself a 'beautiful loser' (great term) and will sleep well knowing that my support for Dems will not have made a significant difference, as long as they continue to cave..

I'm undeclared, but I'm still trying to decide what it is that viscerally prevents me from jumping on the Dean Train.

The soul in me wants Kucinich.

The pragmatist in me wants Kerry.

Logic is dragging me kicking and screaming towards Dean, but I can't figure out why.

Dean is an irritating bastard. In that sense, I find him to be a lot like Bush. I've seen him in person, I know his record, I've watched the debates. He comes off as a stiff. He's far to the right of me. A part of me really dislikes his personality.

But somehow, another part of me really wants to like him. I sure wish I could put my finger on why I can't give it up for him altogether.

He's asked me to support him; no one since Bobby Kennedy has done that. For that alone, he gets major ju-ju.

[WilliamPitt]

133. I agree

and you made it better. Thanks.

[KoKo]

134. OFGS! That YOU of all people had to ask this question is too much!

He spoke out for us while the "centrists/DLC'er/Daschle types" DIDN'T! :argh:

It's simple....and btw.....you forgot Kucinich! I'm a Dean/Kucinich! Support them both....and even CM-B!

I'm not a Greenie.....but used to be a Centrist, even "Conservative Dem!"

So there! :P

[WilliamPitt]

135. No post has ever made less sense in all of DU history

Congratulations!

:)

[Gringo]

144. Actually, it makes perfect sense.

Last fall and in the spring, the democrats had a chance to make a unified front and say NO to madman Bush, and they did not. The silence of people like Hillary, Kerry, Gephardt, and ESPECIALLY the Orwellian media left us all just twisting in the wind. We all knew before that the WMD claims were dubious at best, and that even the presence of WMD in a country that HAS NEVER ATTACKED us doesn't entitle us to annex them. I think a lot of us deeply resent the unbelievable cowardice the dems showed prior to the Iraq war. I'm still amazed now, at they cowardice they've shown on the energy and Medicare deform bills. Dean represents the hope that we can reclaim the party from these bought-out, washed-out, fake-azz, pablum-puking whores that make up most of the party.

[WilliamPitt]

145. I was teasing.

[TLM]

136. I used to be a green... but lost if for them over Nader.

I agreed with the green message that the Dems were being push overs and were not fighting back. Dean fought back and I liked that right off. I really liked he ideas on education and healthcare.

I broke with teh greens because of the fact I felt that progress was more important than perfection... perfection is a process, not an event and Dean understands that. I liked that.


While guys like Kerry and Gephardt and Liebermans were trying to get pictutres in the rose garden or hawking it up in front of an aircraft carrier... Dean was attacking Bush, and attackign them for NOT atacking Bush. I liked that, and I like how Dean has pushed the rest of the pack to attacking Bush.

Dean's "what I want to know" speech was great. I loved it. And I think that there are two reasons a lot of greens like Dean.

First, nobody owns him... he's funded by you and me. So he is not beholden to the same folks like Kerry, Clark, Lieberman, and Gephardt... etc.

Second, he came out and gave the democratic party a swift kick in the ass... and did what so many greens wanted to see done, but did it from within the party.

[farmbo]

137. Cause he's got balls as big as grapefruit...and speaks truth to power!

He's William Jennings Bryant raging like a prairie fire...Teddy Roosevelt thumping his chest as a Bullmoose ...Huey Long stirin' up the bayou... Malcolm X stoking up Black Power...Bobby Kennedy giving a voice to Peace...

Unscripted, sometimes indiscrete, indefatigable and always...always... passionate.

[cryofan]

154. He does NOT--Dean bent over for the power in Vermont

Dean already has a record as a centrist and appeaser of the power in Vermont!

[MercutioATC]

138. I see a lot of non-supporters saying Dean is popular because he's "angry"

I have yet to see more than one or two people state that they support him because he's "angry" and they are, too. Yhis is just another example of people picking an explanation that fits in easily with what they already think.

I support Dean because of his positions on the issues (not all of them, mind you, but most). As an added bonus, I think he has a shot at winning in the general (as would Kerry and possibly Edwards and Gephardt, in my opinion).

The point is that it's a mistake to pidgeonhole Dean's (or any candidates') supporters.

