The Fall, How Beltway Democrats Sank Howard Dean

[Larkspur]

http://www.counterpunch.org/frank07082004.html

<SNIP>
...there was more to the drama than Dick Gephardt and John Kerry passing notes under the table and the DLC crying foul. In fact, Democratic insiders ("Washington Democrats," as Dean used to call them) with deep ties to the DLC began funding campaign ads against Dean, hoping to bring his campaign to a screeching halt.

David Jones, an avid fundraiser and organizer for the Democratic National Committee and a staunch DLC patron who garnered money for centrist New Democrats like Bill Clinton and Al Gore, founded an anti-Dean group that ran vile ads attacking him early on in the Iowa contest. Deceptively called "Americans for Jobs, Health Care & Progressive Values, 2004 Election Cycle," Jones' group conducted a poll, which found that most Americans championed Dean's Iraq war stance. But few knew of his support of NAFTA, Medicare cuts in the mid 1990s, or his endorsements from the NRA.

"The first spot, on Dean's NRA endorsements, ran Dec. 5-12 in Iowa," The Chicago Sun Tribune reported on February 19, 2004. "The second ad ran Dec. 12-19 in Iowa and hit Dean on his NRA backing and NAFTA and Medicare stands. By this time, Jones did not have much money left."
Jones' group raised in excess of $600,000 from numerous Democratic insiders, including former New Jersey Democratic Senator Robert Torricelli whose political career ended abruptly fell victim to ethics violations. Torricelli donated $50,000 to Jones' group.

As The Washington Post reported on February 16, 2004, "The list makes clearer than ever that the rules need to be changed to provide timely disclosure-to ensure that voters know who is behind this kind of attack advertising in time to factor that into their decision-making, should they so choose. We learn now that unions that had endorsed Rep. Richard A. Gephardt (Mo.) contributed $200,000 of the group's $663,000 in donations. Two top Gephardt backers also contributed: Leo Hindery Jr. of YES Network ($100,000), who served as a national finance co-chair, and Swanee Hunt ($25,000), who was a national campaign co-chair.

While Mr. Gephardt's backers constituted the bulk of the donors, they weren't alone: Slim-Fast Foods founder S. Daniel Abraham, a major Democratic donor who contributed to his home state senator, Bob Graham (Fla.), and to Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.), gave $100,000. J. McDonald Williams, a former chairman of the Trammell Crow construction company and a donor to the Bush-Cheney campaign this year, though to Democrats in previous cycles, gave $50,000 Mr. Torricelli, you will remember, had the cash to spare because he was forced to quit his reelection race after being 'severely admonished' by the Senate Ethics Committee for accepting expensive gifts from a campaign donor he was doing official favors for. Now a champion at collecting special-interest money is gathering checks for Mr. Kerry, who's busy railing against those interests."

As it turns out, the Post article doesn't even tell the full story. In reality, the ties between Jones' organization, the Kerry campaign, and DNC chair Terry McAuliffe were much stronger than suggested.
<SNIP>

After the November elections, it's time to start reforming the Dem Party from the inside out. I'm a member of my town's Dem committee and will work to reform this Party from the inside. Anyone else joining in?

[Dogmudgeon]

1. Counterpunch. That sounds about right.

Counterpunch absolutely hates the Democrats and can't say enough bad about Liberals.

Part of that "lefter-than-thou" complex they have.

Some of them think that if Bush gets a second term, the Proletariat will rise up in revolution and throw off the chains of Capitalist oppression.

On the other hand, they though that would happen if Bush won in 2000.

--bkl

[Larkspur]

3. Most of the information about the groups attacking Dean prior

to the primaries came out after the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries, so this article is based upon solid information and I agree that the campaign laws need to be changed to find out before the primaries/elections who is funding these attack groups.

4. What's the point of attacking the messenger?

Maybe I'm just a contrarian, but whenever someone attacks the messenger instead of the message, I'm more inclined to read the message.

[Dogmudgeon]

6. I've read Counterpunch for years

Read the message if you will -- Counterpunch has a lot of good info, but their stuff about Democratic party politics has become rote and predictable. It's a major failing they have there.

Attacking the messenger is quite common in politics, and there's no reason why Counterpunch should be exempt. It's also common practice among the writers and editors of Counterpunch. The messengers (Alexander Cockburn, Jeffrey St. Clair, etc.) have been saying "Democrats suck" for years.

--bkl

[CWebster]

8. That would be like accusing Democrats

of being Liberals. Just one step removed.

