Dean's Rivals Question Campaign's Tone in Iowa

Dean's Rivals Question Campaign's Tone in Iowa
Kerry, Edwards Say Anger Won't Win White House
By Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, November 16, 2003; Page A06


DES MOINES, Nov. 15 -- Former Vermont governor Howard Dean drew criticism here Saturday from his rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination, who questioned whether he has the background to defeat President Bush and warned that the party needs more than a message of anger to recapture the White House in 2004.

"We need to offer answers, not just anger," Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.) told a boisterous party fundraising dinner. "Solutions, not just slogans. So Iowa, in January, don't just send them a message. Send them a president."

"We are all angry at George Bush, we should be angry at George Bush," said Sen. John Edwards (N.C.). But he cautioned that anger alone will not change the country. "If all we are in 2004 is a party of anger, we can't win."

More than 8,000 Democratic activists crowded into Veterans Auditorium late Saturday for the state Democratic Party's annual Jefferson-Jackson dinner, with the presidential candidates competing for attention with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), the night's featured speaker.

more..........

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46448-2003Nov15.html

:evilgrin:

I don't mind the anger if there is a message as well. I don't want them to downplay the anger. They played nice before, and I don't think it has been working.

Those 18 GIs that died today in the two Black Hawks that went down would have been alive had Kerry, Edwards, Gephardt, Lieberman, and other Democrats had voted against the war in Iraq.

Since when ?

...so-called Democratic leadership in Congress failed to even make a token resistance to what most of us knew was going to happen if we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. If the Democratic leadership had said "no", perhaps the remaining Democratics in Congree would have done the same. Perhaps that could have even convinced some of the moderate Republicans to have done the same.

At the very least, having said "no" back then puts one in a heck of lot stronger position to be critical now.

Dems for the chaos.

Labor resistors who didn't support Blair in his push for war.

You forget that at the time of the resolution, more than 67% of americans were AGAINST the war if it were pursued unilaterally. If the vote had failed - bush would have had to come back again - with more restrictions (such as no unilateral invasion, perhaps) to get the vote that he wanted. The point is more fight at that end may or may not have prevented the war - the bush folks still would have angled for it - but would have more legal constraints on it - and the longer struggle in congress would have highlighted the isses. They should have supported Byrd's push to postpone the vote until AFTER the elections. They were simply out maneuvered on the timing and content of the vote by Rove.

At the time of the vote the support was very different than it was in six months after the war propoganda. Most congressional folks had the cover of public sentiment.

about WMD and alleged Saddam-Osama connections that everyone else in the world knew to be false. Not one of the Senators running for President bothered to debunk the lies Colin Powell told in his UN speech, despite the fact that they were debunked in the British press as quickly as Powell told them.

This was a major failure of leadership by the Senators that now want to be rewarded with the Presidential nomination.

The evidence was packed with outrageous lies, lies, and a few truths you never hear about.

The Bush administration is using selected evidence to achieve political ends. Right now they're leaking the outrageous lies. They did it to try to undermine Blair because he's not concentrating ENOUGH power in the hands of the powerful in the UK, and they're doing it to stir up the Democrats to nominate an anti-war candidate, and to stir up huge protests (which scare moderates).

When the time is right -- just before the election -- we'll see the stronger evidence, and people will forgive Republicans.

You all are crazy if you think something isn't going to happen which the media will use to make Bush look good.

Didn't you all watch the CA recall on TV. Big media still LOVES Republicans.

In reverse alphabetical order, we have the following antiwar candidates, all of whom are preferable to the four Bush enablers that voted for IWR:

Sharpton, Kucinich, Mosley-Braun, Dean, Clark

We don't need Lieberman, Kerry, Gephardt, Edwards.

...you desperately need Edwards or Kerry.

