Dean Sparks Debate On His Potential To Remold Party

Despite Successes, Some Fear General Election Rout

By Thomas B. Edsall
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, October 20, 2003; Page A07


Howard Dean's success raising money and mobilizing voters has provoked a growing debate among Democratic and Republican strategists over whether the former Vermont governor has the potential to become a "transformative" political figure, altering, for better or worse, the financial and constituent base of the Democratic Party.

Although assessments of the Dean campaign run the gamut, they generally fall into two camps.

The first, and most favorable, contends that the former Vermont governor has found a way to compete with Republicans for money under the new rules of the McCain-Feingold law; that he has far outpaced rivals in both parties in the use of Internet technology, the newest tool to rally supporters and raise cash; and that he has broken new ground for voters to participate in campaigns. It also maintains that he has built both voter and fundraising momentum without depending on the special interest groups that have played major roles in picking nominees in the past.

The second, more jaundiced view is that although Dean has found a way to mobilize a liberal, activist base, capitalizing especially on the ease of credit-card contributions through the Internet, Dean's nomination could lead to a repetition of the crushing general election defeats the Democratic Party suffered under George McGovern, Walter F. Mondale and Michael S. Dukakis.

more...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50652-2003Oct19.html

will probably lose and some of the other candidates will actually hold us back AND lose at the same time.

There's much to like about the other candidates but I think Dean's our best chance.

Plus: I do so want to break the hold of the DNC and the DLC on the Democratic Party. They make us so bland and positionless that we don't stand for anything.

fromthe wilderness.com his latest is called Beyond Bush II...but he spends some time outlining our "candidates"

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/102003_beyond_bush_2.html

Please take the time

Not an ideologue, but driven by practical accomplishment and with the capacity for growth. He is intelligent and tough. Good enough.

First off, I believe Dennis Kucinich has the best platform of any candidate. And while I would really like to avoid criticism for how un-optimistic I am being, I don't believe he has any hope of the nomination, and would have even less hope of winning a general election. I'd really like to avoid a huge debate on this, I'm just telling you how I feel, and acknowledging my biases. Because I feel this way, I keep trying to look at the current front-runners and decide who I think would be the best electable choice...

I believe the race is between Clark and Dean - I don't see any other candidate getting the nomination. Again, that's just my personal opinion. But because I feel that way, I'm struggling to decide who I think would be the best candidate for the country and also who would have the best chance of beating Bush.

I worry about Dean for several reasons, but particularly because I can't decide if I think he will energize the party and give new momentum in the right direction to a party that is dead as a doornail. I'm not even sure if I think Dean's direction is the right direction. Is he really "liberal" or does he just play one on TV? Some of Deans policies while governor concern me greatly, particular his approach to a balanced budget, which was heavily based on the extreme cutting of social problems that I believe to be absolutely critical to a well-ordered and just society. Also, I am in fact worried that if he is painted as a "crazy liberal" he will suffer the fate of Dukakis and Mondale. However, I go back and forth on this because was the problem with Dukakis and Mondale that their views were simply untenable with the American public, or was the problem that they lacked the poise and charisma to be elected.

As I think we all know, elections have a lot to do with the popularity and "likeability" of a candidate. I know that really sucks, but its true. And I think Dean would have that going for him. He is articulate, likable (I don't know where all this "too angry" crap comes from, but oh well) and charismatic. It might be that this is more important than the viability of his (possibly) liberal views. Again, I'm still untrusting when it comes to how truly "liberal" Dean is.

On the other hand there's Clark. And can I just state my feelings with out being jumped on: Clark concerns me. I don't understand his motivation to enter the race as a Democrat, but I have a hard time taking it at face value. I listen to his stump speeches on CNN and the hit all my buttons - its like a greatest hits CD of all the great lines that would really get me fired up in support. But what substance is there? It's very hard for me to trust a guy with no political experience and a history of completely riding the fence in every way. I'm not a conspiracy nut, I am deliberately staying away from discussing connections to some PNAC plot to take over the world and what not. I just don't know what the first 100 days of a Clark presidency would look like.

