Broder: Dean's blooper opens national, party wounds

[Feanorcurufinwe]

The can of worms that Howard Dean opened with his ill-conceived effort to identify himself as "the candidate for guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks" is not one that can be resealed with the words of regret the former Vermont governor belatedly offered. By inadvertently reopening the deepest wound within the nation, the race issue, Dean hurt himself and did a disservice to his party.

He had said similar things several times in the past, without drawing criticism. But with his big fund-raising lead and his accumulating endorsements, his words are now more consequential. When I was with him in Iowa more than a year ago, the line was somewhat different. Then he was promising his outreach would include "the guys driving pickups with gun racks on the back." When his opponents started criticizing the stands that had earned Dean an "A" rating from the National Rifle Association back in Vermont, he switched the description to the flag decal.

<snip>

Dean is not the first Northern candidate to think he has found a formula for reaching disenchanted Dixie whites. Pat Caddell, the pollster for George McGovern in 1972, argued back then that because George Wallace's supporters were "alienated from the system," they could be converted into McGovern voters. But their grievances with the establishment were far different from his — and McGovern lost the entire South.

If Dean has a strategy for the South, he has yet to disclose it. And his campaign blooper just makes the Democratic challenge larger.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2001786514_broder09.html

I guess the flag blunder couldn't have anything to do with Dean's declining poll numbers in Iowa, either?

[Padraig18]

1. David Broder: Conservative media whore.

You should read Alterman's "What Liberal Media?" to find out how 'non-partisan' DB is.

What next--- a NewsMax editorial slamming Dean? LOL!

[Feanorcurufinwe]

2. Well, duh, that's why I put his name in the title.

Just in case somebody might've missed it otherwise.

[Padraig18]

3. I see.

I mistakenly assumed that it was there to convey some sense that he was a reputable editorialist whose opinion someone should give a rat's arse about.

Sorry.

[blm]

7. Dean used a Newsmax headline in a speech to accuse Kerry

of saying that he doesn't need the south. That story came from Newsmax who never used a quote from Kerry and no other source corroborated their headline.

But, I'm sure you shant fault Dean for his use of a false Newsmax headline.

[Padraig18]

10. When and where?

Citation/link, please.

[DemDogs]

31. The headline was "Kerry tells South to Drop Dead"

And Dean used the Newsmax headline in a speech the next week -- it was about eight months ago -- Kerry was doing mostly fundraising, which is what he was doing when he made the statements in SF that lead to the headline. Dean had no money sources and was on the stump, so he got a lot of C-Span and other coverage because fundraisers are not usually open to press. Kerry's was, and that was obviously his mistake.

But the point is that Dean supporters will spit on sources that say the least negative thing about him but turn around and use those same sources when it suits them.

Neither Edwards nor Graham, the Southerners in the race at the time, used that headline -- they have more integrity.

[blm]

33. Thanks....

but, the article was wrong in its interpretation of Kerry's remarks. Someone asked if Kerry the question if Dems "needed" the South to win, and Kerry said Gore won without it.

The spin then turned into, "Kerry said he doesn't need the south to win." In fact, Kerry had been spending alot of time in the south and nailed down alot of the Dem infrastructure in some Southern states already when that lie about him was pushed.

[DemDogs]

30. Whatever you think of this article, Broder is standup reporter

Broder is no whore. Alterman has more of an agenda than Broder, and there is not a serious media watcher or participant who does not believe that.
Again, this is the Dean-machine response: yet another messenger must be wrong. Same song, one hundred and twelfth verse.

You want to know what is next? Next is more and more Americans who thought Dean reflected their anger realizing he doesn't reflect anything else about them or their lives.

[ant]

4. huh?

By inadvertently reopening the deepest wound within the nation, the race issue, Dean hurt himself and did a disservice to his party.

He did a disservice to his party? By mentioning RACE? This doesn't make any sense to me.


Edited to add that I just read the post about this being a conservative writer. I didn't know that, and now it makes sense.

[Cha]

9. Me, neither. But now I see one reason

there is so much of a problem because people like david broder have their head up their ass concerning race and what to do about it.

broder is the one who should be brought to task for his Stupid comments. Do ya think it will happen?

