There's a simple explanation for why Dean is "running against Democrats"

[WilliamPitt]

That has been the criticism of late - that Dean seems to be running as much against the Democratic Party as he is against the GOP and Bush. A moment's thought and a little truth can explain why.

Why? Because the Democratic Party has done very little in the last three years to please the base. Popular opinion - and a great deal of empirical fact - has the Democrats in Congress yielding massive amounts of ground to Bush over the last three years.

Sure, we saved ANWR and kept the crazy psycho nominees off the bench. But the base sees the Iraq vote, the Patriot Act vote, the Homeland Security vote, Patriot Act II, the tax cuts, and a seeming inability to take the rhetorical high ground in the political discussion, the base sees all this and wonders where the Democratic spine is.

They see Dean as having that spine. The base, after all this, has little true reason to cleave itself to the party, because they see the party as having thrown everything they care about under the bus. When Dean talks about "the Republican wing of the Democratic Party," he is speaking to all the people who have been vomiting into their own mouths over the last three years.

I was worried about this a long time ago, before Dean ever came along. I was worried that Democratic inactivity over the last three years would come back to haunt them in the election. Well, it has, but not in a way they expected. Now, they have this candidate coming out of nowhere calling them on their jellyfish ways.

Dean is not my favorite candidate, for a variety of reasons. But anyone expressing shock or outrage at his campaign tactic of calling the Democrats on their behavior and their lack of spine these last three years should not be surprised if they think about it rationally. As the Grateful Dead so aptly put it, if you plant ice, you're going to harvest wind.

Or, in this case, if you plant capitulation, you're going to harvest Dean. The Dean campaign supporters sent Kerry a pair of flip-flops recently. If they really want to make the point, they should send all of the candidates mirrors. Everything the candidates need to know about why Dean has them by the short hairs, and why the bas has rallied to his rhetoric, will be found in that reflection.

The question becomes: Is this a good idea, or the low road to the nomination? Dean is going to need the people he is calling "Republicans" if he wants to win the general election. It's one thing to fire up the base. It's another again to blow away the moderates and centrists in the process. Both ways get you the nomination, but the latter leaves you hanging out to dry in the general.

[edzontar]

1. Good point.

I think Kerry's campaign has become a tragedy, largely because of his support and vote for IWR.

His confuing and circular opinions on the war since that time have only furtehr confused and alienated this longtime anti-war, previsously Kerry-friendly Dem.

[WilliamPitt]

2. It isn't just Kerry

It is Kerry, Gephart, Edwards, McAaullife and the whole party. Dean is an outsider in the sense that he played no part in the systematic retreat that has taken place over the last three years. Like it, lump it, but there it is.

[KittyWampus]

11. Dean Was Part Of The DLC Which Tacked The Country To The Right

his tenure as Governor was Center RIGHT.

So Dean's rhetoric may stir things us with the base... but his REALITY is the same old thing.

[TeacherCreature]

14. not really

the DLC of a few years ago was not the same animal it is now.

[redqueen]

31. How?

Care to expand on that? I'm very curious to know in exactly what ways it is different.

[mouse7]

110. The current DLC supported the Dumbya tax cut compromise

The current DLC supported the Patriot Act. The current DLC supported the IWR. Also many other Dumbya policy initiatives.

The current DLC turned hard right after Clinton.

Clinton is far to the left of the current DLC. If you say Dean is of the DLC of Clinton, you are therefore saying that Dean is far to the left of the current DLC.

Does that mean that Dean is as far left as Kucinich, nope. What it means is there is almost no room remaining on the right side of the spectrum. Dumbya are right wing extremists. The DLC met Dumbya half way between Clinton and Dumbya.

If you look at the political spectrum issues wise, Eisenhower would be a good bit to the left. Nixon a fair amount to the left, too.

To Dumbya and the DLC, Nixon and Eisenhower policies would be liberal.

[redqueen]

63. Hello? How is it not the same?

Please?

[TLM]

79. Simple... when Clinton and Gore were establishing the DLC

the center of american politics was much further to the left.

As Dean said, he agreed witht eh move to the center, but since then republicns have moved us even more to the right and now we need to pull back to where that center was before.


The DLC has moved more and more to the right, so much so that GOre and Clinton really cut off ties with them in a lot fo ways and Dean compleltly broke with them and they accused Dean of being a fringe leftist.

[redqueen]

86. Any details?

I mean, are there any actual changes in policy / issue stands that one can reference?

It's easy to wax rhetorical about shifts and all... but I'd like to know what exactly has changed at the DLC, not how the spectrum of the political landscape has changed.

Also, how exactly did Gore and Clinton cut off ties with them?

[TLM]

92. I do not think Clinton and Gore are even current members...

And Dean is not a current memeber either.


I think the real changes took place witht he currently leadership in the DLC... but I do not recall the names of the two guys who run the thing now. Al From and soemoone else.

The policy problem is that the DLC was set up to basicaly do what clinton called triangulation of issues... to split the difference and then make the issue your issue instead of their issue. The problem is that this method only works the first round or two... after that you're splitting the difference over on the right side of the issues.

[wyldwolf]

108. This is new spin

Where once some Dean supporters might have denied Dean was part of the DLC, now they claim the DLC is different than it was when Dean was a part of it.

Eh... nevermind.

[Raya]

45. Dean was a DLC pet and Kerry was distant from DLC. Clinton was Dean Boost

Clinton was a big Dean booster when Dean was a centrist
Governor. The DLC always had trouble with Kerry's liberal stand
on controversial issues of human rights and welfare and shunned
Kerry for a long time because of his strong opposition to the
first Gulf War.

[dkf]

47. Dean served the people of Vermont very well

He provided a suitable safety net with health insurance for the vast majority and a balanced budget along with fiscally prudent management.

Dems in congress, on the other hand, helped the Repubs pass 3 highly irresponsible tax cuts, NCLB and the IWR.

I was sick of the Dem party prior to finding Howard Dean and I have not seen anything redeeming since then.

While I subscribe wholeheartedly to the party's traditional values, I do not see evidence that our congresspeople are willing to fight for basic Dem ideals or even care about them anymore. Instead it is all about cleaving to the money of corporate America. Disgusting.

The party has lost its soul and has become an empty shell. That is why Dean resonates so strongly with me because he wants to make it stand for something again.

[TLM]

83. How were civil unions center right?

or health care, and balancing property taxes to fully fund schools, protecting land, pushing environmental regs, introducing early childhood invention programs, establishing a prescription drug benefit, expanding Medicare, and raising the minimum wage twice.

In what desperate distorted reality are these things center right?

The only thing Dean did that was arguably right wing was balance the state budget... and since no republican has been able to do that for about 30 years on the federal level, at this point balancing the budget is a democratic value.

[shivaji]

126. and DON"T FORGET, balanced budgets provide MORE dollars for..

safety nets, since money is not sucked up by the servicing of debt (also known as interest paid on borrowed money).

[mouse7]

111. Not any more

The exact same Dean policies put Dean on the left of the political spectrum.

Have Dean's historical positions changed? Nope. What's changed is what is measured as the center of the political spectrum.

Dean IS hard left, but only becasue the country has gone so hard right. Clinton is hard left now, too.

[bearfartinthewoods]

64. there is another thing to consider

all these Washington dems that he's dissing and calling spineless....
has anyone considered that they vote to protect their seat? especially in the south where being a dem is something different than it is in many other parts of the country.

by blowing them away, blowing away people who voted for the war because, in part, they knew they had to to retain their seats, he is blowing away the very people who he will need if he actually expects to get anything done if he's elected?

how does a dem who voted for the war stand on stage with a guy who calls him or her a traitor to the party for the votes they needed to caste to hold onto their dem seat.

this sentiment that dems are cowards has some merit. they are in the minority in both the house and senate for the first time in a long time and that has to have an effect. but...
if we dump all the people who the "base" considers spineless for voting in a manner that pleased their districts, the odds are their replacements will be even less "dem" than the current versions.

no election happens in a vacumn. the person at the top of the ticket has to remember that.

