Why is Howard Dean so popular with many Democrats ?

[kentuck]

In my opinion, it is because of his style and his honesty in addressing the issues. Even if you disagree with him, you know what his position is on the matter. He speaks honestly and directly. This cannot be underestimated. The Democratic Party, unfortunately, has been lacking in this respect. If Dr. Dean continues to speak plainly and directly on the issues, I think it will be to the advantage of the Party and hopefully, more Democrats will begin to emulate his style.

[vi5]

1. Has he been laying low or is it just me?

I don't even hear that much about him on this message board/forum or at any of the major blogs. It seemed like prior to becoming DNC chair it was all Dean all the time. Now I hear/read nothing about him.

My hope is that he's keeping everything close to the vest and focusing on a game plan for 2006.

[kentuck]

3. He doesn't have to be out front all the time...

It's OK to work behind the scenes in his position. But, when he does speak, I'm hoping he will always have something to say and I think he will... I think I read that he was down in Arkansas with Wesley Clark in the last day or two?

[vi5]

10. But my point is he always WAS out front....

...he's an out front type of guy. That's why people love him. That's why I'm worried. The reason we wanted him in that position was so that he would be out there fighting.

And maybe he will be and is just laying low planning his approach. But in the absence of any proof of that, I do have my concerns.

[janx]

49. He was out front when he was running for office.

And he's out front now, but at the local level, going from state to state to assess the situation and to talk to people in the Dem party. You'll see more of him, don't worry.

[FreedomAngel82]

59. I agree

I wouldn't worry. I'm sure he's doing just fine. I think Mr. Dean is great. I love how clear he is on his message and he speaks with passion. I'm so proud he's the democratic chairman.

[janx]

60. All fifty states, bay-bee!

He's hitting every single one of them to meet with the Dems and get organized! It's just great.

YEEAAARRGGHHH!

Edit: I'm proud too. We should all be proud of that.

[tsuki]

33. Every once in a while, a Du'er will post a message saying they

are going to a meeting with Dean.

He is playing to the grassroots and the grassroots' media. He is spot on.

I think TeeVee New$ and Dean are avoiding each other. This speaks badly for TeeVee New$ as it points out that they are as out of touch with the grassroots as the Washington politicians are. The beltway alliance of Politicos and Big Media will be exposed this next election, and they are going to wonder, Where did all these people come from?

[JaneQPublic]

35. I heard he's wisely giving interviews only to local media. n/t

[SHRED]

2. Because he is good

I have a far right brother-in-law who said he would have voted for Dean if he was on the ticket last year.
That is an example of just how convincing Dean is. He is awesome.

[sendero]

4. Absolutely...

... because he will say what he thinks without wringing his hands, finding the nuanced view, or worrying that the attack machine will twist his words beyond recognition.

He has true courage, something distinctly lacking in the current crop of Dem officials.

That said, I'm very happy that he's running the DNC. I think it is the perfect job for him, because in America it might be possible that courage and willingness to speak the truth as you see it are mutually exclusive with getting elected.

[kris10ep]

5. I'm currenty doing research on his campaign

that is for a grad school paper in my persuasion class.

One of things that has stuck out the most to me is his focus on the individual. "people-powered Howard" - It's the truth, he really wants to give America back to the little people.

[Mist]

17. As well as speaking honestly, I think his style helps him

He doesn't try faux emotive nonsense and is very down to earth.

[Eloriel]

42. Thank you -- I've been trying to convince non-Deaniacs of that

for years now. He really IS all about political empowerment and giving the power back to the people. I found that incredible -- but it also made him far too frightening to TPTB on both sides of the aisle, which is why they had to stop him, including (especially?) his own party.

Edit: WELCOM! to DU! Always great to have another Deaniac.

[lyonn]

81. Yes, he seems to really care

Otherwise he would not have taken the DNC job and would have started campaigning.

[jen4clark]

19. These are the reasons

I love him too sendero! And I loved how he stressed during his campaign that WE have the power. I believe he's an honest, good guy.

[rainy]

6. One important reason is that he spoke out against the war

and was electable. Don't forget how important it was that he spoke out against the war. This energized his base and is why he raised so much money. People were looking for a voice of reason and he was it.

[Clark Bayh 2008]

9. I appreciate his idealism - But he was certainly NOT electable in 2004

the reality of today's United States is clearly that voters under 30 do not win elections.

Having Dean as the standard bearer is a huge mistake that probably cannot be undone.