[Cha]

5. MOre discussion on this...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=679402

[LuminousX]

6. I won't dismiss it just because of the source

But he does nothing to prove his point.

By inadvertently reopening the deepest wound within the nation, the race issue, Dean hurt himself and did a disservice to his party.

Here is his assertion.

Broder then tries to link Dean's comments to the instability of the South for Democrats as it is:

His timing could not have been worse, because Democrats were already undergoing traumatic experiences in and about the South. Bob Graham of Florida had just become the fourth Southern senator to opt out of running for re-election next year, creating open seats in North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia and Florida, all of which could easily fall to the GOP.

In the end though, he really only cites one piece of evidence that Dean's remarks will have any negative effect, "...I asked Merle Black, the Emory University scholar and author on Southern politics, how Dean's words would be heard by Southerners. "For a lot of African Americans," he said, "the fact that Dean used a Confederate symbol is very insulting. That remark can be used effectively against him," especially in Democratic primaries, where blacks make up a large percentage of the voters."

As we've seen here on DU many times, we can find an article written by an expert to support any position we want. Off the top of my head I know of two articles written by black activists who agreed with Dean. They are no more right or wrong than Merle Black or David Broder.

Until there is some serious polling done on this issue, everything is speculation.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

8. Well, that's why I pointed out Dean's decline in Iowa.

Because that poll was after the flag comment.

[LuminousX]

11. But the poll wasn't ABOUT the flag comment

So the reason for the decline is pure speculation. It could be that they didn't care for the latest ad he ran or the fact he passed gas in public. Unless the question is asked, it is speculation. I know you didn't say or even imply that there was a correlation between the flag comment and the dip in the polls, only that it is a possible explanation. I agree, it is one of many possible explanations.

[Padraig18]

12. But isn't his decline within the poll's MOE? n/t

[paulk]

16. Not within MOE

MOE is 5 points, lead is seven. What is interesting is that a lot of the other candidates support stayed about the same - the biggest changes were Lieberman, Dean, and Gephardt. Lieberman, who isn't running anymore in Iowa, lost 5 points - maybe they all went to Gephardt.

But it is just one poll - we'll have to wait and see if other polls reflect the same thing.

[Padraig18]

17. Dean's 'drop' was 3%, from 23% to 20%.

Sorry if I wasn't clear on that; I agree that 'the spread' is not within the MOE.

[lastliberalintexas]

20. Yes it is

If Gephardt is polling at 28%, that means he could be polling as high as 33 or as low as 23. If Dean is at 21%, that means he could be as low as 16 or as high as 26. Yes, those numbers ARE within the MOE, since there *could* be an intersection at 26 for Dean and 23 for Gephardt.

Gephardt would have to be leading by more than 10 points for it to be outside the MOE- ie, Gephardt at 35, Dean at 23. There is no way for a 5 point drop for Gephardt (30) and a 5 point bump for Dean (28) to intersect in that scenario.

(I'm not saying it's a good poll for Dean. I am just pointing out that the numbers are within the MOE.)

[helleborient]

24. If the margin of error is 5 points, lead of 7 is within margin of error

Exactly why we all need statistics education.

A margin of error of 5 points means the poll is 95% confident that the polling total for each candidate is within 5 points above or below the total. So, figuring this in, it is possible Dean would be ahead by 3 points (+5 for him, -5 for Gephardt) and still within the margin of error or 95% confidence interval.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

29. Wow.

[SEAburb]

32. Well, then Dean could be in 3rd place, behind Kerry / nt

,,,,,,,,,,,

[paulk]

13. I don't like Broder much

but he does raise some valid points here. It remains to be seen if Dean's remarks will hurt him, however the newest Des Moines Register poll, which show Dean's support dropping, can't be good news for the Dean campaign.

[Padraig18]

15. His drop is within the MOE.

And there is good news in the poll for Dean, e.g., his supporters are twice as likely to attend and stay committed than anyone else's; Dean doesn't have the 'Oh darn, I'll stay home because the dog needs a bath, instead of going to the caucus' problem that all the other candidates seem to have, to greater or lesser degrees.