[edzontar]

69. Kerry could easily have survived in MASS with a no-war vote...

Kennedy voted against the IWR, y the way.

Kerry voted the way he did, I suspect, because he had his eye on the national arena, NOT because of concerns about his viability MASSACHUSETTS.

[bearfartinthewoods]

85. and this is a bad thing?

if someone wants to be president of the entire nation he'd better consider the sentiments of the entire nation.

[TLM]

94. If someone wants to win the Democratic primary...

he'd better consider the sentiments of the Democratic Party.

[bearfartinthewoods]

106. and the dem party better consider the sentiments of all dems

and indies if we hope to get back into the WH. there aren't even enough dems to do it on our own, let alone anti-war dems.

[edzontar]

112. I think the war was/is wrong.

Are you a supporter of this criminal enterprise?

[TLM]

80. SO you admit these cowards choose their careers

over standing up to the republicans.

That's exactly why they have no business in the white house.

[bearfartinthewoods]

89. let's see...we'll have a realistic, pragmatist dem in office or

a brave dem teaching in some college because a pubbie beat him for his seat.

give me a pragmatist over a filibuster-proof pubbie senate any day.

the former allows us righteous indignation and the privilege of complaining for four more. the latter keeps ashcroft off the supreme court...you choose.

[TLM]

91. Your argument is false though....

Since both Kerry and Lieberman would have all held their seats if they'd stood up and said it was wrong.

Edwards and Gephardt might have been in trouble... but that's unlikely. Look at Graham or DK.

The lesson that Kerry and Lieberman and Edwards seem to forget is that the people respect principled opposition. If you stand up and say no, with good reason, instead of this fence sitting waffling crap, people respect that.


What good is an opposition party if they refuse to oppose 85% of what the pukes want?

Well I've got good news for Kerry, Lieberman, Edwards, and Gephardt... their seats they voted for the war to protect, will be waiting for them after they lose the primary.

[bearfartinthewoods]

107. as per above, they are/were running for prez

and had a broader constituency to consider.

opposing what pukes want is ok if it is also what your constituency opposes as well.

btw...Edwards gave up his seat to run....no fall back for John.

[edzontar]

114. And so far, they are LOSING badly to Dean

So we see that their pandering has done them no good, at least so far.

I say GOOD--the war is a crime, and they deserve to lose for supporting it.

This does NOT mean i would not vote for them if they were the final choice--any one of them (even Joe) is better than Bush.

But I can't imagine how they will galvanize the Dem base in a general election after telling us all to piss off over the war.

[mouse7]

115. False in multiple ways.

The polling at that time showed Americans DID NOT want to go to war in Iraq. Only like 30+% wanted war.

Also like 70-80% only wanted us going with a UN/NATO style alliance.

So Kerry would have actually been supporting the popular position by being anti-war. The support for the war only happened when the neo-cons started banging the wardrums and showing all the stupid white men Shock and Awe video game clips.

[chester2003]

121. Numbers are wrong

I think your numbers are wrong. 60+% of Americans were in favor of the Iraq war.

[mouse7]

124. Not at the time of the IWR vote

The vote was months earlier and there was little support for invasion then.

[quaker bill]

125. There is still another thing to consider

The vote resulted in alot of dead people and we are not done with the killing them yet.

A curious vote over a public works project or two designed to bring home the pork can be excused for the purposes of political expediency. Like Kennedy's and Kerry's vote to support contruction of nuclear subs which happened to have a big effect on the local economy in MA as an example.

This vote on the other hand, authorized dropping 2000 pound bombs on a civilian population center of 5 million people. It further provided unambiguous authorization for the pResident to violate international law. Even PNAC Richard Pearle states "international law was in the way of us doing the right thing".

IWR made short work of blowing off the UN Charter and other agreements we are signatories to. The vote for IWR was nothing less that the abdication of the responsibility to govern and govern responsibly.

What is the point of holding Dem seats we must govern as a republicans to do it? It is far better to lose on principle than sell out on killing innocent civilians to retain your seat.

[Jacobin]

3. Along the same lines, many of the

"new democrats" have neo-con foreign policy leanings if not sympathies.

The schism in the party is breaking loose and its about time. Win, lose or draw, we have to have some relief here.

[clarknyc]

4. Good analysis.

Thanks for that.

[curse10]

5. Yes, but

by "running against the democrats" he is also alienating a great many of us. This also isn't good for the democratic party and may lead to even less being done. If Dean wins the presidency, how easy is it for him to work with people he openly called "cockroaches."

So, yes, many of the dems deserve a tongue lashing for supposed inactivity in congress over the last few years, but many do not. To broadly paint a brush over them as lap dogs to Bush is not a good idea, imho.

I find it increasingly difficult to find myself ever getting behind a man who is so disdainful to many people I greatly admire (Kerry being just one).

And as for the flip-flops- Kerry should have returned them to the sender. Pot. Kettle. Black. :-)

[WilliamPitt]

15. Oh, I'm not saying it is a good idea

In fact, it scares the shit out of me. Dean is going to need the people he's running against - and I'm not just talking about the candidates - if he wants to have a prayer of winning in the general election. I'm not arguing that it is a good idea. I'm just saying it's clear why he's doing it.

[readmylips]

23. It's the other way around....

Lieberman,Gephart,Clark and Kerry are going to need the Dean Army to win against little man bush, if either one gets the nomination. I would really have to think about it before I give my vote to any of them.

[curse10]

25. Okay

:-)

It scares me too. If the ultimate goal is really to beat bush we need a whole lot more than what he's got right now, and I'm not sure how many people are willing to add much at this point, or heck, even later.

[Padraig18]

6. "They see Dean as having that spine."

In a nutshell, you have it! Good post! :)

[Tom Rinaldo]

7. In a nutshell

That is why I believe only Dean and Clark have any chance of actually winning the Democratic nomination this year.

[sfecap]

8. And it started with this:

"What I want to know is why in the world the Democratic Party leadership is supporting the president's unilateral attack on Iraq."

- Howard Dean

He was right then, and he's right now.

The sad thing is that I used to come here and read hundreds of posts bemoaning the decline and weakness of the Democratic party and it's leadership. Now I come and read the attacks on Dean by (alleged) Democrats.

We will change this party. We will take our country back.

[pnziii]

9. Dean getting backing from Republicans

It's a good move to distance himself from the DNC.

I have talked to a few republicans that can't stand Bush. In fact there is a republican underground that sees Bush for what he is and not really a republican (huge deficit and balloning federal spending.

If Dean can get his message to these republicans of his fiscal conservatism then maybe he can pick up some disgruntled republican votes.

[TeacherCreature]

18. he is getting support from voters

some happen to be republicans (not unusual). Othe candidates are getting the daddy warbucks bucks. Populism, not liberalism will win in 2004.

[barbaraann]

38. "Populism, not liberalism will win in 2004."

Truer words were never spoken. For whatever reason, liberalism is just too soft in the face of the BFEE evil.

[Rose Siding]

10. Most aggregious...

(acknowledging sporadic yet meaningful accomplishments) is that the capitulation contributed heavily to the myth that bush is a strong leader. Ironically, that will be paramount obstacle to our candidate.

They should have known that we'd bite the hand that slapped us.

[revcarol]

12. Kucinich had spine and has spine...

but it is really convenient to ignore that.'nuf said or elese my ANGER at this flim-flam artist will show.

[WilliamPitt]

17. Not for nothing, and you can flame me if you want to

but a lot of the reason Dennis isn't high-profile must be attributed to Dennis. He had the base before Dean had the base. I know; I was out there and I met them. He didn't hold on to them. You can blame Dean or the press or the man on the moon. But if Kerry is to blame for losing his footing in the race, then Dennis is, too.

[redqueen]

35. Maybe I misread revcarol's meaning

But what I gather is this:

Leading Democrats have been kissing DLC ass for decades. THEY and their sorry 'us too just not as much' advice are the reason we are now in minority status in both houses, and losing ground all over the country.