[sangha]

152. Deanies are saying it also

They're just using different words. Read the other posts, and you'll see many Deanies saying how much they appreciated his standing up to Bush* and criticizing the Dems for not doing so. They may not use the word "angry", but they're describing the same thing. They're just using different words.

[mzmolly]

156. What ... your not angry ?

I think to be anything but is to live in complete denial. Dean's anger isn't what's attractive, it's what he's angry about that resonates with the people who support him.

I was angry long before Howard Dean came along, and I'll be angry until * is out of the OO. I can't tell you how comforting it was to hear someone else be angry when I watched Gephardt standing with * in the Rose Garden.

In fact, if it was all about anger, I'd support another candidate, who was also quite angry. So, dismiss the "it's about the anger meme"...

It's about Dean's record in Vermont, and where he stands on the issues, it's about giving me a practical voice when I needed one. I support Howard Dean because he's the total package. I would appreciate if that were officially on the record.

[MercutioATC]

158. That's like saying Gep supporters support him because he's "angry"

when he calls this administration a "miserable failure". They may agree with him, but that doesn't mean they're flocking to him because of anger.

[Gringo]

140. Because he has a spine

It may not have been good enough for the army, but I get this feeling that he will not back down when it counts, or apologize for being a democrat. He doesn't take sh#t from people. I see him tearing Bush a new one in a debate, and being merciless in doing so. The other dems can attack him, but it's always for something "un-liberal" that he's said or done. Bush won't be able to do that, since his record is one of unabashed fascism and looting.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

141. I'm not flaming, just expressing my feelings

I have never warmed to Dean. To my mind, there's just something "off" about him. For me, he's one notch above Lieberman.

Those are just the vibes I get. There's nothing logical about it.

[ibegurpard]

142. This is something people often forget.

There is an element of gut instinct in this whole "support" process. Trying to argue against that is futile.

[Speed8098]

150. "Gut Instinct"

It is something that is hard to ignore. I don't hate Dean, but my gut instinct tells me he won't be elected.

I don't know why, but that's the way it is with gut instincts. It feels kind of like meeting someone for the first time and disliking them before they even say a word.

My first choice is a Clark/Edwards ticket, but I will be voting for whomever gets the nod.

[curse10]

157. I have that same feeling Lydia

can't really put my finger on it, but from the very beginning something about Dean has not set well with me.

He kinda gives me the creeps.

[rman]

146. Dean's beliefs also do not align with DLC centrism

The most obvious example would be the fact that the DLC started calling Dean *unpatriotic* ("devider", "elitist") shortly after he started his campaign. Back then the DLC was quite explicit in its campaign guide lines: don't critisize the glorious leader because it would be bad for Dem's chances in the election.
Dean did (and still does) critisize the leader; in that respect Dean was (and still is - it's just that the DLC has been less explicit since) Way Left of the DLC.

Just like being American doesn't automatically mean you approve of the war in Iraq, and being a Democrat doesn't mean being Left (think DINO). It's like that almost everywhere: even the CIA and FBI are not unified either pro or contra Bush, rather there's conflict over this within each of these agencies.
Likewise being a member of the DLC doesn't mean you're perfectly aligned with the centrism of the DLC board (most of whome are Repub style business men, none are Union members).

So imo there's no mistery.
Dean is not a centrist who magically manages to appeal to traditional Democrats, rather Dean is one of few traditional Democrats who happens to be a member of the DLC.

[Mairead]

147. Yes, Dean is aggressive and stands four-square for

the status quo.

Dean isn't planning on making any substantive changes. The guy is a straight tweaks-only, status-quo candidate. Find something among his policies that is going to change the direction in which wealth flows. There isn't one.

He's not going to cut the obscene war-industry budget, now approaching the size of all other war budgets in the world combined.

He's not going to take the hands of the wealthy elites out of our pockets on healthcare. Instead he's actually planning to give them $88G MORE per year while still leaving 10M people without healthcare. He claims that 10M are people who would opt out. Well, who would opt out? Obviously the very wealthy and the privileged healthy young. Which means that Dean's healthcare will be a multi-tier systems like public education: inadequate for the poor, marginal for the middle, and attacked relentlessly by the wealthy.

Dean's not going to end the drug war--he now makes no mention of mmj or the drugs war at all. But if by some miracle he were to re-"evolve" and follow through on his earlier claims, all it would amount to is switching some money out of the prison industry only to funnel it into the same elite pockets via the healthcare industry.