10. Two wrongs don't make a right

would be my comment.

I would have no problem with a thread on the demerits of Counterpunch.

The messenger here is Josh Frank, not his editors.
Apparently, as demonstrated in this article for example,
http://www.counterpunch.org/frank01232004.html
Frank doesn't particularly like Howard Dean either for what it's worth.

[wyldwolf]

41. kind of like the fundies wanting to hasten the "tribulation."

Counterpunch = "leftwing Newsmax"

[Cats Against Frist]

2. Oh those sneaky jerks

They were running those commercials in Iowa, and I e-mailed them, specifically and asked them who they were, because the commercials were kind of eerie: they were attacking Dean from the left. They didn't answer my e-mail.

I'm all for reforming the Dem party, but I'm also not an idealist that thinks that we can somehow give the further left (which I am a member of...) a strong voice, without alienating a lot of moderate and swing voters -- particularly in this political climate.

We have the evangelicals to fight against -- who are zealous, and who vote. I tend to believe that, for now, keeping the more liberal agendas "stealth" is a good idea, until the populace is swayed, somehow -- through some other means. What those other means are? I'm not sure. But I'm hoping for a larger voice from liberal Churches to combat the fundies and stick them with Christ pins in their Mammon coffin beds.

[CWebster]

9. Hmmm

"I'm all for reforming the Dem party, but I'm also not an idealist that thinks that we can somehow give the further left (which I am a member of...) a strong voice, without alienating a lot of moderate and swing voters -- particularly in this political climate."

Sort of like saying I am an African-American but I can't ask for equal consideration for fear that it may alienate a moderate or swing voter?

[Cats Against Frist]

16. political affiliation and race are not the same thing

and this question isn't set before the eyes of the law or the Constitution, but of an organization. Systematic differences, but I'll take you up on the somewhat logically flawed argument, nonetheless.

I'm taking the practical model, right now. This is my current stance. You get things done, you play the game, you score some points -- rather than becoming an easy target for the Grand American Narrative pit vipers and sinking your entire cause.

I don't think the changes shouldn't take place. I just think until you're sure, though other routes, that you have the support, you shouldn't go ideologically hog wild on a populace whose biggest decisions involve whether or not to buy checkered or striped kitchen towels.

I think the numbers are there for a more liberal society -- and I think most of Ralph Naders "hundred million magic mobilization" mostly includes people who haven't been touched by the finger of either extreme, or moderately well-thought-out ideology. The 45 percent of the people who actually vote, and the 30 percent or so who are solidly entrenched in left or right ideology are not going to be the people that change things in this democracy, if the shit goes down and big changes need to be made.

The swing voters, on the other hand, largely political virgins, will be swayed by whatever narrative (people say "memes" here) becomes the most salient. The GOP has a good one. A good one. An oh so easy Wal-Mart, three chord one.

We have to combat that. And some other image has to evolve -- some other kind of idea -- if it's JE's "sunny populism" -- so be it. But the hard left of the gays, the PETA, the ELF, Affirmative Action, NAACP, etc. -- have failed to find the way to do it. These are all things I support (ok, maybe not ELF). One of two things has to happen: 1. There has to be a new model. 2. There has to be some kind of cultural renaissance within the populace.

And it wouldn't hurt if the media would do its fucking job, instead of being mouthpieces of corporations.

The GOP got to where they are by being crafty. We can have the best candidate in the world, but until we figure out how to be as crafty, get our language back, and tap into some kind of emotional narrative -- we are doomed to always be second to them.

You know what I'm arguing, and I don't like you trying to bait me with the "sensational" angle of it.

[Capn Sunshine]

58. I just wanted to mention your screen name rules

Best one I've seen in awhile!

[liberalnurse]

5. The "click" mentality of our insider democrats

are shameful. I'll have to vote for them in the meantime but I have become committed to getting new blood. Reform Democrats who will truly represent the people of the party.


I'm in!

[CWebster]

7. And now everybody line up and echo the talking points

for them that done done the crime.

Don't give it all a second thought.

[ProfessorPlum]

11. Ya know, there was nothing to stop rank and file Democrats from

voting for Dean. And they didn't, in droves. The vast majority of voters in the primaries went for Kerry in a big way, regardless of what the power brokers of the party were saying or doing.

Dean appealed to me in a very powerful way. I stumped for him in very cold weather through a trailer park before our primary here, and found very little reception to him among the rank and file, despite my efforts. Why? I think Kerry seemed or felt to people like a much more "serious" choice, for the serious business of getting rid of Bush. I didn't get much sense that it was because of any attack ads played here. Indeed, I didn't see any ads against Dean at all in this state.