If it weren't for Clinton's monumental coattails ( :eyes: ), maybe Kucinich's battles wouldn't be so hopeless? But alas, that reality is gone. Now we live in the golden era of post-Clintonite Democrats, where we're lucky to find Democrats that even remember what Democrats used to stand for. Now we're truly the party of "Republican Lite" however much people don't like to hear it.

You summed it up yourself... we push back a few feet (ANWR, etc.) and let ourselves be shoved miles (IWR, energy bill).

To me, this is not about the reason we see more press about Kucinich's date than his invaluable help in the fight against Diebold.

This is about the systemic 'republicanization' of our party, and the effects that shift is having on our electoral wins.

Kucinich is one of the few democrats who HAS managed to keep his backbone and stand up and fight the good fight in congress, and for that Dean should be giving him his due, not lumping him in with 'cockroaches' who 'supported the war'. Instead he gets ignored.

And you seem to justify that lack of respect, Will, by referring to Kucinich's invisibility. Why? I hope I'm wrong, and misreading you. Please, let me know.

[Mairead]

68. "if Kerry is to blame for losing..., then Dennis is, too"

Perhaps it would be worthwhile to look at the difference in press coverage Kerry and Kucinich have received to date? Kerry got tons; DK got close to none. I think a search of various press outlets would confirm that.

[redqueen]

73. IMO if someone 'politically aware' hasn't recognized this by now

they don't want to.

[TLM]

90. When are DK supporters going to wake up....

you don't just get handed media attention because you say you're running.

DK is like the guy at the school dance who sits on the wall whining about how unfair it is that all the girls are dancing with other guys. Does he get up off his ass and go ask a girl to dance? Nope. He sits there, waiting, and expecting them to come to him.

DK does the same crap with the media.

The media is paying attention to Dean because he's busting his ass to get media attention. On the top side of the race, Dean is out there going to every state three times over and talking to groups like AAPI while the other candidates don't even bother to show up. Dean is working hardest of anybody running, by far. That results in larger campaign donation totals and that gets press. Breaking fund raising records gets press.

On the other side of the race, Dean supporters are sending tens of thousands of letters to Iowa and NH. We're contacting our local media to get local stories and local coverage of meet ups... that coverage moves up the chain to the networks. We're also contacting the networks and the papers and the radio stations to get the word out.

Someone posted a story about some reporter who attacked Dean and got a mailbox filled with angry e-mails. Dean gets more media attention because he doesn't just sit around waiting for coverage... he goes out and works his ass off to get it, and his supporters are doing the same. That's why we're winning.

DK sits around whining about Dean... and wonders why his press coverage sucks.

[Mairead]

98. Check your facts, please

Dean got his coverage for free, when his numbers were no better than Kucinich's. That's a fact. Live with it.

[helleborient]

100. Dean got the coverage from a 15% showing in NH...Dennis didn't have that

And has never been seen as a key competitor in any of the early contests.

Dennis lost a number of supporters due to shoddy campaign organization...lost me...and a number of people I've met.

He has no one but his own campaign to blame.

Psychologically, it may be healthier to blame someone else, but the simple fact is he has not campaigned well. Howard Dean entered the race earlier and got press coverage BEFORE Dennis was ever a candidate...and was at 15% in NH BEFORE Dennis was a candidate. Dennis' failures have nothing to do with Howard Dean...they are his.

[TeacherCreature]

22. why be angry at Dean because DK is not catching on?

Come on DK is not that needy. I think your anger diminishes your candidate. I'll bet that when and if DK drops out he will endorse Dean.

[revcarol]

26. Of course, he would.

My anger is at Dean for misrepresenting DK's positions.It's called lying.We've got one liar in the WH and I don't want another one.

[MuseRider]

36. THE point to

be made. Thanks.

[hellhathnofury]

118. What do you want Dean to do? Add DK, CMB and Sharpton onto

everything he does. That's not reasonable. I suppose he could say only major candidate but that would blunt the message and DK supporters would cry foul and claim that DK is a major candidate. When Dennis pulls 5% he has that privilage.

I doubt Dean has anything against Dennis and really isn't intending to misrepresent DK's positions. It's about winning and that's the most important thing in 04.

[Mairead]

88. He's not 'not catching on', he's being purposefully smothered.

Matt Taibi in a Nation article revealed that, as did Koppel and ABC.

Play it straight, okay?

[redqueen]

29. Exactly

People act like ALL the Dems in DC are spineless follwers who test the wind before they decide what they think.

As Kucinich so aptly said, "Hello?!"

[imhotep]

13. interesting use of

the word "we" in the third paragraph.
Thank you.

[WilliamPitt]

20. I'm a Democrat

Hence, 'we.'

[CMT]

16. What you just said in your post is what John Nichols said at a Dean

Meetup in Madison,Wi just a few months ago. He was a guest speaker (and he made clear he wasn't endorsing Dean by speaking--he said Kucinich is closer to his taste, but he agreed that Dean was running the most exciting campaign).

He noted that Dean didn't take off because of his opposition to the war, but what was really generating the Dean campaign was his "bare-nuckel attacks on Bush" and taking on the Democratic leadership for being too spineless. He said Dean was saying things the base have been waiting a long time to hear and this is why he got their loyalties.

[readmylips]

19. Great Post...I 100% Agree...

That is why I sent my cash to Dr. Dean. I'm a democrat and not a half-A$$ democrat/republican. Especially Kerry and Gephart are business as usual; licking republican boots. As for ...what's his face??? leader of the DNC, he should have been fired long time ago.

[WilliamPitt]

21. But the question becomes:

Is this a wise tack to take? Just because it feels good doesn't make it smart politics. After the convention, Dean is going to need the people he is calling "Republicans." If you don't think that's true, you've got some hard lessons coming to you in the next year.

[dave29]

52. Dean himself has been called Gingrich

and he got pissed, then shrugged it off. So can they.

It's the primaries, right?

[Upfront]

84. Me To!

wise or not,I don't care. I am proud to back a man who is telling it like it is. He is a strong wind of fresh air, and truth. We need to take our party back, and then our country. You need to do the 1st before you can do the 2nd. To this old time Democrat, Dean appears to be a combination of the best of Harry Truman and Bobbby Kennedy. If you are a true Democrat, it don't get no better then that. Go Dr. Dean!!!!!

[KittyWampus]

24. Some People In The Base Don't Think Dean Has "Spine"

I am part of the base which is critical of how the Democratic Leadership has handled things...

But I most certainly don't credit Dean with having spine... he's an opportunist who is using rhetoric to appeal to disaffected voters.

Dean was a part of the problem as Governor and has no Policies now that indicate he will change things in any significant way (as contrasted with any other Democratic Candidates).

So I guess you are correct as far as those members of the base who merely require their candidate to TALK like an energized Liberal.

Too bad it's too much to ask that these same people would require that their candidate also SPEAK without making gaffes requiring time and money to clean up after him.

[Padraig18]

40. What is 'the base', exactly?

I see the term bandied about without clear definition.

[readmylips]

50. What IS the Base??? I ask too...

What is and who are inside the BASE? Terry MC? Kerry, Gephart, Lieberman? If this is the Base, then there's no Base. They have lead us into a deep black hole. Dr Dean is calling us to be the foot soldiers because the power of the vote is in our hands, not in the hands of the Base.

[markus]

93. All Your Base Is Belong To Us

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

The base is union (Gephardt, but also Dean), environmentalists (who don't have a special, particular candidate in this race, I don't think), African-Americans (who don't have a particular top-tier candidate yet), and people who would generally qualify as Liberal in their social views. If you social views trump your economic views, there is now place for such a person any longer in the republican party).

The party infrastructure (from the precincts up to the DNC HQ) is largely in control of the Corporate/Consumerist/Center. They are willing to cozy up to corporate interests, which they view as morally nuetral but generally benevolant creators of jobs and goods, so as to undermine the GOP's monopoly on pro-corporate/consumerist dollars.