I didn't know that Clark was firmly anti-war. I think CNN has a lot of commentary by him that might imply otherwise.

they would have used it ala Kay. There was some pretty nasty publicity for them that penetrated the public psyche - as evidenced by the drop in support for Iraq, the lower numbers in the "was it worth it" (invading) question.

Of course they will keep manufacturing things to try to make bush look good. Of course they will spin what ever they can against any democratic candidate.

But as to war evidence - they have been in off and on panic mode for several months - there has been plenty of reason to use whatever they could by now. Letting Bush grow weaker and weaker in the public eye is not going to help them a great deal in the end. They do NOT want a squeaker election (pulled out by a last minute "surprise revelation" by bush).

Look at how some of their BIG desire legislation is suddenly getting bogged down. Particularly medicare reform and the energy bill. Bush needs to prove "progress" to his funders/bribers. But his weakened position means that packaging these things as part of the war on terror (as they initially tried to do with the energy legislation) doesn't work. Bush also is under pressure to give payback to the financial industry (make those reforms toothless!) but continuing scandals that reach closer and closer to average americans (many people have IRAs tied in mutual funds)... to the credit industry (they were very close to passing the bankruptcy bill last year... note how the stories of increase in bankruptcy are making it back into the news - but the spin has changed from signs of a bad economy... to slackers!.. they are preparing to go back to the well on this legislation and try to madison avenue it into "personal responsibility...") He also is under pressue to disallow any prescription relief but it is getting GREAT resisitance (heck Dan Burton - remember that rabid neocon? - has (or will?) hold hearings about importing drugs from Canada... here in Indianapolis - home of Eli Lilly & Co.)

Point - is that the financial dominance for bush may start to wane if he doesnt deliver - as his horrible economic record does have a negative impact on these large businesses - but if they are going to get BIG short term rewards... they will keep funding him. If they are not - then there is NO gain, AND their interests are likely to be hurt in the long run. They still want bush favor... but expect to see some money trickling back to democratic candidates as well, unless bush delivers.

His weakened position - to a great extent due to the war and economy (which the primary due to the 87 million begfest has turned to highlight the weakness in the economy delivering any relief to the middle and lower classes) - have made it harder and harder for him to deliver. They need a knock out punch sooner, rather than later.

and he's trying to undermine Blair.

Next fall (or as soon as Dean clinches the nomination, if Dean is the one) you'll hear about all the great evidence.

If you didn't notice, the US participated a little bit in Blair getting slammed, because they were hoping that they could create a situation where Blair would get a vote of no confidence. That's what the media was doing in the UK while Bush was getting a free ride here. Now the media is gently creating for Bush a situation where they hope that an anti-war dem gets nominated, and they're hoping to encouarage protests so that moderates get scared of the Democrats and run to the Republican party next fall. The media will time it all for a Republican victory next november.

Had the Democrats voted against the war resolution, they wouldn't need to go through it like this. They'd just say the lack of unity in the country caused the problem and they'd let another 9/11 happen (maybe not in the US -- like somewhere like San Francisco) and they say that was what Dems were helping.

my analytical read on this is very, very different. So be it.

By the way - there is NO protection for the democrats - be they anti or pro war. The neocons and their media puppets will make it appear the same way regardless of the democratic positions. The Cleland race demonstrates that there is absolutely NO innoculation from the media on this. It would be foolish to select a nominee based on this reason - because they will be painted the same - and the public will buy it on the same level - either way. Better to look at the candidate and campaign that can out manuever the GOP attacks or best counter it. Not on the merit of positions (sadly) becuase the GOP has warped things so far that positions and records are irrelevant (Bush as a war hero/pilot - as an example; and Cleland as a traitor who supports terrorism... wtf?!) No, the counter will take a different kind of campaign calculus and strategy than the more traditional (past 20+ years) of campaigning. A hell of a lot more of mobilization on the ground - local levels of combatting the rightwing spew/spin - is required. And a very rapid/agile response.