The voters have spoken, to my disappointment, but if they come out for Kerry the way they did in the primaries, we'll be in good shape. I agree the party and the country need to be reformed, and I think Dr. Dean is a good person to help that movement along. But I think this article overestimates the power of "Beltway Democrats" to influence voters in nearly every state.

[CWebster]

12. At that point PP we were pretty well informed

More so, I dare say, than the typical voter, who hears repeatedly about Dean's anger or that he is unelectible and the media launches a campaign to assassinate Dean just weeks after Kerry meets with all the major media moguls. And suddenly, out of obscurity emerges the droning and bitter Kerry as "more presidential". Kerry, who invested the large portion of his PAC into Iowa politicians and then flirted with the players as potential running mates. And Kerry, with that sly sneer to the camera, right before Iowa, like the cat who ate the canary.

Don't think the whole thing wasn't set up and the dutiful public follows along, having their perceptions molded. Now, we will see if the Bush team can pull off a Reagan tribute fanfare just days before the election and watch the whole thing swing again. They don't call them swing voters for nothing.

[ProfessorPlum]

13. I'm not sure I understand the voters choice

very well - it puzzles me a bit and suprises me that Dean did not do better.

But I don't think the media has that much control over the voters, especially on matters like this, when there are a whole field of candidates. If the media could really control people, would Gore have won the last election? Would Clinton have won in '96? Sure, the media's relentless and dishonest dumping on Gore helped get Chimpy close enough to steal it, but Gore still won the election despite the media's obvious best efforts.

Dean got a lot of airtime and some very good press as well heading into the first round of primaries, and even most of what I heard between IA and the time when he withdrew was pretty evenhanded. There were some attack pieces, of course, and these commercials I keep reading about. But he got big union endorsements, too. He was running as an outsider, too, and it isn't surprising that the insiders had problems with him. But the voters, in droves, just weren't ready to go for Dean in a big way. There are probably lots of subtle reasons for this, but none I would be able to pin on a cabal of the party powerful. The Dems just don't have that kind of party discipline.

I've warmed to Kerry as a candidate over these last months. His war stance continues to be a sticking point, but he's doing fairly well. This election is his to lose. Let's hope our fellow Democrats have chosen wisely.

Good to see you again,

PP.

[mzmolly]

15. The media does have influence, but how you play the media is key

in an election.

Dean has said he wished he had more "media training" because it is an essential part of a serious campaign.

For voters considering Dean, and even respecting enough to want to support him, Dean's handling of the media had to be of concern. Especially given the stakes in this election and what the media will do to a person after the primaries. Dean didn't understand how underhanded the media in this country can be. The distortion of the scream speech was a bitter lesson for us all.

So, I a nutshell I feel Dean played a role, and so did the media. Problem is Dean gave the media the shit to play with. Dean realizes that now, and so do I.

Dean will find an avenue for change to our democracy, and we should all join him as the op suggests. After all:
"DEMOCRACY IS NOT A SPECTATOR SPORT" who said that again? :P

Thems my apples folks.

[ProfessorPlum]

18. I believe Dean did a pretty good job of playing the media

himself. There were several pieces that were absolutely fawning and glowing on him, as the media played with its shiny new toy, and he capitilized on them well. Diane Sawyer's interview with him and his wife went quite well, for example.

The problem he had is that the media did not take him too seriously, which is to be expected. He was a relatively unknown coming out of nowhere (just trying to guess the media's attitude - no disrespect to VT intended!), and they wanted some proof that this guy was for real. As the tales of his massive fundraising success started to pile up, they began to take notice and treat him seriously. And if he had started to win some primaries in a big way, they really would have taken notice.

But the votes just weren't there. The notice, support, and money that many of us gave to him just didn't translate into votes from our fellow Dems, and I can't really blame the media for that. They treated Dean about as well as could be expected, for the lazy whores that they are, and I think Dean made good on most of his chances.

His IA commercials were not great, I definitely didn't think they hit home the way they could have and should have.

But some connection between rank and file voters and Dean was just not there this time.

[mzmolly]

25. Dean did a fabulous job of playing the media on the one hand.

But on the other, he blew it. I agree that they treated him like more of a novelty than an candidate for the Presidency. He was never able to polish his persona in the manner he needed to in the end.