He says full civil rights for LGB people are a state issue...which is both the status quo and an egregious falsehood (equal-treatment clause of the Fourteenth Amendment).

He says he's going to balance the budget. But on whose backs? Obviously not the wealthy elites' backs, so guess whose backs that leaves!


Yeah, Dean's a real fighter. Anyone who thinks he's planning to deliver more than the same old same-old has got a real surprise coming, if enough people disable their brains and elect him.

[lewiston]

148. Nice try will, but Dean is still the man.

[slinkerwink]

161. welcome to DU!!!!!

:hi:

[cryofan]

153. Yep--threads attacking Dean have been locked without exception AFAIK

Dean is a centrist--just like Clinton. Thankfully, Dean is not as self-righteous as Bush. And to his credit he does seem to want universal health care. At least he is paying lip service to it. That is something. I refer you to his Vanity Fair article on the poor.

But will he fight for citizens against corporate and upper crust power? I see little indication of that.

And maybe most importantly, in background and education, Dean is essentially a clone of Bush (See the locked "attack of the bluebloods" thread).

What is really so sad is that so many Democrats would disregard a real fighter-of-the-powers-that-be, i.e., Kucinich, and instead support Republicrats like Dean-Kerry-Clark-Lieberman-Gephardt.

[Patriot_Spear]

163. I like Kucinich...

...but he does't have a hope in hell of winning the nomination, and bashing Dean in bitterness & frustration doesn't help anyone- especially your own candidate. Don't be angry- it's just the way things are.

He doesn't inspire me the way Dean does, despite the fact that I agree with 99% of what he's said during the debates. I can't explain it, but Kucinich is about the middle of the field for me.

But Dean-bashing Kucinich supporters REALLY turn me off to his campaign.

[curse10]

155. He doesn't have all the super lefties- I'm more socialist

than anything-- and I think Dean is entirely too far to the right for my tastes-- which is why I'll have difficulty supporting him if he gets the nod.

I now understand why greens had such a hard time finding a difference between bush and gore in 2000. I have a hard time finding a difference between bush and dean in 2004.

[Patriot_Spear]

160. Simple answer: because he fights... Keep your 'wimps' and 'also rans'.

I personally have had enough with pushover Dem's who enable Bush and his cronies; and pie-in-the-sky fringe lefties who dream of the win that will never come.

Dean has a proven record of leadership and hasn't played the ass-kisser most of the other candidates have. He has proven he has the best interest of PEOPLE in his politics- no matter what dirty names you call him- Moderate, centrist, left-leaning, etc.

Fringe lefties are all good and well (laudable in their commitment), but by their very nature FRINGE. They CANNOT win except in 'Hippie-burg' BFE; where their commune has enough votes to overwhelm regular voters. Wake up and smell the coffee- put away Utopian fantasies for a reality that keeps us out of wars and looks after children, the elderly, working poeple and promotes RESPONSIBLE government.

Dean can win because he fights for it- the Ivory Tower types can talk about the 'purity' of their 'ideas' on their way the republican gallows.

[Armstead]

162. BECAUSE HE LISTENS

I'm just a lefty, not a super-lefty or Green. But far enough left that I think I can speak from that perspective. Ideawise, I am more aligned with Kucinich.

Howard Dean is different because he actually listens to people outside of the Beltway Loop. He acknowledges concerns like excessive corporate power and the loss of connection between the government and the people. And between the Democratic "centrist" power structure and the liberal base of the party.

Unlike the otehr candidates (including our mutual Senator Mr. Kerry) he does not gloss over the core concerns that lefties have. He doesn;t dilute it in Washington Code, or water it down to avoid scaring the Big Bad Corporations.

Perhaps that's pandering. But it seems to me to be a combination of political pragmatism and honest growth on his part. And the fact that he is basically a moderate gives it more credibility, IMO.

I also like the fact that he's not afraid to talk straight. It's gotten him into trouble at times -- but it's also the same quality that people on the other side respond to in people like Reagan and GW.

In the real world, I think Dean has the stuff to go head to head against GW and represent what I truly believe.