[Cha]

14. You got david broder...I got

Sylvester Brown Jr. ~ "I didn't think there was anything wrong with the comment. Perhaps he could have found a more eloquent way to make his point, but the intent was clear: If Democrats are going to beat George W. Bush, they'll need to convince some white Southern voters to jump political ship. If people have racial alliances with the party, then it's probably wise for Dean to start slicing through those alliances"




http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=81328

[StClone]

18. The Reagan Movie

Was more accurate than the portrayal of Dean's attampt to show what Democratic strategy should be in the South.

[lastliberalintexas]

19. I *so* agree

You and David Broder have convinced me- I have seen the error of my ways and will no longer support Dean.

"By inadvertently reopening the deepest wound within the nation, the race issue, Dean hurt himself and did a disservice to his party."

Yep. We wouldn't want to get into a discussion of the issues, now would we? I mean, that might wake up the great unwashed masses out there who either don't vote at all or who vote against their economic interests. I wouldn't want some poor white guy and a poor Black woman, whatever region they reside in, to decide to vote Dem b/c we actually address the issues that matter to them. Heaven forbid- the Dems might actually win an election that way!

Racial issues should just be left off the table. Why would anyone want to discuss those things anyway? We all now that there is no such thing as racism anymore in this perfect land of ours! And the people who bring up these racial isses are just those same pinko commies who think there was something wrong with the Iraq War Resolution in support of President Bush's war against those evil Hussein people and their supporters. We can't trust their judgment, now can we? Much better to rely on those insider type people who have been running the party for years and the candidates who were fooled into supporting the IWR or other legislation of the Shrub Administration. Their strategy has worked so well up until now, so why would we *ever* want to change it?

/sarcasm/ (just in case you couldn't already tell)

Oh- and bringing up the McGovern card yet again. Just the cherry on top.

[Cha]

21. LOL! I like your "sarcasm"!

}(

[genius]

22. Slavery was a Democratic thing historically. Dean has shown that

our party has not moved past that barbaric part of it's history.

[LuminousX]

23. Obviously we haven't if we can't even talk about the flag

[DrFunkenstein]

26. He Was Name-Dropping The Flag, Not Discussing It

Let's not confuse Dean for MLK, ok?

[LuminousX]

27. Let's not confuse Dean with Duke

[helleborient]

28. I agree - he was discussing Southern politics...

And, last I knew, the Confederate flag and racism are part of that, aren't they?

I'm not really sure how any of the other candidates would plan a serious discussion about Southern politics without mentioning the Confederate flag. It has been a huge issue across the South in gubernatorial and senate campaigns.

[helleborient]

25. A little twisted on history....

Slavery became entrenched in North America well before the United States became a nation.

Before the Civil War, Northern Democrats were more pro-Union and anti-war than they were pro-slavery. Democrats attempted to broker self-determination for states in the interest of preserving the Union. Historically, this was a mistake, but not the same thing as being pro-slavery.

Southern Democrats tended to be aggressively pro-slavery.

However, it is a mistake to tar the entire Democratic party with the responsibility for slavery.

[genius]

34. Check your history. The Democratic Presidents were slaveholders

until after Andrew Johnson. Andrew Jackson stuffed his slaves into the attic and basement of the White House. The Federalists (supposedly one of the preludes to the Republican Party) didn't have the same stigma. The Adamses never had slaves.

The northern Democrats were fewer than the Southern Democrats before the war as evidenced by the lack of votes Stephen Douglas received as compared with the Southern Democratic candidate. Even his plan was appeasement as opposed to abolition.

It wasn't until quite some time after the Civil War that the northern Democrats started to improve the party. Even then the KKK people in the south continuted to be Democrats.

The Democratic Party, during the sixties, truly turned into the party of equality - thanks to LBJ, who won the 1964 election by a landslide because of his stance against Southern racists. However, it appears that Dean wants to take the Party back to its tragic bigotted past. For a rich, white guy to be so insensitive is outrageous. If he gets the nomination, all civil rights activists should find a write-in candidate to support because civil rights will be the major casualty of either a Dean or a Bush administration and I'm not sure whose worse. However, I am sure that if Dean gets the nomination, Bush will be in office four more years and that's pretty frightening.