I definitely don't blame the media for this however, at least not any longer. There was a time when I was angry about his loss, and I did. But upon reflection, this is how the game is played. Dean lost/we lost. Better to lose in the primaries then in the GE. :shrug:

You bring up an excellent point:

His IA commercials were not great, I definitely didn't think they hit home the way they could have and should have.

This is not playing the media well and is part of what I consider the campaigns failure in this regard. Dean's commercials sucked (for lack of a better word.) Kerry's commercials were great. It all matters to voters who are sizing up not only a candidate, but how he manages his campaign.

Dean managed his campaign amazingly in most regards, but the small stuff killed him.

[CWebster]

21. This has to be a classic:

"But I don't think the media has that much control over the voters"

Which is why right-wing think tanks come up with assorted catchy sound bites and catch phrases-- propaganda to distribute to all the "liberal media" and talk radio to broadcast. The entire undertaking is designed to appeal to emotional issues--fear, nationalism, blame, racism, religious bias. It is the manufacturing of consensus which shapes our entire perception and will even keep voters from voting against their own best interests. The media certainly was a willing mouthpiece in the build-up for war.

There have been an assortment of articles measuring the increased negative coverage Dean received in the press in the weeks leading up to Iowa. There is no discounting the impact of the media, among other factors in the outcome. And I would add, that timing is everything--Kerry had that down. Of course Dean mentioned he would cut the corporate gravy train - He didn't make any friends when it comes to pandering to the tools of power, there.

Nice to see you too. Like to pop in on occasion and rattle a few of chains.

[ProfessorPlum]

26. I'll grant you the markteting of people and ideas has some impact

But it's hard to explain Gore's win in light of that. Or Bill Clinton's remarkable popularity at the time of his impeachment.

There is a level of truth the the majority of people seem to sense and which the presstitutes just can't seem to reach, which defies the cognitive dissonance they try to instill all the time. The people often can sense lipstick on a pig, even though it is sometimes belated. Fear is probably the biggest emotion which overcomes this sense that people have, and there was nothing to fear from Dean at that time.

I think it is wrong to "blame" anyone for Kerry's win and Dean's (and everyone else's) loss except the voters themselves. Nothing can explain the overwhelming string to state wins that Kerry enjoyed except that the voters really wanted him to be the nominee, above the other choices. The media, the party elite, etc. all had some small role in that perhaps, but not enough to explain the vast consensus. I think Kerry only lost like 3 states, is that right? Clark won OK, Dean won VT, and Edwards won one of the carolinas, do I have that correct?

My fellow Democrats really connected with Kerry as a candidate.

[CWebster]

33. I think your conclusion is far too simplistc

as if voters are operating in a void.

Imagine how well Gore would've done had the press not been so jeering. Imagine how much worse Bush would've done if the press hadn't pandered to him and treated him with kid gloves. It was not only the media but Dean's own party out to cut him off at the pass. You just watched him with Nader on C-Span. You know what could've been instead of what we are saddled with. No use denying it. Voters are sheep.

[leyton]

32. You know what...

"suddenly, out of obscurity emerges the droning and bitter Kerry as 'more presidential'"

There are plenty of us who thought Kerry was more presidential all along. The first time I heard Dean speak I cringed.

"Kerry, who invested the large portion of his PAC into Iowa politicians and then flirted with the players as potential running mates."

For starters, Dean was the one racking up the endorsements. He had Gore, Bradley, Moseley Braun, and more Congresspeople than anyone else. Second, if he didn't focus on Iowa, that's his fault - he must have known that a loss in Iowa would be a serious blow to his campaign. Yeah, Kerry, focused on Iowa - why should he apologize for it?

Don't insult the people who voted for Kerry just because your guy didn't win. Get over it.

[Monte Carlo]

37. What annoys me the most about the so-called conspiracy against Dean...

... and his campaign is the nerve of some people to act shocked, suprised, and appalled by it, EVEN if it's all true. When you try to take on the great establishments in America, don't be suprised when the establishments fight back. You'll get no sympathy from me if you go charging ahead of the pack like an idiot. Bravery will get you killed.

[madfloridian]

38. Yes, courage is vastly overrated.

A sad commentary on our country.

[Monte Carlo]

44. I don't like it, either.

But that's the way it is. The real power in this country is not in Washington.

[Capn Sunshine]

59. Very perceptive

We knew all along they were cruising to get us, and we actually polished the weapons for them.

[TeacherCreature]

50. why are you ignoring the point of the article?

People are sheep and the sheep all trooped to the polls and didn't vote for Dean partly because of the behavior of the democratic party which organized against him.