We learn nothing from these elections. We cannot put a northeasternor as the face of the democratic party unless we intend on being a minority party for the next 20 years.

If Hillary runs, she will need Clark on the ticket to keep from a debacle.

[kentuck]

12. I do not agree...

If the fact that "Northeaterners" have not won is relevant at all, it is because they have not been as outspoken as Dr. Dean. They have been too cautious. I don't think it is a mistake. Most people now understand that he was publically 'assassinated' by the media in the last election. He may not have won, but he won points from almost every Democrat for his direct speech and his forthrightness. I think he is an asset to the Party.

[Clark2008]

22. I also agree that he wouldn't have won

I really do think there is a regional differentiation.
I only met a handful of Southerners who were Deaniacs. He simply wasn't as popular in the South and mid-West as were other Democratic primary candidates. It was such a dichotomy to me to read about how popular he was in the corporate media and then, go out amongst the public, locally, and find lukewarm support for him.
That said - I appreciate his open stances and think he'll be good for the party as DNC chair, but I never thought he was "electable."

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

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

[Tom Rinaldo]

54. I think Dean might well have won. I always thought it was possible

With the advantage of hind sight, I now think (this is just personal opinion folks) that Dean would have overall made a stronger candidate than Kerry. I have my reasons for thinking that but that doesn't mean I think Kerry was a bad candidate either. I still think Clark would have been the strongest candidate but obviously that is personal opinion also. But the last thing we need here now is to fight over who would have been the best candidate in 2004. Especially since Dean has taken himself out of the running for 2008 so there is no earthly reason why anything is gained by pointing out any supposed weaknesses of his as a Presidential candidate. Let's save that for discussing the actual candidates and potential candidates for 2008 on a thread or threads where that is relevant.

[lyonn]

84. Popularity on local front weak?

He was shown on C-span many times and the crowd was something else. He inspired people. Sometimes the crowd was so unexpectedly big that they had trouble directing people traffic. Hey, I voted for Clarke in OK cause I knew Dean was Out in this state and Clarke was also impressive. We had some good candidates. They just held back and hoped ABB would work maybe??

[vi5]

13. Uh...a southerner on the ticket didn't help us in '04....

We had all the bases covered. Military veteran...southerner on the ticket. A blue blood....a self made man with a populist bent.

I don't think any of the conventional wisdoms mean anything at this point.

If you like Clark, that's great. I like him too. But he would add nothing to the ticket that hasn't been on there before except for not being a politician, and despite what people say, that's not an enticing prospect in a president or vice president.

[kentuck]

15. It's not that Clark is a "Southerner"...

It's that he is intelligent and speaks with a clarity and a vision that just oozes with common sense.

[vi5]

21. No argument here. But you give the american people too much credit...

We can blame it on the media all we want. But the fact is that as much as people say they want a "straight talker" or an "outsider" or that they don't like typical politicians, etc. the fact is that they will never en masse vote for someone who embodies what they claim to like.

I know plenty of people who like to bitch and moan about career politicans and how they could do a better job or how they want someone who's not a typical politician in office. I also know that not one of them...not one single one..would vote for someone with no political experience (ie. holding a politically elected office).

And people say they want a straight shooter and a plain talker but every time one of them has run for president, these same people end up going for what is safe. Straight shooters and plain talkers speak uncomfortable truths that require people to think with nuance and with a degree of self examination that most people don't want to deal with.

[kentuck]

26. Are you referring to Bush or Kerry ??

"And people say they want a straight shooter and a plain talker but every time one of them has run for president, these same people end up going for what is safe. Straight shooters and plain talkers speak uncomfortable truths that require people to think with nuance and with a degree of self examination that most people don't want to deal with."

:)

[Tom Rinaldo]

55. Self deleted. I posted to the wrong point on the thread. See below n/t

[Clark2008]

23. But the Southerner who was chosen for the ticket wasn't really

all that popular in the South (many who voted for him in the Southern primaries were Republicans messing in the Dem primaries to put someone they could easily vilify - you know, one of those rich "sue-happy lawyers" - on the ticket. I know this as fact, even without a link to point to because I was involved in politics down here).
So, I'm not quite sure I agree with you that we had all the bases covered.

[vi5]

29. Yes, but is Clark sooooo much more popular?

I mean honestly. He's well liked and he's a good, smart guy. But the disconnect between the Clark supporter's perception of him, and that average, non-political junkie's perception of him are very different.