[ulysses]

169. yup

I *like* the fact that he shoots from the hip - the focus-group testing of previous and other campaigns is, as the writer John Gardner put once, like closely examining the hairs on an elephant's trunk while the elephant is standing on a baby.

I think he's got it in him to fight. I'd prefer Kucinich on the issues, but DK isn't going anywhere and Dean will do, happily.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

164. There is a line that was crossed.

I started out as a Kerry supporter. I agreed (and, still do) with most of stands on most policies. But, I will not vote for him in the primary or the general election. Because of the war vote. It is one thing to bend to reality and vote "pragmatically" for, or against, various issues. But, and for me it is a very big but, when he voted to sacrifice lives, real people's lives, to gain votes, that line was crossed. His (and, Gephardt's and Edward's) newly found criticisms of the war sound very much like the Germans who supported Hitler saying that they didn't "think he'd really do that."

That is not mere "pragmatism", but bloody handed cynicism.

I support Dean, (or) Clark, Kucinich, Sharpton or Bruan because they didn't cross that line.

To me, those who can hold their noses and vote for them, is like those who are willing to overlook the fact that a guy murdered his wife because he's such a nice fellow in all other things.

[JackRiddler]

165. too simplistic to say he should not appeal to "progressives"

Take these as notes...

I am not on anyone's campaign bandwagon yet, but of the "top tier" I can't stand anyone but Dean, and I doubt I'll be able to stomach a vote for the General under any circumstances.

Kerry with his background knowledge of the BFEE would have been my man if he'd voted against IWR. Pure and simple.

What is progressive, anyway? Who says progressives can't compromise? If they're more willing to compromise with a Dean than with someone else who seems more progressive (oh, like Gore perhaps), then I think this has to do with Dean's relative credibility. He is an establishmentarian (supports the overall socioeconomic system) and yet makes a convincing outsider to the actual ruling elite.

I am sick of the Little Rock Mafia.

When I spoke with him (in a conference call) and even got to ask one question, what impressed me the most was when he answered someone else's question with a simple "I don't know, I will research that and have an answer for the next call."

I think his social-libertarian side is a big part of the appeal. Given where this country is headed, I do not consider strict gun control to be a progressive stance. There is a consistency here: states should determine gun laws, ditto civil unions.

Here again, you are accepting the invalid and in fact absurd dichotomy that has defined "libertarian" (which once meant anarcho-communist!) as the opposite of "progressive."

As a doctor he's more believable when he talks about putting through a health plan and I suspect if anyone is secretly out and ABLE to loosen up on the Drug War it will be him.

He fights, and he struck first. Much appreciated!

He built at the genuine electronic grass roots. Also appreciated.

In brains, wit and humor he has the other "top-tiers" looking sort of lame. Kerry could do better...

I thought the CF comment was probably misguided but daring and open! This guy is willing to talk about the hot-button issues.

You know how sick I am of politicians who only ever circomlocute their way around the hot buttons? At least this guy doesn't wrap things in euphemisms.

[andym]

166. Because of the last election

Dean has made a direct appeal to the anger we have about the last election. The anger goes beyond Bush "winning", to the perception that powerful forces, many of them the same ones that helped Bush "win," have too much control over our lives. Much of Dr. Dean's appeal is because he seeks to empower the people and reduce the power of the powerful forces that stand behind Bush. This appeals to many greens as well as many hardcore Democrats.

Btw, credit should be given where it is due. In 1992, Jerry Brown, perhaps one of the most original thinkers in the Democratic party in the last 4 decades, ran a campaign based on exactly these principles. The "We the People" campaign, though defeated by Clinton laid the groundwork
for Dr. Dean. Today, Jerry Brown would also capture the Greens and the anger of many Democrats, perhaps even more so than Dean, because Brown is even more of an innovator than Dean. The only drawback to Brown, is that he is more of a purist, for example, in 1992, he wouldn't take more than $100 from each contributor. That kind of thinking while laudable might not be as practical as Dean's.

[FubarFly]

167. Wow Will, That's easy.

Kerry was 1-3, Dean was 4-6.

I rolled a five.