[madfloridian]

14. I would not even jump in here, but....

all of this has been known, except for a little. This author is absolutely a Deanophobe, and if you do a search on his other articles about Dean you will see what I mean.

I think the fact that he despises Dean so much lends more credibility. It is not hard to destroy the credibility of anyone at any time. It is very easy when you have the right tools.

This guy was very complicit in hurting Dean during the campaign, so he is pretty aware of the attacks.

[JHBowden]

17. ***x-files music***

There is no conspiracy here. Living in the Chicagoland area all my life, hardball politics is nothing new to me. However, that is not the cause of Dean's demise.

I supported Dean throughout 2003, but reluctantly switched over to Kerry in early January of 2004. The disgusting slime being thrown back and forth had nothing to do with it. Dean did not come to the debates prepped, did a bad job handling attacks, and didn't modify some positions that would get him killed in the general election, such as raising taxes on the middle class. Kerry had all of the strengths of Dean and Clark but none of their disadvantages; he was the logical choice. I felt like I was the only one thinking like this right before the Iowa primary, but it appears in retrospect thousands of Democratic voters felt the same way.

[mzmolly]

19. I couldn't get the link to work, but I agree with your sentiments deeply.

I never knew how filthy and cut throat politics could be until this election. It's time for some serious house cleaning that's for sure.

[TexasSissy]

20. Repubs trying to break the Dem Party apart?

This is the first time in many years that the Democratic Party has been so united. It is in the Repubs' interest to try to create fiction among us and break us apart.

I am not going to play that game. Dean is with Kerry, now, as we all are, united against the Bush machine. The past is just that, the past.

[Larkspur]

22. I'm a history major, so the recent past is not past for me

I'm voting for Kerry but not supporting him. I hope Kerry experiences the worse election in his lifetime and lives to regret his decision to run. I have only scorn for Kerry.

[TexasSissy]

35. Well, okay. Let's "drudge" up the past. Dean made mistakes.

He couldn't even garner a majority of support from his own party, so he wouldn't have been helpful to this ticket in garnering support from his party plus the independents.

[Capn Sunshine]

61. Look, that's just not true

Had the primaries not been media-staged, and this was partially a bad move on the part of our campaign, to give huge importto the first two primaries, there was no question Dean would have dominated once the big states came into play.CA and NY were solid for Dean and he would have won, making this a horse race. Instead, we hear the edited isolated scream replayed 700 times between Iowa and New Hampshire , the meme that he's unbalanced, mad and not presidential is used to accompany it , being oft repeated by his challengers, and after two primaries "it's all over".

The resultant tepid support for Kerry is what we are left with. Yeah, I'm voting for him, burt I really don't think he'll do anything to fix anything.

It's stopping the bleeding, and that will have to do.

[CWebster]

23. those who don't learn from the past

are bound to repeat it.

Pay attention, or you won't even know when you are being fooled again.

[paulk]

24. It seems that the issues brought out by the Jone's ad campaign

resonated with the voters in Iowa. I don't understand where this is some kind of foul.

What kind of reform would you want? That voters remain uninformed? That's issues not be raised?

[madfloridian]

27. You think of Osama in terms of Dean?

You think it is ok for fellow dems to do that to one of their own?

[paulk]

31. Osama?

I'm sorry, I don't understand your reference.

Fellow Dems? They're a group of people running for the same office - only one can win. If a strategy works that knocks one of them out of the race - as long as it's not a flat out lie - what's wrong with it?
Were the Jone's ads dishonest?

The kind of back room stuff that went on in Iowa is not uncommon. Politics ain't a beauty contest. If a candidate can't survive the attack from his own side, how can he stand against the real enemy?

[madfloridian]

36. Yes, Osama. You must have missed this article and pic from the ad.

http://www.publicintegrity.org/printer-friendly.aspx?aid=194

This is way way beyond not being a beauty contest.

[paulk]

40. ok - I understand the Osama reference now

but the ad didn't compare Dean to Osama bin Laden - it asked if Dean had the national security experience to deal with bin Laden. That seems a legitimate question.

I still don't understand the cries of foul over these ads.

[madfloridian]

43. You think the ad is ok? The Osama ad is ok with you?

That ad brought outrage. I can not believe you think it is ok. There is a definite problem with Democrats now if that is the prevailing view.

[paulk]

45. it outraged a lot of Dean supporters, true

but they're not the majority of Democrats, so I don't see how you make that leap to a "problem with Democrats".