[Clark2008]

39. He would have been more popular had he gotten in the race

earlier and gotten more media coverage.
People really fall for him when they actually hear him.
The problem he had was that the media virtually ignored him. And, when they did cover him, they treated him as a one-trick pony and never even mentioned the guy had hundreds of domestic position papers, as well.
There's no disconnect. The only disconnect is that more people don't know about him because the corporate media doesn't do is mfing job.

[vi5]

46. I'm sure he'd charm the pants off them in person...

...but that's quite a different thing than people trusting a guy who has never held an elected office with the highest office in the country (if not the world).

Again, this is not my opinion of him, but what I see as a completely uphill battle for Clark.

Do you honestly believe that people are going to read position papers and use that to come to their conclusion about a presidential candidate?

[kentuck]

47. They would trust a weak Governor from the state of Texas more....

because he has held elected office? That is the criteria? But you may be correct.

[vi5]

53. Sadly, that is the criteria.....

It's not something I'm happy about, but it's been proven time and again to be true.

[lyonn]

87. Here's a thought

I think Clark was popular in Oklahoma because he was military and that portrayed him as strong yet had good domestic ideas to boot.

[MollyStark]

37. What kind of southerners are popular in the south? n/t

[Larkspur]

34. We know that Wes Clark is definitely unelectible

He proved what a poor and inexperienced campaigner he was during the primary.

And a Hillary/Wes ticket will be a laughingstock ticket. Hillary will get blown out in GE election. She won't carry the South, even with Clark on the ticket, and She'll definitely lose the Midwest due to her husbands support of NAFTA.

[ClarkUSA]

45. Clark placed better/won more states than Dean in a shorter amount...

of time. He placed only second to Kerry on mini-Tuesday, winning blood-red OK, coming in a strong second in red states AZ, NM, and ND as well as third in SC. How'd Dean do on mini-Tuesday, hmmm? Dean only won VT (big whoop) after staying in way too long and only came in second in NH, I believe. So who's the poor campaigner if we're to judge on win, place, and show?

Oh, sorry, I forgot you just another Clarkhater with more blanket statements not backed up by fact.

[Larkspur]

51. Clark was never suppose to win anything. He was a stalking horse

encouraged by Bill Clinton to help torpedo Dean's campaign. If Clark faced the same gang tackle that Dean did in Iowa, Clark would never have made it to New Hampshire. Clark has never won a civilian political office, and I'm confident that he'll keep that record.

[Tom Rinaldo]

57. Larkspur you know I disagree with this summation of yours

But I don't want to get into it here. This was started as a positive Dean thread and I am sorry that some changed the topic of discussion to perceptions of weaknesses Dean had as a Presidential candidate and strengths that others may have had.

After I both catch my breath and catch up to everything that has been posted so far, I will comment more on the original topic of this thread.

[FrenchieCat]

67. Clark tossed his hat in the '04 primaries, because he felt

(and so did 70,000 politically interested) that he could beat Bush. He understood that the general election would be about national security and war (and it was). Clark understood that Dean, just like the other candidates, would have to be beaten before running against Bush. Doh!

What did Clark actually do to "torpedo" Dean's campaign other than present himself to primary voters? Did he shift the debate to highlight that national security experience was necessary for Dem's to win the election? If so, what was wrong with that? Just because the pundits weren't making that a point, doesn't mean that it wasn't a point to be made. I certainly felt that the pundits were not doing there job in only heralding Howard Dean...and not providing analysis as to what the general election would be about. The election, did end up, after all...being about national security (in the end).

If Clark entering the 2004 primary race gave voters an alternative choice, or took away from Dean's momentum simply by running, where's the conspiracy? Was Dean so shaky that all it took was Clark to announce to make Dean lose? If anything, Clark would have taken more away from Kerry (who was the other National Security candidate) rather than Dean.

I'm sure that Clark (and countless others including MM) felt that as a Southern telegenic candidate (like Edwards) who had national security creds and was a veteran (more so than Kerry)and was an outsider who spoke against the Iraq War (like Dean), and was perceived as conservative (like lieberman who IS conservative) yet was liberal in many areas (like Kucinich)......he could possibly beat Bush. How is that a conspiracy only against Dean?

It was understood by all candidate that one would have to beat all other to be left standing for the general election. Why would it be a personal affront to Dean if someone else entered the race? After all, Dean was polling at about 20% at the time that Clark entered the race. That's not exactly a super majority.