I know you don't like Dean at all. But the other candidates really need to look at his campaign - and start adopting/adapting some of their strategies if they want to win against Bush. I have no idea if he and his campaign have the endurance and longevity to make it through the primaries - but I do know that they are doing far, far better than they should be - and far, far better than anyone would have predicted a year ago (when he was largely as marginalized as Kucinich). Our party and its strategists need to take notes - not just on the presidential level.

hostility, and it was the end of the golden era of the American economy and people were suffering economically, and they STILL voted for Republicans. And they probably would have done so again in 76 if not for Watergate.

Bush is using the same strategies Republicans used in 72 to win.

why do you keep posting this lie?

...gone if the Democrats had used their backbones for something more than holding up their heads.

It seems to be an answer that covers most of the bases for him. I question whether the killing and eating process is anger-free, though.

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

Unless it was a fill in the blanks.....

center of the campaign will not appeal to most people.

Like it or not, Dean cannot run a successful campaign against Bush if he continues using "anger against Bush" with such prominance.

If we are to win next year then we must offer a better alternative to the extremism of the current administration. We must give Americans a brighter future that is positive in its thinking.

There is so much more than just anger. There is fun and laughter in the blog and at our meet-ups.

The issues are covered very well for this time in the campaign.

This is the DNC trying to be controlling.

We are angry at Bush, Cheney & Co about the war, their pissing the surplus away, and the selling of the country to the highest bidder. Anger fueled the conservative victories of the 1980s and the take over of Congress in 1994.

Anger will get people to the polls on Election Day. We need a choice not an echo of Republican policies.

Bush-Lite is going nowhere in 2004!

Be angry enough to energize the base but offer an alternative too.
Also, do not always directly site Bush as the reason. Critisize and attack the failed conservative policies too.

Dean is not all that angry. They pick a different thing each week for him to work on. This week it is not being angry. I am angry for him.
:evilgrin:

be a Democrat and you are not angry, your brain dead. When I am angry people seem to know it, and the reason why. Yes, Dean is angry, out of control, no, just not faking nice, nice, like our DLC rethug lite boys. Dean is the real thing, and shows it. Go Dean

He wouldn't have nearly the supporters he has if anger were all there were to his message. In fact, what supporters on the blog talk about overwhelmingly is the sense of HOPE they get from this campaign.

For that matter, I don't think he's all that "angry." I think he's rigtheously indignant about some things, highly critical (which isn't the same as anger) at many other things, etc.

AND, he's dead serious. Not without humor (and a delightful sense of humor, at that), but all-in-all a serious man. He's serious about the campaign, serious about the improvements he wants to make in this country, serious about winning. And he doesn't smile when he's talking about what Bush has done wrong, which he's also dead serious about.

Just anti-Dean rhetoric trying to make a meme stick. Supporters know better, as well millions of other Americans who will hear his optimistic, hopeful message in the future.

Eloriel

Is there one example where appealing to anger was worked for anyone other than fascists?

That worked well enough to make the coup successful, didn't it?

He campaigned on Compassionate Conservitism; the GOP running on the base theory died with Newt.

"We'll do everything the Democrats did, but with a smaller government and lower taxes" was anger?

Nope.

Try again.

Anger will get people to the polls on Election Day. We need a choice not an echo of Republican policies.

Bush-Lite is going nowhere in 2004!

Something has to motivate people to get off their asses at work that day and go vote on their lunch break or get up early to stand in line before work. Something has to push them to not accept the status quo.

I'm in the school of thought that Gore won. If they had counted the votes he would have won Florida and the nation. BUT, the one thing that I think didn't mobilize people was his niceness. He is a wonderful, caring man, but he needed to show a little anger about Bush's policies in Texas and how it would ruin the US.

I don't blame Gore for what happened. Why? Because unfortunately we have to hit the bottom before we realize just how bad it really is. No one thought it was that big of a deal and Gore didn't separate himself from Bush as much as he could have.