Why shouldn't I think the ad was ok? I didn't support Dean. I'm glad he's not the nominee. That's what primaries are about.

You think the ad was an outrage - but, why should your opinion be any more valid than mine? Why make a blanket accusation against the Democratic party - alleging some kind of problem, when the effect of that ad benefited other Democrats?

[madfloridian]

48. WOW! I am really behind the times on this issue.

WOW! What you just said shows me for sure there is little hope left if that be the prevailing thought.

I think you are baiting me, so if that is true....ok. Folks here love to do that. But to stand up and say that ad is ok is just outrageous.

I don't care who you supported or support or whether you even care, that shows me a change in the party that is shocking.

WOW!

[TeacherCreature]

52. that add was the kind of scummy tactic I would expect from Rove

It you approve of it then one of us does not belong in the democratic party.

[madfloridian]

53. AMEN! and thank you.

:hi:

[paulk]

55. No, a Rove ad would have tried to pin

an illegitimate black baby on Dean. Like he did to McCain.

Was there anything about the Jone's ads that weren't factual?

I approve of the ads - yes - because they may have helped to defeat a candidate that I felt couldn't win the election and (possibly) helped a candidate that I think can. For this I should be kicked out of the Democratic party?

[madfloridian]

56. Will you stop?

If you think the ads with Osama were ok, then I don't belong in the same party with you.

Sorry, but those are the facts. Is this what we have become? One person standing up for my stance. Only one. WOW!

[paulk]

62. what facts?

Was there anything in the Jone's ads that weren't factual?

The Democratic Party isn't just Howard Dean. That's the whole point of this - you attack the party as a whole because some Democrats have the temerity, in a primary, to try and defeat another Democrat!

I don't belong in the same party as you because we disagree? That's kind of extreme, don't you think?

[madfloridian]

63. Twisting my words is a great pasttime. Go for it.

If you agree that the face of Osama was ok, we do not belong in the same party. Stop playing word games.

[paulk]

64. twisting your words?

Where have I twisted your words?

What was wrong with the face of Osama? The ad didn't equate Howard Dean with Osama bin Laden. I didn't understand the outrage when the ad came out and I don't understand it now. It was a very effective ad that pointed out Howard Dean's foreign policy inexperience.

And what's this "we don't belong in the same party " thing? What's that have to do with anything? You haven't tried to answer any of my questions. What's wrong with the ad? Is it not factual? Why does it upset you?

[madfloridian]

65. You think the Osama ad was fine. I have nothing further on the subject.

There is nothing to discuss if that is the basis of your argument. It is just a ridiculous position.

I back off when I see someone is starting from an outrageous position. It serves no purpose.

[paulk]

66. what discussion?

You haven't even bothered to present an argument to back up your position.

Again, why is your opinion more valid than mine? You don't even try to argue for your position, you just say I'm wrong and you're right.

If you think my position is ridiculous, then make an argument for why you think that. You think my position is outrageous - why do you think that? Tell me why - that's what a discussion is.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

28. I Think We Should Save Our Intramural Battles Until After John Kerry

is comfortably enconsed in the White House...

[ProfessorPlum]

29. agreed

we have more important fish to fry right now.

[CWebster]

34. In other words

Lets just get past this and move on. Nothing to see here.

[Nazgul35]

30. Blame enough for both sides...

Clearly the DLC hated and attempted to destroy Dean's candidacy...he was a direct threat to the power base that they have meticuluously built up over the last two decades...but they are on the down turn, so the true "Dean effect" will not be felt for a few more elections cycles...(though the effects are already apparent from Congress candidates)

Dean's campaign is also responsible for its own screw ups....of which there were many...

As to the "connection" of voters to Kerry...that is just a suposition that is not held up by the entire literature of voters....After Iowa, Kerry was riding on name recognition from his Iowa win, as was Edwards...Trippi clrealy stated (and was right) that the three candidates from Iowa would be the focus of the race, followed by the top two from NH....these two groups of voters were oversaturated with information on candidates....but beyond that point, you can not make the case that the voters voting for Kerry were doing so because of his policies or his candidacy....so stop trying to say it...

Had Dean won the Iowa Caucus and NH, the same group of people who are so sure that Kerry's magnificent policies and campaigning skills are what won the nomination would be saying the same thing I have just said...