No one else agrees with me, but I'm actually worried that it would be easier for the Bush team to make Clark look foolish than any other candidate. I worry about that partly because of Clark's lack of campaign experience. I also worry about Clark's positions. Socially, if he's being honest, his positions are pretty much unimpeachable. Against a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage is good, pro-choice is good. Saying he is "pro-labor" is one thing; demonstrating exactly how he is would be another. But economically and most importantly in terms of foreign policy I do not know a lot about what Clark's vision would be.

I know he says we shouldn't alienate our allies and that we should work with them, diplomatically, and so on. And that's true and great. But that really doesn't tell me whether or not he supports the kind of Empire aggression that has been the policy of this administration. Would Clark have still went after Iraq, but just took a few more diplomatic turns, and done a little more diplomatic arm twisting to get us into a war with a little more international support. Or would Clark have said "no" to hawks who wanted to invade for all the wrong reasons? I don't think we know that yet. Certainly his own position on the Iraq war has been a waffling one at best. So would Clark support the same basic vision of our PNAC boys, but just go about achieving it in a different way (that's what I think) or would Clark say "get out of my white house and don't ever come back" to those promoting a policy of colonialism and empire?

Because I have all these questions, I am absolutely NOWHERE on trying to figure out what candidate to support. Fortunately I live in Idaho, where it doesn't matter anyway. So I guess I'll just have to wait and see who the nominee ends up being. It won't really matter, because in the end I do have the "anyone but bush 2004" mindset.

In his speeches he even says right out that he is a centrist. Nonetheless, I am happy with his policy proposals because while they are to the right of my views, IMHO, they are all *huge* improvements over what we have now and are, for the most part, realistic proposals that, as president, he would have a decent chance of implementing them.

Extremely massive information dump on Gov. Howard Dean, M.D. (v2.0)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=41214

"Fortunately I live in Idaho, where it doesn't matter anyway."

I disagree. Your opinion matters when you tell other folks. We aren't going to win this election by keeping quiet and sitting on our butts. We are going to have to get out there, bypass big media, and get folks to vote for the Democrat.

…
One of the most outspoken proponents of the view that the Dean campaign will change the Democratic Party is Simon B. Rosenberg, president and founder of the centrist New Democrat Network.

"Dean raising close to $15 million is like a baseball player hitting 75 home runs," Rosenberg said. By using the Internet and such Internet vehicles as MoveOn.org and Meetup.com to collect a record-breaking amount of cash and to build a base of more than 470,000 online supporters, Dean has pushed politics into "a post-broadcast era" in which television may no longer dominate campaigns, Rosenberg said.

At the same time, Rosenberg argued, Dean has found a means to directly deal with one of the Democratic Party's major liabilities, the perception that it and its candidates are beholden to a collection of liberal "interest groups." In every losing Democratic presidential campaign since 1980, Republicans have portrayed the Democratic nominee as a captive of such interest groups as organized labor, feminists and Hollywood liberals, an image that was reinforced by the large "soft money" contributions that labor and wealthy liberals used to make to the Democratic National Committee before enactment of McCain-Feingold.

Dean is showing how the Democratic Party can become "a party that can transcend our interest groups, and that a candidate can get elected without owing anyone anything," Rosenberg said.

The nonpartisan Campaign Finance Institute last week provided some evidence supporting Rosenberg's view. "What is also different about 2003 is the emergence of a well-financed candidate -- Howard Dean -- who depends on large donors ($1,000 or more) for only 22 percent of individual contributions and gets 54 percent from small donors (less than $200)," the institute found.
…

Look, I won't be sitting on my butt. I was very vocal and voted even though my vote had no chance of mattering under this system. But my state underscores the reason why I despise the electorial college. It should be popular vote, period. We aren't electing governors, we're electing the national president. It should be a popular vote of the nation, not a college supposedly "representative" of smaller groups of the people. Basically the result of it is, in a state that is 90% conservative, my vote never counts. This never was proven more true to me than in 2000. Even if you ignore claims of voter fraud, in the final offical talley of the votes, Gore won the popular vote - where my vote would have mattered. But no, thanks to the electorial college system, my vote was irrelevant.