:-)

Seriously, one of the main reasons I support Dean is because I share his vision for America. Dean wants to transform an apathetic and despondant populace worn down from years of exploition from special interests and corporations, into an democracy run by a concerned, active, and informed citizenry. The roots of this are evident in his service in Vermont. Vermont as a whole is one of the more politically functional states in the union. In his tenure there, Dean experienced first hand what democracy should look like. He quickly learned the value of listening to his electorate, and weighing the merits of both sides of each issue. And although he has made his share of mistakes, he is not afraid to make tough decisions, he is willing to admit when he is wrong, and he is constantly looking for better ways to do things. Despite the malicious spin from his detractors, he has always fought for what he thought was best for the people of Vermont.

He is no savior, but he will serve in the interests of the American people. Even beyond the scope of his administration, there is an almost impossible amount work to do to reclaim this country from corportists and fascists who are destroying it. I do, however, fully believe that a Dean presidency will be a significant step in the right direction.

Many of these sentiments are expressed beautifully and more eloquently elsewhere in this thread. I only hope that Dean's detractors could read these testimonials with a clean heart and open mind. If you are in favor of the idea of a healthy democracy, Dean's movement is nothing to fear, and in fact, may be worth embracing.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

170. This is an excellent thread...Thanks, Will.

[RainDog]

171. I'll be honest for the first time on this board

about my take on the candidates, since this seems to be a thread on which you can post and not have to endure endless b.s. flames.

By a process of elimination, I support Dean so far because of MY TAKE (whoever reads this...I'm not saying this is gospel, it's how I see the candidates).

Kucinich has some good things to say about many issues. However, he does not come off as "presidential" to me, and, I think, would not to lots of other people.

the reasons for this are nothing noble. he's a man who is small in stature and Americans seem to want a man who looks like, even if he couldn't, hold his own in a fight.

I think Kucinich would be an excellent choice for a cabinet position, and could be very effective in that capacity.

Lieberman is far too conservative for me in his approach to social issues. It's that simple. I would love to have a Jewish president, or a female, or an African-American, to set precedent, but Lieberman isn' t the one to be the first Jewish prez for me. In other words, Colin Powell wouldn't get my vote, just because he's black, either, because he has prostituted himself for Bush.

Mosley-Braun is interesting, but doesn't yet have enough of a presence outside of what are perceived as domestic issues.

Al Sharpton is someone I love to hear, and who often says things I totally agree with. However, he, like Kucinich, does not have the gravitas to be my presidential candidate. Plus, the right wing has done a great job of smearing his name all over the place, unfortunately.

Geb. just seems too much a part of the same old same old that has not been able to stop this far right repuke machine from rolling over American's right to just laws.

Kerry, too, seems to entrenched. I wrote him an email once about issues of concern to me. I got a letter back....but it was a form letter which did not address the issues I raised. This was a real negative for me. I'd rather be ignored than for some aide to pretend not to ignore me. Kerry did not oppose Bush enough on the war, also.

I knew before the invasion that the Bush gang was lying, based upon sources available to me which seemed credible. Why Kerry couldn't see that, too, is still unexplainable to me, except that he was positioning himself for a prez run with those who were behind Bush on the war issue.

Kerry has not positioned himself in such a way to make me think he will fight tooth and nail against what I and many others consider the threat of the end of our republic as we've known it...recovering it is the issue, really, from the abuses of the Bush gang.

Clark is okay. Doesn't really do much for me. I'm not impressed by the uniform, though I can understand why that reassures some people and makes others think he could draw votes in that way.

However, Clark represents the more "conservative" Southern wing of the dem party, and frankly, I'm sick of them and their hold on the national party. (And I'm from the south.) In fact, I'm sick of the entire south's over-represented influence in American politics.

He also doesn't seem as tough to me as Dean, fwiw.

Again, these are just my takes on the politicians, and I'm sure others here have very different opinions, and you all are entitled to them.

Dean comes across to me as a fighter...from his boxer's neck and forearms to his stocky legs.. or at least they seem stocky, who knows.

Dean has no problem stating what so many of us in this country see as the obvious about Bush and the current power-mongers in the republican party. (and that "so many of us" includes liberals, conservatives, libertarians, greens, and the cynically disaffected.)

Dean says when things will not be easy, and when things don't have easy answers..from the times I've heard him.

He has, as matcom said, given respect to the many on the internet who have come here for a place to vent our frustration with pols who seem content to ignore all but the ultra right or the corps.

I believe, from the things he says and the way he says them, that he can affect a real change in this country. Obviously there will still be the same ultra-right opposition, but I do not think he will let them get away with their b.s. and not call them on it.