So how in the hell do you figure that Clark came in to get rid of Dean specifically?

I thought of supporting John Kerry before I supported Clark. I would not have supported Howard Dean, because I did not feel that he could win based on his national security credentials. So Clark entering the race shifted my voted from Clark to Kerry....not Dean to Kerry.

To place so much emphasis on this conspiracy to beat Dean is dumb and ill conceived. It makes Dean look like it took very little to get him out of the way. Of course, in the end, it did.....but it wasn't Clark's doing...

I had nothing against Dean personally besides the fact that I didn't think that he could beat Bush due to what the issues of the elections would be about. It really was just that simple. Does that make me a conspirator against Dean too?

Edited to add....and many also knew that Dean's tax plan was a no brain loser (even Dean decided late in the primary that he might need to change his plan)-- raising taxes on everyone wasn't going to win us an election. So it wasn't just Dean's experience in NS that lost him the election...it was a host of things. Certainly Dean continueously saying that Clark was a Republican didn't help me join his fan club.....but I don't care about that anymore, "cause the primaries are over".....LARKSPUR.

Having said all of that, Howard Dean is a Great Democrat who did his part in promoting Democratic causes and exciting the base during the 2004 elections.

[madfloridian]

68. Clinton backed Clark pre-Iowa. Made calls against Dean.

Fact. Not conjecture. He is the one who said Dean was not electable, said to support Clark. He backed him. He said Dean was not electable because of the civil unions bill in VT, but guess what...Clark was for them also. Goodness, how confusing.

[FrenchieCat]

70. And?

If Bill Clinton would have wanted to torpedo Dean's campaign....he would simply have endorsed Wes Clark....just like Gore endorsed Howard Dean. Was Gore part of a conspiracy to derail the Wes Clark campaign...or did Gore just prefer Dean, and felt that Dean was the best man for the job? Why is that Clark is a stalking horse for Clinton....but Dean was not a stalking horse for Gore?

Making Calls (so it was rumored) for Clark would only mean that Bill Clinton preferred Clark out of the bunch. What's wrong with that? Weren't there more than one candidate running for a reason...like to give one a choice? MM, McGovern, Cuomo and a host of others also preferred Wes Clark to other candidates. Where's the crime?

My understanding of a primary race it is a race, not a "Fait accompli" for just one candidate who happens to be polling 20% of Democrats. No one ordained that Dean should win without complication and everyone should just get behind him whether they liked it or not (although Gore thought so and said so).

I think that it is nice to think that the 2004 election were all about Dean....but there weren't. They were about beating Bush. Stretching this goal to mean that Clark was sent in to "sic" Dean is a flawed argument that is not backed up by rational thought.

[madfloridian]

71. Not a rumor. Fact. Clinton called Dean "backers" to change to Clark.

Before Iowa. He said Dean was not electable. When the former president is working against you in the background, and the DLC pummeling you in the foreground, and the others teaming together....well that does cause problems.

Whatever, Howard Dean was out in Iowa. Iowa chose the nominee.

Dean is now chair, and we go from here. Just quit expecting us to be in denial. We aren't.

We will work for the party very hard, in every way.

[FrenchieCat]

74. Dean Backers' were who?

Do your facts have a link? Or are they just facts on your "say-so"? Personally, I agree with B. Clinton....I don't think that Dean was electable. Why is that such a crime? Was B. Clinton supposed to just fall in line behind Dean before the primary votes had occurred...just because Gore demanded it? Dean's magic didn't work on everyone, you know.

Just want to make sure you are not in denial about what facts actually are comprised of.

Was Gore making any calls for Dean? cause when the "actual" winner of the last presidential election is working for someone else in the foreground, and the RNC and the media are pummeling you and lying about you in your face, and the others are calling you a Republican who really wasn't against the war....well that does cause problems.
Just wanting you to know.

Dean is now chair, and we go from here. Just quit expecting us to buy your "everybody was against Howard Dean...it was a conspiracy, I tell you" theories. We aren't.

[madfloridian]

75. It was no conspiracy. It was all done right out in the open.

I think you know perfectly well what I am talking about, nothing to do with being about being pouty about my candidate.

A lot to do with what we are facing as a country right now. We have all been in denial way too long. Way too long.

I might as well say it, because I am probably the target of half the folks here anyway.

I am making a statement, you may deny it. That is your right. It will not make a whit of difference in anything.