It had nothing to do with the candidate and everything to do with Dems wanting to pick a quick winner...how else do you explain Kerry going from below 10% in the polls to over 50% in many states over night? Exposure to the candidate's policies.....please

[jpgray]

39. If the DLC and the media sank him so easily

Then the GOP and the media would have a much easier time of it, I'm afraid. I don't buy this fairy tale, anymore than I buy the tale that Nader cost Gore the election. The result of an election, the failure or success of a campaign, can't be blamed on one factor. What people will do, however, is pick a factor that suits their agenda (this fellow is no fan of the Democratic Party, for example) and pump that so naive people will enjoy the scapegoat and therefore embrace the agenda. But if the DLC really did sink Dean singlehandedly, then Dean ought to have prepared for it--you can't have a directly antagonistic with a political leadership group in your party, and expect them not to dump a bucket of crap on you if you start coming out in the lead. Hell, remember the GOP primaries of 2000.

Dean didn't lose because of the DLC, but the media did play a significant role. How they divined 'nutzoid liberal' out of his stances and speeches will always be a mystery to me, but I find the media bias more sinister than a leadership group throwing shit on a successful candidate who advocates kicking them out.

[wyldwolf]

42. blah blah blah

election after election I hear "we're going to reform and rebuild and democratic party" from the further left. But you really mean it this time, huh?

[no name no slogan]

47. It's already happening

I've never seen as many new grassroots organizations of reform-minded Democrats formed (or forming) in any presidential election since 1980. Even Jackson's Rainbow Coalition pales in comparison to what is going on at ALL levels this year.

Also, a lot of those reform-minded Democrats now have high ranks within the party itself. I know of a number of first-time activists who are officers of their congressional district parties, and even a couple who are on the state party's board of directors. These first-time activists are being welcomed by the "old school" reformers and are pushing the party in a more populist direction.

Just look how fast the DLC's credibility has slipped among the rank and file. Most Democrats know they're the ones responsible for Gore's lackluster 2000 campaign, as well as the ones who led us to defeat in 2002. Democrats are ready for a change. They see that the DLC can no longer help them win, and so they're looking for something else. Just another sign of the times.

[wyldwolf]

49. Where?

I've never seen as many new grassroots organizations of reform-minded Democrats formed (or forming) in any presidential election since 1980. Even Jackson's Rainbow Coalition pales in comparison to what is going on at ALL levels this year.

That's because of the internet. They've always been around, just better organized now. But for the most part, based on my experiences, they are either anti-GOP or third party, not "reform the DNC" types.

Also, a lot of those reform-minded Democrats now have high ranks within the party itself.

Like... who?


I know of a number of first-time activists who are officers of their congressional district parties, and even a couple who are on the state party's board of directors.

I know even more dems who are the opposite who hold those posts.

These first-time activists are being welcomed by the "old school" reformers and are pushing the party in a more populist direction.

I haven't seen this too much. Can you share a few examples?

Just look how fast the DLC's credibility has slipped among the rank and file.

How so? The rank and file made Kerry the nominee. The closest to Kerry was Edwards, another DLC member. The voters spoke.

Most Democrats know they're the ones responsible for Gore's lackluster 2000 campaign, as well as the ones who led us to defeat in 2002.

Proof?

Democrats are ready for a change. They see that the DLC can no longer help them win, and so they're looking for something else. Just another sign of the times.

When Kerry/Edwards wins and if we retake the house or senate, will you feel the same?

[no name no slogan]

54. In my state, for one (Minnesota)

and in many other states across the nation, too. I know of several new progressive Democratic activists who are CD directors, state directors, or representatives to the DNC. The progressive coalition at the state convention dominated the floor, and had the strongest organization.


Besides the national convention in Boston, there will be a progressive convention, too, of activists of ALL political stripes who will be working on ways to make progressive change a reality, within the party and within the nation. I've NEVER heard of that happening in the last 20 years-- not even in the seventies, for that matter.

I've worked on presidential campaigns since 1988, and I've NEVER seen the Democratic left as energized as it is now. Do you honestly think that John Kerry or the DLC is responsible for this new energy? Even in 1992, after 12 disasterous years of Reagan/Bush, things weren't this energized.

Kerry was the pre-ordained candidate of choice. The nomination was his to lose. He had the money and support of the big-name Dems, although he had little on the ground to prove it. Because the primaries were so stacked this year, all he had to do was win NH and show well in Iowa. He did both, and the nomination was his to lose.

The DLC leadership of this party has cost us the Senate, the House (after 40 years of Dem majority), more state governorships and the lowest number of state legislators since 1962. Oh, it also won two presidential elections, with pluralities and the help of a wacky little millionaire from Texas-- hardly a consolation when you consider what we've lost.