Frankly, when you vote democrat, and the electorial college votes of your state go Republican, do you smile and say, "god bless democracy?" I think the system sucks.

If you think that Idaho is Bush country, try being a Kucinich supporter here in Texas! Months ago, I started off looking at Dean, but his statement of support for AIPAC was too much for me. He is, I suppose, still #2 on my list, but I don't have to give up, either. Clark, to put it tactfully, has challenges to meet before I would wax rhapsodic about his primary bid. My thought is to keep it simple, stick with Kucinich and hold 'I told you so!' in reserve.

from Kerry and Lieberman.

Kucinich was SILENT. Kucinich could've spoken up for the right thing and Kucinich was SILENT while condemning other candidates for not speaking out on other issues. Often when there is a vote supporting Israel in the House, Kucinich is often present but does not vote as in the last bill justifying the invasion of Iraq for the security of Israel.

I worry about Dean for several reasons, but particularly because I can't decide if I think he will energize the party and give new momentum in the right direction to a party that is dead as a doornail. I'm not even sure if I think Dean's direction is the right direction. Is he really "liberal" or does he just play one on TV? Some of Deans policies while governor concern me greatly, particular his approach to a balanced budget, which was heavily based on the extreme cutting of social problems that I believe to be absolutely critical to a well-ordered and just society. Also, I am in fact worried that if he is painted as a "crazy liberal" he will suffer the fate of Dukakis and Mondale. However, I go back and forth on this because was the problem with Dukakis and Mondale that their views were simply untenable with the American public, or was the problem that they lacked the poise and charisma to be elected.

Do you think Dean's too liberal for America or not liberal enough for Democratic Party?

Because if the answer is both, maybe you're really a Green at heart?

If you have a hard time choosing between Clark and Dean, look at their campaigns.

Dean has broken all records -- raising more than 50% of his money from regular people who have given him less than $200 total. He is running the most successful natonal grassroots campaign in US history -- by far. In contrast, Clark has been foisted on us by the DLC/DNC wing of the Party as a last gasp chance to stop the Dean grassroots juggernaut.

Now ask yourself, why in the hell are the Democratic Party powers-that-be trying so desperately to derail the most successful and democratizing national grassroots campaign in US history?

I'm a little concerned about something I see immediately above, maybe because I'm catching some flak about it here in Texas. Perhaps I'm misreading stickdog, but his response to selwynn about the Idahoan's liking Kucinich's platform while questioning the liberal/progressive values of Dean seems to bring speculation about the fellow Democrat's being a Green or, in extreme form, a 'Naderite'. (Guess what a certain self-styled Democratic leader --and Dean supporter-- here in Texas calls me!) Since Nader's 2000 VP running mate has endorsed Dennis Kucinich, it might be a good time not to possibly alienate progressive voters. Hint, hint. And if I read too much into the Green remark, stickdog, you have my apologies in advance. It's just a little, ahh, 'sticky' here in Texas right now!

All I'm saying is that it's somewhat contradictory to be simultaneously worried that Dean isn't a real liberal yet is too liberal to win against Bush.

I don't think that I did. I think my first and foremost question is, just how liberal is Dean really? Some of his policies while governor make me concerned.

I think the question of is he too liberal to get elected is a whole different discussion. I certainly don't believe Dean is too liberal to be "right" for America - if I said that I misspoke. I'm not sure you can get too liberal for what I think is truly right for America. I'm just not sure whether Dean is really all that liberal as the media makes him/he makes out to be... ?

I get what you're seeing as contradictory - fear that he will be painted as a "crazy" liberal vs. my fear that he really isn't liberal enough.

Well, it may be contradictory, but its still a real concern. I'm not sure if a real liberal can even be elected in this country. At the same time I think a real liberal is what this country desparately needs. The contradiction is not in my reasoning, but in the chasm between what is needed and what is electable.