I wish Howard Dean the best of luck, because he will surely need it.

[FrenchieCat]

76. I really don't know what you are talking about....cause my

primary answer was to LARSPUR and not to you...because he initiated a statement in where he called Clark a Clinton Stalking horse who was send in to deny Dean the nomination, not to win the race.

If you agree with that LARSPUR statement, then you are agreeing that there was a conspiracy.

Many are in denial that politics is a bloody sport....and no one gets anything handed to them just because they think they should have it (including Dean and Clark).

I don't know why you responded to my post....if you are somekind of target (you sound kinda paranoid to me) of 1/2 of the folks here. Rest assure that you are no target of mine...as I have better things to do with my time.

Our back and forth just now may not make a wit of difference to you...but it may to others reading this stuff....so it's worth it to me, cause at the end, I just want folks to think rationally and not just buy what someone is selling just cause the price is low.

I also wish the best of luck to Howard Dean....and I pray that he be successful in his endeavor to remake this Democratic party into a party that actually stands for something and learns how to articulate it to those who don't, by now, have the message required to make informed decisions (like who to vote for).

So in the end, we don't have to close the book....but hopefully we can find ourselves on the same page. Until the actual 2008 primary, that is.

[madfloridian]

78. I only post the truth.

I do not post things that are untrue. 2008 is very far away. This board could be very productive for 2006 elections.

It is not when it is turned upside down by spitting contests.

[FrenchieCat]

79. You only post YOUR truth.....

But all I asked was for a link to your fact. I know it's a lot to ask, but that's what I was asking for.

Calling Clark a stalking horse (LARSPUR) was what started a spitting contest. Why don't you address your pronouncement to LARSPUR...instead of jumping in to agree with him....and then starting another thread where you decry those who do the spitting against Howard Dean.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1717691

How can you be both a victim and an enabler of other's attacks all at the same time?

[janx]

80. No, the spitting contest began with post #9. The thread was hijacked.

I have a suggestion. How about going back to the topic of the thread?

[Tom Rinaldo]

82. Works for me janx

There are an infinite number of possible threads to use to hash out things that happened in the past, and some issues obviously remain unresolved for some people and clearly some different viewpoints on them remain. That's not what this thread was about though.

The funny thing is, on this thread at least, there has been very little disagreement about the present or future. Some sure, but very little. I support continuing the discussion here in that vein. I did share some thoughts about Dean below.

[janx]

86. Thanks for your understanding.

Madfloridian might know how many state chair meetings Dean has conducted so far. He plans to hit all 50 states at least once, if not more than once, I believe. I'll look around and see what I can find on the matter.

[janx]

88. This could be part of the reason Dean is so popular with Dems--

Apr 8, 2005
Gov. Dean Announces Half Million Dollar Investment in State Parties

Dean Fulfills Pledge to Provide Personnel, Funds to all 50 State Parties: Effort Begins With MO, ND, NC, & WV

http://www.democrats.org/news/200504080003.html

I'm still trying to find out which state Dems he has visited so far, but there have been a lot of states.

[lyonn]

89. How did Dean

excity the base? You are missing that point since so many other candidates couldn't. Dean set the pace and it wasn't because of his looks, ha ha. Take this as a friendly observation.

[FrenchieCat]

91. excite HIS base

is the key. His base, according to polls over and over again was about 20% of Democrats (turned out to be 18% in Iowa). Fortunately, he wasn't the only one to excite HIS base.

I give Dean credit, because credit is due. However, he doesn't get ALL of the credit. Other Democrats did well in exciting Democrats as well. Our biggest problem was not the base as much as it was the ones who were in no particular camp. Those were the ones that needed exciting. Unfortunately, John Kerry couldn't quite get those "excited" to the point of being able to outdo Bush (taking the 5% diebold factor into consideration).

[janx]

92. The others borrowed heavily from his campaign example, but

Dean did one thing that the others did not: He gave a frightening amount of responsibility to his supporters, to the grass roots. At times this became a liability for him, but in the long run, as now, it created a lot of excitement and a lot of sense. He didn't run a top-down operation. There were very few orders from on-high, very few "marching orders."

Dean has always wisely figured that the people who know best how to elect good leaders in any state are the people who actually live there. Democracy for America owes a lot of its success to that very idea, and the idea is now a central tenet of the DNC. This won't produce miracles overnight, but it will prove to be a new and very democratic idea. My guess is that it will be very successful in the long run. It'll certainly be a bold experiment. ;-)

[lojasmo]

61. Your understanding of Dean's demographic is flawed

His base was comprised of middle aged people, for the most part, not people under thirty.