Kerry will not win because he's the DLC candidate-- he'll win because he's got the grassroots activists on the ground from the other campaigns solidly behind him this year, working for his election. Bush has done so horribly that the election is Kerry's to lose-- will any ex-Gore 2000 voters REALLY not vote for Kerry?

[wyldwolf]

67. In Minnesota?

Where, depending on which poll you referred to, very liberal Paul Wellstone was running very close to or only slightly behind a republican in 2002? And where non-DLC Walter Mondale ultimately lost?

I know of several new progressive Democratic activists who are CD directors, state directors, or representatives to the DNC. The progressive coalition at the state convention dominated the floor, and had the strongest organization.

This has always been the case...

I've been involved in politics since 1984 and I can tell you the reason the DEMOCRATIC PARTY (read: not just the far left) is energized has much more to do with a complete disdain for Bush than any desire to remake the party.

Kerry was not the pre-ordained candidate of choice but I do find it funny you say he was. Let's see, from the so-called activist left on DU I have read that first Lieberman was the pre-ordained choice, then Wesley Clark was brought in to head off Howard Dean and now the meme is that Kerry was the selection. Regardless, the DNC or DLC wasn't in the voting booths making the choice for the voters.

Do you have evidence that Kerry was pre-ordained?

The DLC leadership of this party has cost us the Senate, the House (after 40 years of Dem majority), more state governorships and the lowest number of state legislators since 1962. Oh, it also won two presidential elections, with pluralities and the help of a wacky little millionaire from Texas-- hardly a consolation when you consider what we've lost.

Do you have a shred of evidence that the DLC caused these losses? I can say this in regards to the senate, the DLC and non-DLC dems lost an equal number of seats in 2002. A big difference was that a DLC dem defeated an incumbant republican.

Also, analysis shows that Perot drew as many if not more votes from Clinton than Bush but regardless, Clinton still won - twice - and Gore got the most votes.

Kerry will not win because he's the DLC candidate-- he'll win because he's got the grassroots activists on the ground from the other campaigns solidly behind him this year, working for his election. Bush has done so horribly that the election is Kerry's to lose-- will any ex-Gore 2000 voters REALLY not vote for Kerry?

Oh, come on. No one wins because they're DLC or not DLC. They win because they are the preferred candidate.

[NNadir]

46. I supported Howard Dean and Howard Dean now supports John Kerry.

I am damn proud of Howard Dean, particularly the way he is working for his country after abandoning the campaign, but the campaign is history.

I, for one, am not interested in little nitpicking arguments about the campaign where we lost because we did not get enough votes. The issue was decided by VOTERS, not by evil controlling guys with electrodes in the voters brain.

Howard Dean and I think the most important thing for the future is to defeat George Bush. Go John Kerry!

[TeacherCreature]

51. so we should just ignore when the democratic party

organizes itself against the favorite candidate of democrats?

[NNadir]

60. Um, speaking again as a Dean supporter, the people VOTED.

What is your argument exactly? That the only people who were Democrats were the people who voted for Dean? That you are Democrat and anybody who doesn't agree with you isn't? You're awfully critical of "The Democrats" for someone who makes the extraordinary claim that you are one.

Again, there is no mysterious cabal that has electrodes in the brains of people and who use those electrodes to force votes.

When I joined the Dean campaign last February, we all conceded that we were long shots. We came from nowhere and ran a credible campaign and we made our voices heard loudly. I recall the Good Doctor express surprise at his poll standings. In the end, we didn't prevail. We didn't win any primaries. I am very proud of what we accomplished, and I look forward to hearing more from Howard Dean in the years to come. I hope he will have a position in the Kerry administration. But this is all right now besides the point. There is an abysmal, criminal, vicious, anti-democratic, bigoted and violent bunch of thugs occupying our Government. This is the issue. It is the issue that Howard Dean has focused on since the beginning and remains focused on.

What I expect, and what I think Howard Dean expects, now is for every decent American to do what must be done and focus on the defeat of the most disasterous leadership in modern American history. I strongly object to any effort to divert our eyes from that most important of prizes with cheap conspiracy theories and mindless Repuke like "Democrat bashing."

John Kerry is the nominee. He's a good man with a proven record of winning elections and a progressive record on many issues important to the future of our nation and our world. Howard Dean is proud to support him and so am I.

[Classical_Liberal]

57. I am a member of my towns committee too

Where do we start? I am getting progressives on the local committees, but we need to go national. How do we dislodge people with that much money?