The Left in general does not hold this view of corporate America. And rightly so. The corporatist/consumerist center does not work in cubicle world or retail hell. They don't have the visceral understanding of where "productivity gains" in the economy come from (out of our hides). They don't live in fear of the next merger or downsizing or personal illness. They really, really don't get it.

The real base (that is, the body of potential Democratic voters) do live in the real world, and do undertand that the Dow Jones at 10,000 means nothing to them in terms of job security, health benefits, or any other meaningful, tangible benefit. They are too busy trying to pay this month's bills to worry to much about the quarterly 401k statement.

Our party's nomenklatura at every level has bought hook, line and sinker into the old, 1980s DLC view of the world, in which we must not offend the "swing voters" of the Center. The reality of the last two decades is, ticket splitting is going down. The swing voters of the center are not as important as motiviating the base.

I say, the way to get more votes is to 1) motivate the Base and 2) bring in specifically targeted voters who should be on our side, but have been divided from our party by clever GOP use of wedge issues, or by our own mistakes.

At the end of the day, the way to do that is Class Warfare: the working and middle class against a shrinking elite that controls more and more of the wealth of the nation every day that passes.

[mike_c]

27. furthermore, I suspect the Dean machine will continue operating...

...after the primaries and after the general election. Look for increasingly successful populist challenges of incumbent democrat legislators. "My opponent voted for the Patriot Act, the Iraq War Authorization, and tax cuts for the rich" is a rallying cry that will continue to resonate for the next several electoral cycles, as it should. The democratic leadership has made too many deals with the devil during the last decade or so, culminating with its invertebrate behavior during the Bush* administration. Surprise, surprise-- the party base wants leadership and representation.

[bread_and_roses]

28. Your post sums up

pretty well why I'm not a Democrat. I only wish I could convince myself that Dean's proposed policies added up to anything much different than the sell-out of poor, working, and minority people that's been going on for lo these many years with active "Democrat" participation. But they don't.

I do admire his sticking to his stand on Iraq by bluntly stating the simple truth that capturing SH does not make us "safer." The squeals from the other candidates on that one were sickening...so afraid that one of their rivals might get a vote from the capture that they had to immediately get on the side of the war supporters.

[LittleDannySlowhorse]

30. I think you basically nailed it

I would never consider voting for any candidate but a Democratic candidate, and I would never consider leaving the Democratic party. However, over the last couple of years, I've felt like the Democratic party left me, if that makes any sense. Dean taps into the "anger" that a lot of people like me feel, but that's only part of the story --- he taps into a real sense of abandonment that I feel.

I'm a pretty mainstream type of voter and a pretty mainstream type of Democrat. I was perfectly happy with Clinton for the most part, had no problems with Gore, etc., and I'm pretty sure that a lot of us Dean supporters have been the same way. I have been in loyal, lock step with the party every step of the way, and to see the party capitulate to President Asshole has been more than just angering --- it's been heartbreaking. I'm pretty sure that other "outsider" candidates like Kucinich and Clark have their supporters based in part on similar reasons, but Dean is the one who communicates it in a way that strikes a chord with me personally, in the most resonating way.

I'm LittleDannySlowhorse, and I approve of this message.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

32. great post

i agree. I would also add that at the early debates Dean was cordial and pretty frank about not attacking Dems. Then Joe Liberman (R.) opened his pie-hole and started on the offensive, then Dean took the gloves off.

Dean was actually the first major candidate I saw confronting every one of Bush's policies head-on.

[Nadienne]

33. Then please explain this:

An e-mail sent to me from the Kucinich campaign reads:

On Saturday, Dec. 27, the Concord Monitor in Concord, NH,
noted: "Dean recently mailed brochures to homes in
New Hampshire with a headline stating that Dean is the only
candidate who 'opposed the war from the start.'"


This is flat-out untrue. He is NOT the ONLY candidate who opposed the war. Why is he saying he is? Is this his strategy? Is this what it takes to be a front-runner?

[WilliamPitt]

39. Of course it's strategy

Nothing of what I have said above argues that what he's doing is correct or right or wise. It is what it is. This is hardball. Bring a helmet.

[Nadienne]

49. Isn't Dean the one who says "YOU HAVE THE POWER"?

If that's the case, why does his strategy undermine other valid candidates?

And, oh yes, the campaigns of Kucinich, Sharpton, Mosely-Braun, Edwards, Kerry, Gephart, Leiberman, and Clark are still valid.

[readmylips]

54. Most valid candidates...

only know and support the Power of Bush... As valid, I see Gephart, Kerry, Lieberman and especially Clark. I support most of what Kucinich says. I can listen to Sharpton forever. Mosely-Braun makes me proud to be female. Edwards is outstanding but I have a problem with his whinny voice.

I see Dr.Dean and Rocky Balboa, ready and willing to take on the bush bully. A coward who hides behind his mom's skirt.

[Nadienne]

58. I see them all as valid

because at this point, no votes have been cast.

Gephart, Kerry, and Lieberman seem to represent tradition. They are faces that have been seen before, again and again. Clark is definately a pleasant surprise to this race.

I agree with you about Sharpton and Mosely-Braun: I feel the same way. I also like Edwards: I hear he's good at picking fights against repugs and winning them, even turning the repugs against each other. (Don't have proof to support this, but it's something I can easily believe.)

Dean is not what he seems.

I want someone who is what he (or she) seems.

[eileen from OH]

34. Great post, Will, thanks

The other thing that excites the base about Dean is that it ASKS something of his supporters. It ain't the politics-as-usual-stuff where all we're asked is to give money and vote and fall in line. The party machinery has made it so that there's a small group running the show and we're kind of a sideline, needed but not asked to actually DO anything.

The thing is, Dean tapped in early and eagerly to the people who were angry and frustrated at the rollover Dems AND wanted to do something. And then it simply started giving them things to do. I know others who have written or contacted the other campaigns and never heard back, except for a money plea. Check out the bahgillion ways you can do things for Dean on his webpage. (The others may have stuff that's similar now, but most only "caught on" from Dean.)

The power of "the ask" is tremendous - it says that you are valuable and have something to give. The Dean campaign knows this - in spades.

eileen from OH

[WillyT]

70. Exactly Eileen !!!

Mark Shields mentioned this criticism of Bush after 9\11. He talked about how the nation was asked, after WWII, to help out. To plant victory gardens, ration gasoline, do neighborhood patrols, etc.

After 9\11, Bush's advice was to "go shopping", with the implied message that 'Daddy will protect you'. Shields kept saying the the American people were yearning to pitch in and help. And he wondered why Bush and his people were not tapping into that desire.

Looks like Govenor Dean saw the same thing too, and made that desire for active participation in American Citizenship a part of his campaign. A VERY SMART MOVE!!!

:kick:

[wysimdnwyg]

37. Dean has a spine, while others apparently do not

So what's the problem? I agree that Dean's methods can be hard to digest for those who have been leading the party (Lieberman, Kerry, Daschle), but their leadership is one of the primary reasons why so many Dems stayed away from the polls in 2002, and why so many of us voted for Nader in 2000. The party has been led by a group of people who were more concerned with trying to please the center than doing what's right.

None of us here ENJOY having to be pissed off and complaining all the time. But what choice do we have? The neo-cons have pushed the discussion so far to the right, even natural Republicans like John McCain look almost like Dems. We must push the discourse back to the left (toward the center), or we're doomed to failure again. And bowing to pressure from the right will not accomplish this goal.



And Will, it's nice to see that your recent situation did not drive you away from DU. Though we support different candidates, we're on the same side in the grand scheme.

[redqueen]

42. Dean has a spine

This is what I don't get... he talks like he has a spine, yes.

But how did he show his spine as gov of VT? By caving to corporations and cutting social programs? By cozying up to CATO and the republican legislators he worked with, while alienating the democrats he worked with? By losing votes in each and every subsequent re-election, whether or not gay 'civil unions' was on the agenda?