Anger motivated soccer moms and elderly veterans here in Dallas, Texas (of all places!) to come out and protest the war in groups of thousands. Anger can be very useful when combined with a vision of the future and sound policies.

I hope ANGER motivates people to get to the polls in 2004.

Emotions are precursors and are always a part of any cognitive enterprise or action.

http://www.nimh.nih.gov/publicat/baschap1.cfm

Studies with animals suggest that healthy emotional development requires having a sense of control over events in one's environment. Monkeys who grow up with such control differ in important ways from those reared without it. In one study, a group of infant monkeys was raised in an environment in which they controlled receipt of small food rewards by performing tasks, while another group had no such control. Those who controlled their food rewards later showed less fear in a potentially frightening situation and more boldly explored a novel environment. More research is needed, however, to determine whether, in humans, a history of control over important environmental events makes some people less likely than others to develop various fears and anxiety disorders.

Negative Emotion

The unique properties and importance of negative emotions such as anger, fear, sadness, and disgust and the conditions that elicit them have drawn considerable interest. Research consistently shows that negative qualities often command more attention and seem more important than positive qualities:


As people think over upcoming decisions, potential losses are often given greater weight than potential gains.

In the social sphere, one negative personal characteristic influences people's feelings about an individual more than a host of positive characteristics.

Negative experiences color marital satisfaction; they have more impact than do positive experiences.

People are more likely to find an unusual face in a crowd and quickly if the face looks angry than if it looks happy.

Subjects who examine a description of a person that uses equal numbers of positive and negative adjectives are likely to subsequently recall more negative adjectives than positive ones.

Humans are "prepared" to learn to react with negative emotions and to quickly learn to avoid certain stimuli, such as snakes, spiders, and angry faces, that may have posed a threat to early ancestors. Although people are able to learn to avoid other stimuli, such as flowers or happy faces, that did not threaten their ancestors, they do so with greater difficulty.

Being particularly attuned to objects that could potentially be dangerous makes evolutionary sense; in past epochs, such stimuli probably threatened survival. In the contemporary world, this bias to fear such possibly dangerous stimuli can be the source of phobias. Moreover, these negative biases can erode the quality of life, the wisdom of choices, and the longevity of relationships. Knowing that these biases exist may stimulate the development of methods to counteract their potentially destructive effects on social and emotional life.
(snip)



http://www.happyfunny.com/content/677.html

...show some emotion and be willing to speak out about the things that are making us angry.

We can still be positive about the programs we support, even if we're angry with the idiots that have gotten us into this mess.

We have cause to be angry, anger can be productive, it defines what we think is wrong and what is right.

Any candidate who tells me to calm down is a traitor and a sellout.

Next week, they will all be angry, Dean will be calm....and they will "suggest" something else.

The anger thing was really obvious tonight. The avoidance thereof.

...on his conference call.

He didn't seem to angry to me.

Happy Birthday Howard! :bounce:

It's all hype from the repugs.They are running scared and want to scare anyone who will listen to them. Don't buy into it, they want Dems to remain passive and buy into that crap while they whip their dim wit r/w into a frenzy of anger and hatred so they blindly follow them w/o question. Just look at how they got the Reagan movie off the air on CBS, stirred up the anger of r/w didn't they?

Kerry is WRONG.

The only problem with this country is that we are not ANGRY ENOUGH!!!!!!!!!

We should be screaming in the streets at the top of our lungs.

And anger and outrage is energy......and is the only appropriate response.

Gotta say, Kerry is full of rhetoric on this one, and strongly misjudges the people who are actually paying attention and are awake. The key to change is creating REALITY CHECKS with the people.......and Dean is sure doing that.

because it was Dean who tapped into the anger while they were all busy calculating their own political survival. If anger can't win, then why are they all so worried about Dean kicking their losing little butts around the block?

we have a winner! demobrat nails it.

that's what Kerry et al. are saying and they are right.