I'm not sure how or why a truly progressive agenda became such a challenge to elect. I don't think Mondale or Dukakis helped by placing the wrong face on the right things, but I can't honestly say I think that's really what's holding it back. To be frank, what I honestly think is holding it back is the fact that the country only has the trappings of democracy anymore. And there are two sources on which blame should be placed. The first is the private interests and coprorations that dominate and control the country.

In a world where money rules all, those with all the money (and power) make the rules. You can't tell me that the corporate interests do not extert a very powerful force for limiting the scope of debate in this country. It seems to me that what we really have are debates between the right and the far right. I know that "dem's fightin' words" for many people here, but I truly mean no offense. But I think what we call "radically" liberal in the public arean today is almost laughable. In American politics we take 10% of the full spectrum of debate and all that our "democratic" choice between the guy one one end of that 10% and the guy on the other. The other 90% of the true specturm of debate is somehow made to be off the table, and anyone who does try to bring it to the center of public dialoge is quickly relgated to "fringe" status. So consequently, I don't think the private power that owns the government really cares whether a demorcat or republican is elected. Either way, they are never in any real danger of radical change.

The second is the people. American society has elevated "disinterest" in the affairs of the nation to an almost Zen state. Voter turnout is shameful, peoples understanding or concers over national issues (let alone global ones) is embarassing, and worst of all, the american pulbic on the whole truly deserves the accusation of being "sheep" even if all get defensive when that is said, or even if it sounds smug for me to say. The American public is on the whole told what to think, and the basically comply. It takes a near act of God to change that pattern. Somehow the powers that be have been ruthlessly successful in conveying a conservative agenda through and through. They've been so successful that they've even made great progress in both parties and accross the entire domain of the American public.

I don't believe that it is possible to have a democracy in which power is so ultimately privatized in the hands of a select few. There's been some really heated and flamed filled threads reacently in which some have claimed tha American is drifting towards fascism. That may not be true, but the very fact that Mussolini defined fascism as the merging of corporate and state power should at least give us a moment of pause if nothing else. I don't believe it's possible to have a democracy of the people, by the people, and for the people when a) al of the power lies in the control of money and in the possesion of the private interests of a select few and b) the American public by and large either doesn't give a damn or feels so completely and utterly disenfranchised with the entire system that they just can't bring themeselves to fight the fight anymore.

So what do we do in a time where these things are true? I have no idea. I don't see that much hope to be honest. I don't think eleecting a Democrat is going to fix it; at best it will put a bandaid on the insane rampage of Bush, and that's worth fighting for sure. But at the same time its sad, because saddling up for what ultimately would be such a small victory in the face of so much loss only serves to remind me that we are fighting what has been called "the long defeat."

I don't see salvation for this society. I think all we can do is try to postpone the fall.

that folks object to Kucinich being "unelectible" but completely write off Sharpton as unelectible?

Dean reflects an angry base, anyone who isn't angry isn't paying attention. Anger is hope because it is not resignation.

With the pathetic state of the Democratic Party in the last few years, whether Dean can win in 2004 or not, at least he's getting Democrats excited again and he's not afraid of Bush.

Go Howard!

Sure, he's very adept at fonding the ideological genatalia of the party's hard core left-wingers. But how will the moderates in the party (who are far more numerous than DU'ers would care to admit) respond to his advances come the general election?

It'll be like a breath of fresh air.

Two different parties to choose from. What a concept!

yes being a centrist puts him to the left of a few candidates, but he isn't "stroking the ideological genitalia of the party's hardcore left-wingers". Kucinich, sharpton, braun and kerry are all to his left....

To continue along the lines of the original metaphor, he leaves this left-winger frigid.

He has the ability to remold the party from one that received over 48% of the popular vote in the last presidential election and was competitive in a few Southern states (Tennessee, Arkansas, Missouri, Florida) into a party that receives around 42% of the vote and gets completely blown out in the South.

south, right?

Right?????


Right??????????

Didn't we listen to that crap in 2002?

that a fiscally responsible gun rights candidate would do much better than Lieberman in the South.

In fact - I'm sure of it.