What's more important, voters? Words, or deeds?

[barbaraann]

41. Re: "Dean is going to need the people he is calling "Republicans"

Actually, that's not very many people, it's more money than it is people. The Dem Party has let its grassroots wither and die while it has taken the money of the wealthy and the corporations and pretty much just done their bidding while tossing us peons a few crumbs.

(I never would have thought this a few short years ago but the internet, DU, lack of resistance to the BFEE from the Dems, etc. have opened my eyes.)

[WilliamPitt]

43. It's both

It is money, and it is all the Democrats who believe in the war on terror, believe in what they've been sold, believe in the fear they've been battered with. Dean can't overcome that in time for the general. He needs to pull those people in for the election, and then teach them afterwards. Sad but true.

[barbaraann]

57. Just a quibble...

I don't think he's calling the fear-battered Dems Republicans, just the corporate whore Dems.

[windansea]

113. teach them what??

how to dodge and weave...misrepresent who they are?

I agree everybody got sold on Iraq wmds...the threat etc

please tell me what's getting sold on the very real threat of terror

does it exist or not?? please no cutesy replies

you support Kerry over Dean because of his military/foreign policy experience (I know that's not the only reason) but if terror is a bill of goods whats the reason?? might as well be Dean if terror is just another bill of goods

[chiburb]

44. This sums up why I'm still undecided...

You're right about Dean appealing to the downtrodden Dems. I'm one of those that was so fed up with our "leadership" that I couldn't tell the parties apart. Dean FINALLY gave me a voice, and in fact made it ok for ALL Dems to start challenging the Boy King. For that I'll be forever grateful... well, maybe not forever. You see, now that Dean has set the tone, made it ok to speak out against Bushco, made me feel less 'alone', I actually have hopes for '04. And that is where I start to question his electability: I believe there are 40% of us and 40% of them. Can Dean appeal to enough swing voters to oust Bushco? Can he even keep the 40% together after the primaries? Conversely, and perhaps scarier to me, what if he DOESN'T win the nom and his supporters take their ball and go home?
My point (I guess) is that I see your point, don't have an answer, am still confused, still undecided, and still ABB(EL) (even Lieberman).

Thanks for your post.

[wtmusic]

46. Yeah Will

good analysis :-)

[dave29]

48. I think there are some generalities being made here

Dean has more than just the "base" in his corner. Not to mention, Dean is a centrist himself, which makes his support from the base all the more remarkable (although easily explainable).

1) There is ample evidence (fundraising, campaign membership) he is bringing many new people into the process - and who knows where that will take us.

2) There is also ample evidence that many Democrat-leaning Independents, and some fiscally-conservative/socially-liberal Republicans are finding Dean's campaign attractive.

3) Dean has shown he can raise money for congressional Democrats, fast. This will go a long way towards healing the divide.

4) Dean's campaign is not just about being anti-Bush anti-establishement Democrat - it's about being anti-spineless Democrat. Spineless Democrats may feel free to continue whining in the corner during the election - but by my count, many of these were the same folks griping about Nader spoiling the last election. In other words, it's their own damned fault if they don't vote for Dean as the nominee. Same goes for Dean supporters who sit out the General election if he is not the nominee. So sorry if you don't like him for whatever reason, but it's ABB folks, ABB.

I don't think there is a low road or a high road through the primaries, Will. There is just one road with a giant fork in it - and I think the burden now falls on the "establishment" to realize that. They are the ones pissing in the wind here. Dean has brought so much to the party (innovative fundraising/new members/grassroots energy) - and all they can do is scream unelectable! at the top of their lungs. They not only ridicule everything Dean has done, but those who support him with hard earned dollars as well. The ball is in their court to rise to the occassion and admit that the Democratic Party needs to stand for something other than appeasement and whining.

Dean will most certainly reach out, be it through congressional fundraisers or public appearances with willing rivals - but will the other Dem's have the courage to admit defeat and grow the party, or will they wilt in the face of the giant wind coming from the GOP and try to drag us down in the process.

That is the real question.

[chiburb]

51. A very nice post, and...

another reason I'm undecided.
:-)

[WillyT]

74. Excellent Take On Things Dave29 !!! --- I Agree Totally !!!

:bounce::kick::bounce:

[hellhathnofury]

119. Good post!!! n/t

[On the Road]

53. At Last . . .

a productive two-sided discussion on Dean -- or any other candidate, for that matter. I have to agree with a lot of the above.

There's one more factor -- we criticize Republicans a lot for choosing leaders like Reagan based on personality and alpha-male qualities. Well, that's a lot of what appeals to people about Dean. You can call it speaking like he has spine, but it's worked and people have responded to it.

It's also a distinction with DK. Kucinich is principled, but he is a voice crying in the wilderness. He has reinforced this image through things like his veganism and proposal for a Department of Peace (which I personally like BTW). Dean on the other hand has moved closer to the working-class populist base with things like his relaxed stance on gun laws. Whatever else it may be, it's good politics.

[drfemoe]

55. Thank you for getting it

And to your summary statement:
Both ways get you the nomination, but the latter leaves you hanging out to dry in the general.

If the 'establishment' plans on leaving Dean out to dry in the general, they will dig a deeper hole and prove further that their base (American voters) mean NOTHING to them. They are certainly free to do that. And if I have a headache, I can bang myself in the head with a hammer hoping to get rid of my 'headache'.

[cade]

56. race to the bottom

lowest common denominator
squeaky wheel gets the grease
riding the disaffected like a cheap kawasaki

Dean is making alot of noise, alot of negitive noise.
Some people look for a fight, some will join what looks to be the winning side.
If Dean gets the nod look for a realisation that it is him or Bush, either or, no other choice unless someone else joins in.
Bush has an agressive attacking kind of - with us or against us mentality.
Dean is simply looking to adopt a proven strategy, by using the same approach.
But by becoming like that which you dispise are you defeating it ?
Everyone has a me first mentality, understandable but not admirable.

[dave29]

59. the bottom was found

with the Osama ad. Calling Dean a "Mad Cow" is not the same as calling someone Bush-Lite for going along with Bush policies.

The bottom has been found by many others, but not Dean.

[cade]

66. it will get worse, no matter who wins the nomination

Bush will stop at nothing, and whoever opposes him had better not be handicapped by an outdated sense of honor, morals, kindness or anything other than the will to win.
Winning is everything, and in this case winning is really the only option for our party - because if the dems don't win, Bush will make sure to stifle the dissent even more brutally than before since he would have the de-facto "will of the people" behind him.
Scary times any way you look at it.

[redqueen]

62. "by becoming like that which you dispise are you defeating it ?"

No.

Love your sig, btw. :)

[Tom Rinaldo]

60. This is an outsider year.

Who do you prefer? Dean or Clark? we are going to end up with one of them. Doesn't matter if you think that Dean is the ultimate typical politician, or if you believe that Clark dwells in the heart of the true beast. Those two men, along with with Dennis Kucinich and I suppose Al Sharpton and Carol MB, are the perceived outsider candidates. Personally I accept both Dean and Clark's claims to outsider status despite some aspects to the contrary. Regardless, the labels are firmly affixed, some contrary views not withstanding.

To be blunt, (I honestly do believe this) you can either work for one or the other, or allow those who do to choose your nominee for you. No one else is positioned to put enough of the right pieces of a winning coalition together, that can stand up ageist the tide of combined Democratic voter disillusionment, rebellion, and search for new answers, that is surging through this election cycle.

[Adjoran]

61. It's not entirely fair

to claim the congressional Democrats have been "spineless" and "capitulated" to Bush across the board. Look at what Kerry and Gephardt have said and voted over the first three years. I know many here disapprove of the war on terror and Iraq votes, but look at everything.

We didn't win a lot of these issues because we are in the minority. As such, there are going to be limits to what you can accomplish. You have to pick your battles; you can't just go out and filibuster everything Bush proposes, else you get labelled "obstructionist" and end up with a smaller minority next election.