Americans should be angry.

angry about the deficits, angry that we we lied to about wmd, anger because since bush took over there has been an assault on the workers, grwoing unployment, an attack on enviromental laws, soldiers dying every day.

His message is fine with me, and that energy is the only way to beat what will be a hate-ridden, slanderous and yes, angry assault by rove, on whoever the dem nominee is.

...can relate to Dean on this...

...Dean is not my candidate, but I'm not sure where DEM strategists got the idea that voters dont respond well to passion...

Americans love to see some back-bone- I seriously doubt this will hurt him- I'd like to see a DEM try this approach- the wimpy Tom Daschele act sure is not working either...

Most people in this country dont get upset until you TELL THEM to be upset...

...I dont see "Mean Dean's" passion as a totally bad thing-

A lot of voters will say- "wow- he is really passionate- he must really believe in what he is saying, not faking it..."

when thousands of your constiuents and American's all over this country begged you all to choose peace VS war, what did you do instead?

Dean's "tone" resonates very well with many voters.

and you may or may not be aware of his views on peace VS war. In fact those views, which I admit I am starting to feel like I posess(I am a dove personally and almost pacifist), ok heres my question. Please Dean supporters do not bash me for this, but I wanna know Dean's solution for preventing future Iraq's and such, I dont know much about his foreign policy or that of any candiates really, but I really dont know Dean's foreign policy. Thanks in advance, I know to god I will prefer the Dean doctrine to the Bush doctrine, but I wanna know what is the Dean Doctrine, thanks in advance and I apologize if I sounded condescending but in reality I am curious, I personally want a Kucinich doctrine with the way my views on war have became, I am not a pacifist yet but I have the feelings, and I believe I could be.

DK's doing fine...no need to beg off "get a life flamers" or apologize for DK. Say, HERE'S a CLUE:
Let's just wait to see who has the GOTV muscle & who is all cyber-gas? Humans still have to go to the polls in New Hampshire and vote.

Clinton was a dead-man-walking in NH in EVERY last minute POLL in 1992-I should know,I was there...still have those papers,wrapped in plastic.O8)

but my question isnt being answered shrug. :shrug: It was Governor Dean's oppositon to this policy that made him famous IMO, and kudos to him but I wanna know what a Dean adminstration would do to prevent future Iraqs, I know what the Kucinich doctrine would be, and its appealing to me.

It's one more reason the GOP wants him to run aagainst. He will make Bush look like a responsible CiC by comparison.

:shrug: after all being against IWR is what got him fame and air time, I wanna know what the Dean Doctrine will be. How will he prevent future Iraqs? I know how my candiate will. :shrug: maybe its my bias but I hardly ever hear about what he will do to prevent Iraqs.

this lie about anger costing liberals the presidency in 2004, they are trying to defuse the Democratic bomb... but baby, we will not be defused. we are going to guarantee that that monkey from the east coast via texas will NEVER be elected president. he wasn't elected the first time, and he won't be elected ever.

Tone Deaf Rivals Question Dean's Campaign Strategy in Iowa

Yesterday, Dean called on democrats to defeat energy bill. Would that be anger or substance?

An alternate story line, "men of little substance don't know it when they see it."

after all, the media picks up anything the rethugs have pre-programmed into their systems.

and doesn't repeat anything rational, reasonable, or truthful.

...... and we aren't going to win the WH being Howdy Doody either, Mr. Edwards. Not that there is ANY danger of you carrying the torch.

the damn Dems are going to go after one of their own more than they ever did Bush.

Great going, guys.

I can tell you that I'm going to support the Democratic nominee, whoever it is. I want Dean and I think he offers a helluva lot more than "anger". I like Kerry and I believe he is quite capable of rising above just issues to offer something inspiring to all Americans. Frankly, I don't know a whole lot about Clark, but he strikes me as someone who can lead the Dems to victory against Bush. Etc.