[thefloyd]

11. I am going to play the devil's advocate

I like Dean so no flaming but was it not easy for him to speak out against the war? Dean really could take any position he wanted since there was no pesky voting record to look at.

[kentuck]

14. So, are you saying Kerry voted for the war because....

he thought it was a "winning" issue? If so, then Dr. Dean's position was the one that took political courage.

[rainy]

18. I remember crying when Robert Byrd spoke out against the

war! It was so moving and powerful. Too bad the media didn't find it news worthy as it might have changed public opinion about the war. It that vein, it was uplifting to hear anyone speak out against the war. It was like living in the twilight zone and we were being silenced. When someone did speak out, and it was reported, that person became an instant hero for the voiceless.

[demnan]

7. He's direct and speaks succinctly

He has the right combination of moral clarity (regarding the Iraq war and universal health care) and common sense.

[mike_c]

8. I agree with the honesty and directness citations....

I don't always agree with his politics, but I REALLY appreciate his forthrightness. His early opposition to the invasion and occupation of Iraq took real political courage, and was one of the main reasons I've supported him ever since. That was a "deal breaker issue" for John Kerry (and several of the other Dem candidates).

[mainer]

16. What's with the stigma of being a "northeasterner"?

I know this is common wisdom, that candidates from the Northeast are somehow tainted, and I'm getting sick and tired of it. What's so great about being a southerner? How about we start talking instead about what's so great about being a Yankee, e.g., our renowned educational institutions, our lower divorce rates, our higher incomes, our progressive values. I'm sick to death of the south thinking they own this country.

[Clark2008]

25. We don't think we own the country.

It's not about being "Southern," per se.
It's more about the standard conception that people all over this country want to identify (whether they really can or not) with the "can-do" attitude and personal ethic of what is perceived to come out of the Heartland.
I know what you say is true regarding lower divorce rates and a strong belief in good education in the Northeast (higher incomes aren't of relevance, because our cost of living is lower down here), but you're going to have to undo years of instilled belief that folks from the Heartland are just naturally more ethical before you'll change any bias towards Northeastern folks.

[mainer]

30. I don't want to start a south vs. north war but

The heartland's "can-do" attitude? Is that to imply that people in Boston and Connecticut and Maine and Vermont are "can't-do" states?

I'm a transplant to Maine (having come from Southern California) and I just have to say that the work ethic here among Yankees is amazing. People hold down two or three jobs and they work long hours. My husband (a doctor) took care of 80+ year old patients who still chop wood to heat their homes. They're thrifty (well, "cheap" is maybe a better word for it), they recycle and re-use, and they're independent thinkers. And let's not forget their reputation for "Yankee ingenuity?"

I think it's just time for Northeasterners to stop feeling like second class candidates.

[Clark2008]

85. I know you're not trying to start a north/south war.

I was speaking in terms of what is perceived, nearly nationwide, now.

And, what that perception is, is that Southerners and mid-Westerners are the more "salt of the earth" and "honest" people. Backwards, yes, but honest doing it. I mean, look at our pResident! At least 50 percent of the country liked that "choppin' cedar, garbled fake Southern speech" crap during the election. (As a true Southerner, that crap gets on my nerves. I've never chopped wood in my life and, while I speak with a drawl, I have perfect diction).

And, I don't mean for Northeasterners to feel like second-class citizens, but neither should anyone from any region.

[janx]

58. The "Heartland" is the common name for the Midwest,

not the South.

[Clark2008]

83. Uh... I'm Southern, dear and we call it the Heartland, too.

In fact, our most popular television news station claims to broadcast "Straight from the Heart," and features a show about the Great Smoky Mountains National Park and mountain folks called, "The Heartland Series." http://www.wbir.com/Heartland/


I guess it applies to ALL red states, now.

[JNelson6563]

28. It's an acceptable discrimination

Kinda like being an atheist. ;-)

Julie

[SheilaT]

20. Howard Dean is an honest man

who was an early opposer of the war in Iraq. (Sadly, he now says we should stay in, but that's another issue)

I've seen him up close at several events both back when he was running for President and as recently as six weeks ago. What I notice about him is that he seems unaffected by his wide fame, doesn't not seem to have a sense of self-importance that usually goes with national attention.