Maybe the battles they chose weren't the ones you would have chosen. But to think that a minority can enforce its will in politics is just fantasy. To do anything, you have to peel off enough moderate repubs to make a majority, and that necessarily means compromise. And that doesn't make the base happy, either.

Dean, Clark, Sharpton, and Braun have been outside the halls of Congress during this time. They didn't have to make the tough calls that the others did. It is easy to criticize those who were in the arena, just like Monday morning quarterbacking is easy with no linebackers in your face.

I've been listening to what these men (Gephardt, Kerry, Edwards, and Lieberman) have said over the last three years. I haven't heard a word from any of them that sounded like capitulation. They are all fine public servants. Not a "cockroach" in the group.

Could we have had more effective leadership? Sure, there is always room for improvement. But hindsight is always 20/20, too. And just because we can imagine a better outcome on a given issue doesn't mean that outcome was practically doable. As the saying goes, "Nothing is impossible - for the person who doesn't have to do it!"

Now, if the war vote is all you care about, that's a different matter. But we need to recognize that while 2/3 of Democrats oppose the war, nearly 2/3 of the rest of the country approves. The overall figure for the nation is right at 60% FOR, now that Saddam has been found.

We can have ideological purity, in the spirit of "I'd rather be right than President." Personally, I want to win. Because nothing good happens until you do win. If we are going to drive off all the Democratic candidates and their supporters who voted for the war by calling them names, we are NOT going to win anything.

The last time our candidate repudiated mainstream Democratic leaders for not being progressive enough was 1972. I remember how well it worked out then.

[hellhathnofury]

122. No they haven't capitualated across the board. But they haven't...

done that well. I think 1994 is a good example of what we should have been doing. We offered absolutely no clear alternative message and got stomped. How does someone like Max Cleeland loose? You don't have to be completely obstructionist but it helps to make a heck of alot of noise and that certainly didn't happen several times. Notably the Iraq war and the Medicare bill. Iraq war was probably a lost cause but we could have used it as a base issue for 2004. Medicare should have been one plain and simple, we needed to get the public outcry to a feverpitch and that didn't happen. We shouldn't fight everything but these were to big congressional failures.

I agree they are not all cockroaches and I have great respect for all of them but I understand where Dean is coming from with all the attacks. It's a combat sport as Will said.

[Crewleader]

65. Well January 9th Presidential Debate

will be very interesting to see how all the candidates handle themselves and with each other over issues which was mentioned here in this excellent summary.
The live debate will be held in Iowa Public Television's studio auditorium and is arguably the nation's highest profile debate preceding the January 19th Iowa Presidential Preference Caucuses.

http://www.kcts.org/seriesdetail.asp?N1=DMRD


Another asset to Dean's popularity is the fact Al Gore is supporting him, not with just the endorsement but throwing him a New Years' Party, and sending out messages in Dean's e-mail asking for donations.
But I also want to add in this year's Christmas card from Al Gore & Family. He added these words with his signature:
Happy Holiday Season, with Joy and Peace and Justice in the New Year.

To me that speaks volumes right there, those most angered over the 2000 election will want Justice in 2004 along with Peace & Joy.But it also says what Al feels in his heart he should be President,and our votes should of counted with that one word he expressed,"Justice" and I agree 100%!

But my first choice is:

I feel General Wesley Clark has the winning chance to beat Bush and get everyone united for the General Election more so then Dean. I admire and respect Al Gore and if Dean is nominated I will vote for him. But that last debate when he spoke to Ted Koppel," We talked too long about Iraq" , it was a complete turn off to many of us who lived through Vietnam with loved ones dying there and those lucky to come back only reliving the horrors of war in their nightmares.

I feel and alot of people feel as I do, if Dean had some experience in Vietnam, he would not of ever said we are speaking too long of Iraq. Then there's the sealing of the records, well that's another thing that makes me wonder, here we are fighting for truths all the time and sealing records is what we don't want happening like it is in the white house.

For you Dean supporters', I'm prepared to vote for him if he's nominated but in my heart I feel he just doesn't have a chance beating Bush in the general election.

I don't care for him to falsely say he was the only candidate against the War...that is wrong and I don't like it. I admire Dennis Kucinich and how he handles himself in the debate expressing that about Dean. I saw him the other night, do most of you know like Lieberman running for Vice president he was able to keep his seat by running for the senate. Like Lieberman Dennis too is going to keep his seat if he does not get nominated. He's got a past that can relate to most Americans the struggles to get ahead for families with alot of children. God Bless him how far he's gone and where he may end up!

We all know any of the candidates is better then Bush and this coming debate "Thee Candidate" will stand out from the others.

Just like General Clark's quote below,
I feel he is the one to win in 2004!

Thank you William for a most honest assessment!

[stopbush]

67. Maybe it's just that Dean is running against Repukes

but the repuke-lite Dems are getting tarnished by their support of bush's wars and their gutless acquiescence.

I'm one of those 10% of people who NEVER got behind bush after 9/11. I've never believed a word he's said and never will. In retrospect, we're the 10% that were correct about the PNAC and the BFEE. Two years and myriad lies later, the country is back to a 50-50 split. In that time, Dean has been angrily hammering bush while Lieberman, Kerry, Edwards and Gephardt took "more-nuanced approaches," hedged their opposition bets on IWR and, in Gephardt's case, actually embraced and led us into bush's illegal war. And they did all this at a time when millions of people world-wide took to the streets in opposition to the obvious phoniness of the claims being made, in spite of the millions who were embarrassed and outraged by the OBVIOUS lies that Colin Powell spewed at the UN, and the hundreds who had the moral courage to go to Iraq as human shields to stand up for their PRINCIPLES.

Against such a backdrop, the Dem bush enablers look puny indeed.

I first heard Howard Dean a couple of years ago on MTP - before his supposed "disastrous" appearance. Back then, he was being labeled as "the best Dem candidate you've never heard of." He was bashing bush and his policies when everyone else was ducking for cover. After his appearance, I was impressed. The only thing I really disagreed on was his stand on guns. Since then, he has only grown in stature, in my humble estimation.

I've got a few problems with Howard Dean, but the few quibbles I do have with him pale in comparison to the outright sell-out that other candidates made to bush when they could have and SHOULD have stood up and made a stand on principle. If Robert Byrd could do it, why couldn't they?

You supply the answer.

[Justice]

71. Really Thoughtful Post

It is great to see you posting.

To your last point: "The question becomes: Is this a good idea, or the low road to the nomination? Dean is going to need the people he is calling "Republicans" if he wants to win the general election. It's one thing to fire up the base. It's another again to blow away the moderates and centrists in the process. Both ways get you the nomination, but the latter leaves you hanging out to dry in the general."

Dean is a risk taker. Dean and Trippi are pushing the party in the same way the republicans have been - knowing that the party will "take" it for the most part (the party took it from the republicans)

They also bank on the fact that in the GE, the party will hate Bush more than they could ever dislike what Dean has done. People who dislike Dean and what he has done will hold their nose and vote against Bush. In the short term, this strategy may very well work. After all, the most important thing for any democrat is to get Bush out of there. Of course if the strategy doesn't work, the party is going to be in shambles. But, given the current situation - the risk may well be worth taking.

Hell of a way to run an airline.

IMO, Clark's campaign offers a different path - I would say a far more positive path - to the same objective.

[revcarol]

82. Dean doesn't need to worry about those "moderates and centrists."

They will fall into line when the hear how Dean is going to balance the budget (on the backs of the poor) and not cut Pentagon pork(keep our military "strong".)

Oh, and they can 'feel safe' because he won't repeal the Patriot Act.

It's all about image. He has the "image" of being angry at Dems, but for the general election his image will be "compassionate conservative" and "fiscally conservative."

[slinkerwink]

72. there are plenty of moderates and centrists that back Dean

you're wrong in your assumption that only hard-core left liberals support Dean.