I just don't understand how Democrats can get so fired up over tearing each other down but comply with what ever Bush wants. It's baffling.

I don't care who the nominee is, and yes I am a Deam supported, but I will support with money and time, the nominee of the party. It is imparative that ALL DEMS come together and defeat dubya and make him a one term appointee!!!

And DEAN has a message - it's solid. And because he's angry and outspoken about it, I feel HE therefore has the passion to carry it out. We need to be the party with an ANGRY MESSAGE. A clear angry message. Right now, for me, that's Dean...may change later, but that's where I am right now.

They might be doing better if they didn't spend all their time knocking down strawmen.

Gore was a pathological liar

the strikers of the early 20th century were angry about being shit on by the Robber Barons...they turned that anger into a better life.

I am tired of trying being told not be angry or upset...

anger to get it for them.

He used compassioin.

I've heard him speak many times and he gives extremely articulate responses to questions about how he will do things differently in order to get us back on the right track for the economy and peace.

Edwards and Kerry are simply jealous of Dean's popularity. So, next I guess they'll say we supporters should not be angry either. :eyes:

politics are actually some of the most conservative of a Democratic candidate in hears.

If nominated he might be the most conservative Democratic president of the last 100 years. He's a deregulator, privatizers who thinks civil rights law has run its course (and in 95 thought class should drive AA, rather than race) and he doesn't have a democrat's enthusiasm for tax policy being used to promote policy, and few of his policies help the middle and working class to amass economic power, and his education policy primarily benefits Wall St investors.

That's what anger does. It makes you not think straight. Hitler used anger and the people didn't realize what it was they were getting themself into.

That's why politicians use anger. If they had great policies, they'd run on the great policies instead.

Hitler played to the anger of the people. Hitler manipulated and directed that anger for political purposes in a foul way. Dean, from what I can see, is genuinely angry about the course this administration has pursued. And, he's right to be angry. He's not directing or manipulating the anger of the people of America, he's giving it a voice.

Politics as usual in this country is no longer acceptable. Shrub and the neocons are criminal. A complacent congress and fascist attorney general are no longer acceptable. It is time to shake things up and bring about some real change.

And, yes, Dean makes stands on policy, he stood against the war in Iraq, he stands for universal health care for every American under the age of 21, he stands against letting special interests drive politics in Washington, he stands for a balanced economy that doesn't give tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans. I could go on for pages about his stand on policy matters. Guess what? He's pissed, many Americans are pissed and that is fueling a drive for change. The only reason you see people calling for the anger to be toned down is they realize it's reaching a point it may well explode and they don't know what will happen if that occurs. Personally, I suspect there is a genuine fear in the powers that be that we may be facing a genuine revolt. The thing is, we wouldn't be in this state if ShrubCo hadn't been forced upon us. So, no, I'm not calming down, and I am voting for the one candidate who gives voice to my outrage and who promises to bring about a real and genuine change.

What's your model of success? Goldwater? McGovern?

As a young man visiting New Orleans, Abraham Lincoln saw a slave being auctioned on a slave block. Later, he shared what took place in
his heart that day. “There was a rising hatred inside of me against slavery, and I swore if someday I could do something about it, I would do something to the White House" where, as President, he declared on the first day of 1863 that all slaves were free.

I hear your point. I am saying righteous anger can accomplish good things, and we Americans have good cause for outrage.

edited for punctuation

We're not talking about being personally motivated by anger. I know that FDR HATED fascists and LOVED making life hard for the fascists on Wall St.

However, neither FDR nor Lincoln won elections by running on hatred and anger.

either FDR or Lincoln won by running campaigns centered in anger or hatred. I do think anger was a powerful motivating force for people during Lincoln's time. It may have been a powerful motivating force during FDR's time, I'm simply weak on that period in history.