The real problem with his candidacy was that the media turned on him, and of course the Democratic Party itself feared him precisely because he appealed most to the masses of voters they could not control.

The idea that Kerry was "electable" and Dean was not proved to be total b.s., and I'm still angry at every Democrat who bought into that idea, and even angrier at Kerry for crumbling after the election and not staying in there while the votes were counted, for not seeming to care that the election was stolen for him. Howard Dean would never have tolerated that.

[LizW]

24. For me, it's because he is plain-spoken and straightforward

Plus, he is very, very smart.

I especially like how he answers questions. He never seems to be casting around for the answer he thinks will play well, or the answer he thinks you want to hear. He just gives his answer, and it's almost always well-thought out and well-reasoned.

His manner shows confidence and honesty.

[JNelson6563]

27. Gee, just look around DU

and you'll find plenty:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1712869

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1703624

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1707005

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=160&topic_id=9206

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=175&topic_id=4260

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=244x2180

He's all over the country and his current priority is helping the state parties. I got that direct from a source at the DNC.

Just cause the MSM ain't covering it doesn't mean he's not working hard on behalf of the party. He's out there doing the work that has long been neglected, he's tending to and growing the base. Not very sexy so little appeal to MSM.

Julie

[saltpoint]

32. Brains and lots of good energy.

[MollyStark]

38. The thing most people comment on

When I ask people that question, they tell me it is because he was against the war when it was not a safe stance to take. They also say they like his ability to speak his mind whether they agree with him or not.
Oddly, those are some of the same qualities people say they like about Bush. :silly:

[Eloriel]

43. Yes, and yet most of our elected Dems

just don't get it. For some reason, they can't look at reality and make an assessment like that on their own.

:grr:

[lojasmo]

62. Bush was against the war? WOW.

I think your thinking needs a little tweak.

[MollyStark]

77. here ya go

"They also say they like his ability to speak his mind whether they agree with him or not."

Sorry I didn't make that clearer. I thought when I said qualities rather than qualities and positions you would know what I meant.

[Sparkly]

40. He says it like it is

and he's a great speaker. I also think his ability to tell it like it is is due in part to the fact that he wasn't tied up in political deals at the time he was running -- i.e., he wasn't in Congress. That enables him to be unafraid to "go negative" on Republicans -- unafraid that it's going to cost him the next bill he sponsors, or keep him off a committee, or piss off a lobby, etc...

Nothing against those in Congress -- I think we have some real fighters there. But I think many are more cautious in what they'll say, couching it so carefully that they don't have that sharp clarity someone like Dean has. Just an observation and an opinion.

[FogerRox]

41. He dont take crap from nobody & all the above

[WI_DEM]

44. because he is honest and true and stands up for his beliefs.

[NYCGirl]

48. Because he's inspiring in a lot of ways. NT

[Tom Rinaldo]

50. Why shouldn't he be? I wish we had more Democrats like him

Actually we do, and he helped make sure of it, but we could use even more. I'm running out of the house now and don't even have time to read the thread, let alone say anything worth reading, lol. Hopefully I can later...

I think he's doing a great job as DNC Chair so far by the way.

[janx]

52. Not just Democrats.

Libertarian types and moderate Republicans (those who are left) like him very much too. I hope to be pleasantly surprised in 2006 and beyond.

[Tom Rinaldo]

56. I want to go on record to say that I am sorry this thread got turned

into a discussion about Clark's strengths or weaknesses. Either is inappropriate to this thread which really was about Howard Dean and in appreciation of what he brought and continues to bring to the Democratic Party. Since the damage has now to an extent been done, perhaps I will make a comment or two up thread concerning Clark. I haven't read all the comments posted yet, but I will try to keep that to a minimum and keep them short if I do at all.

Howard Dean, in my opinion was and continues to be a very positive and potent force within the Democratic Party and I thank him for all his work.

[kentuck]

64. The intent of my post....

was to find out about what people thought about the job that Howard Dean is doing - not to discuss the election in 2008. I think that is counter-productive. That said, I think General Clark is a very fine Democrat that will be a strong candidate if he were to run in 2008. By the way, I supported General Clark in the last election until he was defeated in the primary process. And I might support him again - it's too early to say.

[janx]

72. Your intent was good, kentuck.

It's not your fault the thread got hijacked.