[curse10]

77. nowhere did Will say that

and it's not surprising that moderates and centrists support dean. He is one, for christ's sake. In fact, one that is pretty far to the right.

I'm more surprised that a liberal would actually support Dean.

[corporatewhore]

75. hello Kucinich !!!

i am about to go crazy everybody ignoring kucinich i first saw kucinich at th National Campus Greens Convention said he was withthe dems doin missionary work even made me recconsider dem party you wouldnt need to send kucinich a mirror

[Bread and Circus]

76. You are very correct, your analysis is spot on, but I still think Dean...

stinks.

[curse10]

78. LoL

I agree. But I don't think this is necessarily a positive thread about Dean. There are some issues that I think Dean and his supporters are failing to realize. You alienate some of the dems, you are going to have trouble getting their support later on.

[DancingBear]

81. Thanks, Will

I think you are accurate here in you assessments. While one can debate the merits/wiseness of a rah-rah type of campaign (I believe it is a colossal mistake when viewed in today's climate)., it is how it translates in the GE that is what is most important. One must admit that, despite all, Bush is seen as strong in many areas. Those who do not see this are viewing the landscape with a jaundiced eye. Do not believe that voting patterns of 2000 will hold in 2004 - the Clinton legacy no longer matters, and now matter how many of us protest to the contrary Bush will not be painted in the colors that we think he looks best in.

I can only speak for myself in this regard, but I know that a populist style alienates me, and many others, not for its substance but instead for its inability to gage popular sentiment. Primary strength is a poor indicator of overall strength, for many times those who "connect" on a visceral level do well. Cuomo comes to mind here, as does Perot. The consequence of same is that the campaign does exactly the opposite of what it intended, in that while it entrances its supporters it repels these very folks it needs to succeed in a GE. - the dreaded "moderates." Those millions who make up their minds at 8 a.m. on Election Day, and who may very well vote predicated on how they think they themselves are doing. Once again, perception, not policy or pontificating, will carry the day.

I am not a Dean supporter in any sense of the word, but I argue that WE (fellow supporters of other candidates), as much as any of the Dean supporters, are the base of this party. Probably more so, as our combined percentages far outweigh those of the Dean camp. I know I have no problems at all with any of the other candidates running, not even Lieberman. While I find his campaign without merit (at least with issues that concern me), I know where he stands. Same with all the other candidates, save Dean. I must admit I do not feel welcome in the Dean camp, because from a political standpoint the campaign seems to be for the campaigns sake, and not much else. Excuse me, but in this climate I am fearful of a candidate whose raison d'etre seems to be chance for change sake, operating under the mantra that we'd rather lose than capitulate (I think there's a Taryton commercial in there, for anyone that remembers). I have the mythical 10 things that I would love to see happen under a new Dem administration, but my political leanings tell me that in order to get them I must yield to the "common good", who may be only willing to accept three. I will take my three, then when opportunity arises look to add to the list.

Whether one likes it or not, politics is a game of compromise, and the game is played the same no matter when. "Tear down the walls" was a calling card for me when the Airplane sang it, but now I am older and wiser, the latter being open for debate, of course. The wall still needs to be torn down, this is true, but brick by brick at first. I know this is heresy to many, but this is how the game is played. Play it well, and you win. Play it recklessly, and you don't. Clinton was the master, and the model. By screaming for drastic change, one becomes marginalized. This is a lesson, whether one agrees with it or not, that must be learned, or else the fall will be painful, and I for one will not accept a chorus of "well, we stood by our principles" when the Reich begins its second term.

[ozone_man]

87. Dean isn't "running against Democrats".

He is helping Democrats relearn who they really are. They have been down so long (sucking up to Bush), that they have lost all self respect. The examples of Patriot Act, tax cuts, IWR, that you give are all good examples of this.

Look at Dean as a great enabler of self esteem for the Democratic party. He will reshape it into something that we can look at with pride again, but only if he makes into office.

Rebuilding of the Democratic party will require tearing down some of the old structure (DLC, e.g.). Maybe this is what you are referring to as "running against Democrats", but it is a necessary step. We do not want to grow into the Republican party lite as the DLC would have us, as Lieberman would have us. There will be some growth pains, but it is a good thing.

[revcarol]

105. How would the Democrats relearn , when Dean

wouldn't repeal the Patriot Act,disses or ignores Dems who had the guts to go against the IWR, waffles or lies about the retirement age for SS, was "strongly" for NAFTA(or mebee not, depending on the date you talk to him)...these are DEM CORE ISSUES, at least as far as this Dem is concerned.

Merely shouting,"You have the power" doesn't teach the Dems anything and only helps the self-esteem of his followers.

Where is the CHALLENGE to the party to relearn anything? Where is the coming to grips with the very real problems of the nation and the problems the Bush administration has laid upon us?

All smoke and mirrors.

[ozone_man]

109. The Dems I'm talking about

are the ones who knuckled under and voted for the IWR, like Kerry, Gephardt, Lieberman, Edwards, Clinton, etc. Where I live (Vermont), we actually have Senators (Leahy and Jeffords) who both voted against the IWR. No, they were not fooled by Bush as Kerry claims. Dean has been consistently against the war long before it started. Even recently, when Saddam Hussein was captured, he stood firm, while Lieberman et al fell in line with Bush again. This is one of the relearning examples I was referring to. How to develop some spine, something that we come not to expect from our Washington politicians.

These same politicians voted for the Patriot Act. Again, the senators from my state did not. How did yours vote? I'm sure that if Dean gets in he will revamp this act to protect civil liberties as much as possible, but I haven't read his position on this.

If you are coming from the Kucinich supporter view, then I understand that Dean will not be as left as Kucinich, since he is a pragmatist, yet his positions are most acceptable to me, including health care and environment. I've lived here and watched the guy in Vermont for many years, drove to work past "take back Vermont" signs during the Civil Union campaign, as Dean wore a bullet proof vest.

On education, I would just say "Success by Six" and did your candidate send his kids to public schools? Dean did.

[paulk]

95. I wish I could see Dean's attacks on his own party

as anything more than just political opportunism. The party establishment does need to be shaken up - but why Dean? Why this centrist, right leaning faux-populist?

You say that he appeals to the "base", Mr. Pitt. I disagree. Howard Dean appeals to reactionaries. A hardcore and loyal group that have carried him into the position as front runner for the Democratic nomination. A group that may yet carry him to that nomination.

I have said many times that you can't run against your own party and win a general election. Gov. Dean's divisive campaign has already managed to provoke some of the nastiest infighting I've ever seen. In 2004 the Democratic Party needs to be more united than ever - and trashing the party whose moniker you're running under seems a foolish thing.

[WilliamPitt]

97. There are a lot of reactionaries in the base

Look around.

[paulk]

99. I would define the base

as the majority. That's why I don't see Howard Dean as appealing to the "base".

[stopbush]

104. Well, this "reactionary" registered as a Dem in 1972

and has voted an almost straight Dem ticket since then.

I'll tell you the one time I was a reactionary - when I threw my vote away in 1980 and voted for John Anderson. Yep, I helped hand the WH to that fuck Raygun by voting against Jimmy Carter. And what was my excuse? Well, one reason was that I have a distrust of born-agains, but beyond that, the country WAS in a malaise in 1980, just as Carter had said. I just didn't think Carter was the one to get us out of it. I had also just moved to NYC (1977) and was scraping to get by on minimum-wage jobs. I didn't even own a TV at the time and was far from what I'd consider an informer voter. I liked Anderson's message, so I voted my conscience and, in effect, pulled the anti-Carter, anti-Reagan lever.

And the rest, I'm sad to say, is history. Reagan won and it's been downhill ever since. But I learned my lesson. I will vote for whichever Dem gets the nomination, even Holy Joe. I won't throw my vote away again — ever!