Which brings me to the DLC. If they were the only hope I had against Bush, I would have already given up. They need to wake up and realize that they cannot win by trying to be Bush without the right wing talk show creepiness.

I think they are as much of a reason as any other that so many people have been apathetic for years. They give no reason to care when it's all biz as usual for them.

Again, with Dean, he gives people a reason to hope for change, and therefore a reason to want to get involved.

Whether any of these things are true or not won't be known till after elections are decided.

In any case, I'm going back to school, working up a biz plan, and visiting the chamber of commerce websites for cities in other countries in case we are faced with four more years of Bush.

If the repukes have four more years to consolidate their power, I will basically give up on this country and find a more like-minded place to pay my taxes.

[Room101]

172. A long rant from a very Liberal INDY Dean supporter

First off if we lived in a rational society Dennis would be our president but his fallacy is that he wants to represent the have knots and the disenfranchised. The corporate media machine has been quick to implant the impression Dennis flew in from a UFO so the masses stray clear of this Intelligent life form from another planet or is it Ohio.

I’m glad that you have indulged in candor regarding your contradictions for I have been scratching my head every since your endorsement of KERRY?

Clark has been what Kerry should have been or what I wished him to be. Yes my distaste with Kerry has to do with the Iraq invasion and the Patriot act. When the Bush administration blanketed the nation with anti-intellectual jingoism and the right instituting dissent with treason I naïve thought Kerry would wag that combat Veteran finger at the foolish bush administration about the rights he fought for us to have.

Instead I have to quote Republicans …

Republican Trent Lott “ We can support the troops without supporting the president”

Republican Theodore Roosevelt, 26th US President “To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”


On to DEAN let me help illustrate my support for him with a movie I know you saw “Goodwill Hunting” I will paraphrase the scene. The professor and Sean the Physiologist(Robin Williams) arguing in the office about the future of Will(Matt Damon)

Professor – Responding to Sean, “so he(Will) can spend his time hanging out with those Guerrillas”(his friends).

Sean- “You know why he hangs out with those Guerillas as you call them, because any of them would take a baseball bat to your head if he wanted them to it’s called loyalty.”

When I was hoping that the combat veteran Kerry would take that bat to Bushes head he was the one who was AWOL !!!! They hate us for our freedoms Bush says yet we are losing those freedoms he claims they hate us for. As I write this DEANS hands are callused from swinging that bat. Of course Dean has many policies I don’t like NAFTA and the WTO are a few to name. I like that Dean wants to give us all Health insurance and has a record with balancing the budget and creating jobs which he better balance with social programs. His Foreign policy approach of inclusion and proactive diplomacy warms me to him as well.

Dean has been there every day trading blows with Bush.
After reading some of your work and meeting you after your god dame informative and inspirational speech in SF how in the world can you support KERRY? Most of what I have heard you say and write is in complete conflict with major policy decisions of KERRY. Is it that both of you are from MASS? Anyway I don’t throw the baby out with the bath water like a lot of reactionaries here.

Didn’t I say I disagree with Dean on NAFTA and WTO? Hey how did that Devils advocate get in here? Get out of here you un-holy demon of reason. My disagreements with Dean pale in comparison to the Iraq invasion that will have the same effect of the Russian invasion of Afghanistan regarding terrorist recruitment and the coming police state and loss of civil liberties via the Patriot act and god forbid it’s sequel.

Kerry a combat Veteran allowed an AWOL president’s party and a bunch of chicken hawks to have a de-facto political copyright on patriotism without even gestering to pick up the bat. Dean was there all along “The flag does not belong to Rush, delay or Roberson but each and every one of us. DEAN has inspired me to the point I pass out his flyers and spread the word of mouth. Kerry makes me think about what should have been. I wish you good luck when you meet Kerry.

[Room101]

173. Kick,for a good thread

:)

[mmonk]

174. Good questions

I do think Dean can appeal to both left and moderate (I know I'm a Clark supporter). However, I think his initial appeal came early on with being vocal about Iraq and the civil union issue. He appeals to me on the idea of covering the young and old with medicare. I think this would help in closing the insurance gap by making family coverage more available to low income people as well as reduce the labor costs for business thus helping the employment picture. However, I'm still a Clark supporter.