[Tom Rinaldo]

63. Dean was like a splash of cold water on a scorching hot day

when I first started listening to him early in 2003 (or maybe it was late 2002). I was furious over our national Party leadership, absolutely furious. I watched what seemed like the entire Democratic Party fold like a beach chair and allow themselves to get deflected off of all of the critical domestic and economic issues facing our country as soon as Bush started saber rattling at Saddam Hussein.

Corporate corruption was rampant and in the news. Health care costs were starting to dramatically rise again. Bush was pushing more tax cuts for the rich that the polls or even just a whiff of common sense showed the majority of Americans were opposed to. The mid term elections were coming up and what did the Democrats do? They caved. They allowed Bush to dominate the congressional sessions and news cycle with his newly minted Iraq crisis. We virtually conceded that mid term election to the republicans and lost a number of critical seats by narrow margins by tip toeing around making sure to say all the right patriotic comments about supporting our President and fearing to say anything that the Republicans could spin to insinuate otherwise.

That was unforgivable, but what did most Congressional Democrats do next? They got steam rolled on Iraq for the same reasons that we lost the mid term elections. There were some shining exceptions, like Byrd, but how many Democrats directly challenged the Bush doctrine of Preventive War? How many Democrats told the American people that the job in Afghanistan wasn't finished and that Bush was undermining it in his rush to fight another war? How many Democrats called it a dangerous national security diversion? Not enough, that's for sure. All that talk about trusting the President to act wisely and appropriately when it was clear as glass to most non elected Democrats, activists and voters such as ourselves, that Bush could NOT be trusted.

Dean wasn't part of that. Dean called the Party leadership out. Dean was blunt and Dean was clear and Dean said what all of us out here had been waiting for years for someone in leadership in our Party to say. That is the first quality in Dean for which I will always be grateful, but it isn't the only one. Dean also embraced change in our Party. He rallied activists and volunteers. His campaign helped reinvent Democratic fund raising to make our Party less dependent on Special interests. He asked us to become personally involved in all of the workings of the Democratic Party, not just write one check and show up on election day to vote for whoever the Party leaders had decided we should support. Dean stands for direct empowerment of average Democrats and he put his energy where his mouth is when he decided to run for and take on the responsibilities of being DNC Chair, which no matter how important it may be to us here at places like DU, most Americans think of as bureaucrat in chief of a hack partisan organization. It is not a glamorous position,but it is a critical one. I thank Howard Dean for walking the walk as well as talking the talk.

[lyonn]

90. Very good post Tom

I almost quit reading yours as it was long, but, worth it. Thanks
Speaks well on what was going on then.

[Dr Fate]

65. I like how he specifically adresses & rebuts bullshit thrown at DEMS.

Like you said, I don't agree with everything he does- but I like the way he does it!!!

[sharonking21]

66. I like him

second only to my own personal favorite. His actual policy plans were close to those that I espouse and not far from those of my own candidate. He does speak up (although I wonder how much that will be trimmed due to his current chairmanship). I hope he continues to speak out.

Most of all, I like him because he understood the importance of having and then nurturing a grassroots movement and working with and through them. The only other two candidates I noted being perceptive enough to do that--at least in my area--during the primaries were Clark and Kucinich.

[Radical Activist]

69. Considering how much he flip-flopped and obfuscated during the primary

the fact that you can't pin down where he stands today as compared to where he stood a year or two ago is exactly what I don't like about Dean.

I think he's popular because he always has great spin and the media loves to cover him, with both good and bad news. He's very adept at gaging what people want to hear and communicating his ideas with the right phrases and buzzwords. He learned from Lakoff. He saw the discontent in the party and he accurately reflected that when he needed to.

It amazes me how often Dean gets credit for bravely speaking out on an issue two weeks after someone else made the same points and he waited to see how it worked. He's good at picking his issues and speaking out at the right time to the right audiences.

He also did a good job of giving his supporters something to do locally right away. A lot of campaigns have a problem with that and lose volunteers as a result. I hope most campaign professionals learned something from that.

[Generator]

73. He has a very nice smile

[David Zephyr]

93. Perhaps because he is giving them back their nerve.

Good question, Kentuck. I think the answer to Dean's popularity with a lot of Democrats --- like myself --- springs from a respect for his intelligence, his ability to quickly turn the Republicans' rhetoric against them, and perhaps, most of all, his natural leadership talents which rally people to his side giving them back their nerve.

[CarolNYC]

94. Because he is smart and tough...

...and a fighter who doesn't back down and doesn't let anyone get away with twisting his words all out of shape. We need more fighters like him.