Democrats need to look at these contests as just that - contests. Sure, it's nice to hit a walk-off home run to win a game, but sometimes you win on a bunt or a strike-out. It's also nice to score the winning touchdown, but in some situations, you win the game by allowing a safety on yourself, denying field position on the ensuing free kick and running out the clock.

If we're to win this election, we need to stop charging fire à la the Brit troops at Gallipoli and realize that a war against the repigs and their whore media ain't gonna be won by "doing things right proper. It's the principle lads, the principle...". We need to take the battle to them, and we need to stick together for the greater good of the COUNTRY (screw the Party!).

Dean must and has taken the battle to the party, and it's about time somebody did the dirty work. Dean didn't wait for Iraq to go south, he didn't wait for the total meltdown in the economy, he didn't wait for the Bill of Rights to fade into history. No, he was out there at the height of fratboy's popularity, speaking truth to power while his rivals sought the more-nuanced ground, a ground built on TRANSPARENT lies, a ground that has since been soaked with the blood of tens of thousands of innocent civilians and unwitting troops, not to mention America's treasure and former glory.

So take it to one and all, good Doctor. Thanks for your guts. Thanks for your vision. And above all, thanks for the dose of reality and the familial intervention you've brought to the happy drunks of the Dem party who had become intoxicated by the heady promises of two year's worth of dirt cheap, repig-lite malt liquor.

I'll follow Dean because he's got what it takes to be a leader.

[denverbill]

96. This isn't just the beginning Will.

This didn't start after 2000. It started with the transformation of the Democratic party by the DLC.

When the Democratic Party started pandering to corporations for cash, the Party sold it's soul. I voted for Clinton in 1992, but if Ross Perot hadn't pulled out, then rejoined the race, I would've voted for Perot in 92. The Democratic Party in 92 gave me a choice between Bush Sr and someone who was almost identical to Bush Sr, but who was a womanizer to boot.

Clinton made a feeble effort at National Health care in 93, but the party insiders were so scared of the Republicans, nothing happened. After that, we had 7 years of moderate Republican rule. (Capital gains taxes were cut as a trade off for raising the minimum wage,e.g)

America is rapidly going to hell, but it didn't start with Bush. It started with NAFTA, which was and still is a DLC policy.

Yes, Clinton was better than Bush. And yes, Gore would've been better than Bush. But that doesn't mean I particularly liked either Clinton or Gore compared to a more populist candidate.

[helleborient]

101. What leader who has transformed the party hasn't run against...

The establishment in the party?

Bill Clinton ran to bring the DLC into power and was deliberately running against the liberals who had dominated the party when Mondale and Dukakis went down in flames.

Jimmy Carter ran against entrenched interests as well...and rode public anger still lingering about Watergate to victory.

John F. Kennedy ran against entrenched party interests as well.

I agree with much of your analysis, Will...but I don't really see why this is really so different or scary when compared with the past of the Democratic Party.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

102. Just a lot of bunch of more Dean basking.

[Walt Starr]

103. I think that this is why he's getting so much money, too

Many people are like me and refused to donate to the DNC when asked. We've sent our money to Dean instead.

[cryofan]

116. Dean is running a con game, that is about it.

He is a cryptoRepublican running a con game along with the Democratic Party insiders. The objective is to get him seen as the outsider maverick, when he is really an insider who has a Vermont history of being against the Democratic agenda, and who has a strong dislike for the Left. You may recall that in the dark distant past, the Democratic Party WAS the Left.

Why don't you print some of these Dean quotes that show him for what he really is: a rightwinger masquerading as a maverick Lefty:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

"Throughout the 1990s, Dean’s cuts in state aid to education ($6 million), retirement funds for teachers and state employees ($7 million), health care ($4 million), welfare programs earmarked for the aged, blind and disabled ($2 million), Medicaid benefits ($1.2 million) and more, amounted to roughly $30 million. Dean claimed that the cuts were necessary because the state had no money and was burdened by a $60 million deficit.9
....
Most of the Democrats in the legislature rebelled against Dean over the budget cuts, and he ended up depending on Republican votes to pass most of his proposals. At the time, a local Vermont newspaper wrote, "The biggest items on Dean’s agenda for next year are likely to provoke more opposition from the Democrats than the Republicans. Nevertheless, Dean said he feels no particular pressure to deliver the goods to his party or to promote the Democratic agenda."15

In the mid-1990s, Dean even aligned himself with the likes of Republican Newt Gingrich on his stance on cutting Medicare. He opined at the time, "The way to balance the budget is for Congress to cut Social Security, move the retirement age to 70, cut defense, Medicare and veterans pensions, while the states cut everything else."16
....
The Rutland Herald described how one protestor, Henrietta Jordan of the Vermont Center for Independent Living, "said it would be much fairer to raise taxes on people with expensive homes and cars, children in private school and a housekeeper at home than to cut programs that helped the 66,000 Vermonters living with disabilities."17 Dean responded callously, brushing off the pleas of Vermont’s most vulnerable by saying, "This seems like sort of the last gasp of the left here."18"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


The rest of this article is here:
http://www.isreview.org/issues/32/dean.shtml

[Capn Sunshine]

123. what is WITH supporters of an EX General calling DEAN a crypto republican

is this a new tack? The General, remember admits to having been a republican. He's backed by the same forces that want to retaiin contol of the party within the beltway establishment.
He's a guy who represented aided and abetted the military killing machine that eats our children.

and you think this guy is qualified to be left of anyone besides Ghenghis Khan and *?

Whos manipulating what again?

[quaker bill]

117. It is more than that Will

I agree with your general premise of an adverse reaction to capitulation. But I think the phenomena is so much more than this.

Look at the success of writers and artists like Micheal Moore, Al Franken, Molly Ivins, yourself, Paul Krugman, and Joe Conason. Look again at the success of organizations like Moveon, Truthout, Tom Paine, The American Prospect, and so on.

These people, yourself included, have been calling for the sort of change in politics and political discourse that is so far beyond anything the other candidates can muster, especially those from Washington. I posit that you, the others mentioned, and those unmentioned but by no means disregarded, have had a substantial role in starting a movement.

I am not saying that it was the intent of anyone mentioned to favor Govenor Dean. In fact there likely was no intended beneficiary beyond the good of the country itself.

The election in 2000 and Bush's* reactionary shift to the pure neo-con agenda created alot of latent frustration. This was the fuel. The ideas written, spoken, and presented on film were the spark that lit the fire that Howard Dean is now enjoying for warmth.

He was the one person in the position with the skill and vision to take advantage of it. He was willing to risk a loss at the polls to stand up for his convictions. Dean reports getting upset by reading about something Bush* did and deciding at that point that he could run and needed to. Who knows, one of the above listed authors may have written it.

That is the interesting thing about political speech. It can start a movement. Movements have a tendency to gain a life of their own and may take unpredictable paths unintended by their instigators.

When I worked with some Friends in the 80's to get the Green Party organized in Florida I had no clue about Ralph Nader in 2000 and the change this would bring to the country. We just wanted a true liberal anti-war voice and were getting nowhere with the remnant Dixiecrats. That is the interesting thing about political speech in my experience.

[Northwind]

120. Wow.

The Kerry/Franken gravy train dried up real fast, didn't it?

[shivaji]

127. William Pitt....this is the most thoughtful post I have read in this prima

campaign. You hit it right on the head, as to why Dean is succedding over the other contenders.

I consider myself closer to center, and yet I feel most connection to Dean's positions. He took the most pragmatic road in Vermont, instituting the state wide health care system, but then balancing the state budget. People on the left forget that balancing budgets actually frees more dollars for safety net and public services because it saves on the cost of servicing the debt. Look at how many dollars California is paying out in interest on the loans. All that money could be paying benefits to the needy.

Dean also showed extraordinary good judgement in opposing IWR on the correct basis that Saddam was not a imminent threat. The attack on Iraq should never have been initiated without full support of UN as was the case in Afghanistan. Kerry, Edwards, Gephardt all voted for IWR. Clark was for it as a CNN analyst and then flip-flopped after joining the democratic party formally.