It is utter folly, though, for politicians to ignore the source of people's anger, it is wrong to demand they not voice their anger. One of the best things a politician can do is grasp the source of the people's anger, give it voice, and use that as a force of change. The very best thing a politician can do, in my mind, is identify a misdirected anger in the people and correct it or redirect it, although I can't think of a single example of that happening in history.

The anger in this case, though, is not misdirected. It has cause and it is just.

"We need to offer answers, not just anger," Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.)

All he's been doing for months is bitching about Howard Dean. Everything he accuses Dean of (anger, declining public funding, etc) he in fact does himself. No wonder people hate politicians.

Maybe if some of the other candidates could remain positive instead of taking every little opportunity (like a Jefferson-Jackson which is supposed to be uplifting) to nip at Dean's heels, we might actually listen to what they have to say about policy and actually like them.

Dean is the one that acted like a complete ass last night. Not Kerry or Edwards or any other candidate. The writer of this article chose to completely distort last night's event. People ought to be asking why.

See my post below. Dean was horrible and went after the entire Democratic Party from the time he opened his mouth. If this is his standard stump speech, no wonder the rest of the candidates hate his guts. Every candidate and speaker talked about unity and solutions. Not Howard. Oh hell no. He continued his Democrats are weaklings campaign. You know, build yourself up by tearing others down, a sure sign of an emotional cripple. After last nights immature display by Dean, I'll never buy into the poor Howard is being picked on again. Fuck Howard Dean. I will never in a million years vote for this ass.

For all the good it will do.

After last night, there's no way. I'll wait and see what 3rd party candidates are out there and make a decision. This guy is not only an egomaniac who would be just as dangerous as Bush, but his policies aren't anything I believe in anyway. He's a Rockefeller Republican, a Reagan Democrat, whatever you want to call him. Not getting my vote.

And I've never voted anything but a straight Democratic ticket for 25 years. If he's the direction the Democratic Party wants to go, it's time for me to accept that I need a new party.

or stay home. Either way, don't bother complaining.

And I intend to go to work and be part of it if the Democrats choose a compromising centrist like Dean. He's everything he's railing against, way more than the people he's attacking. I'm just one person with a vote. But as part of a movement against this rush to the right, I think my time and energy and vote would be put to better use. That's all.

Somebody posted that the Democrats should defeat the energy bill. Well no fucking kidding. Unfortunately with people like Zell Miller voting, that's not going to happen and there isn't a goddamn thing anybody can do about it. It's phony and for Dean to use something like this for his own political gain at the expense of Democrats is shameful.

After every candidate and speaker tried to turn the message into one of unity and hope, Dean still had to play the angry Democrat. Dean gets up and says "We didn't try hard enough to stop" this and that. "We" We, Howard Dean who compromised on everything all through his goverorship. Well fuck Dean. He knows there's no way to stop this stuff with people like Zell Miller in there. He continues his attack all the way through and ends up with calling Democrats a bunch of Republicans. What unity & hope. Then he ends with his embarrassing you've got the power rant.

In another thread somebody said after the call for unity, it would be embarrassing when Kerry went nuclear on Dean.

Well Dean went nuclear on the entire Democratic Party and people think that's just super. What's right for every other candidate isn't right for Dean.

He's based his entire campaign on attacking Democrats. This whole thread is in support of that, everybody should be angry at those pink tutu Democrats. Yet when other candidate's supporters try to point out that Dean is always the one who starts attacks and their candidate is only trying to point out the inconsistencies and outright lies, then we hear Dean is being picked on.

I have no idea what is going on in this country, but it sure isn't good and Howard Dean sure isn't going to provide any solutions.

What planet do you live on?

It's bullshit that the Democrats in Congress haven't been fighting against Bush. It's a lie and Dean has stirred it up into something it's not in order to get votes. If he wants to direct the anger, he ought to direct it at Bush and the Republican Party. THEY are the problem. Every Democrat directed their anger at Bush and the Republicans last night, except good ol' Howard. Maybe he doesn't want to piss off those southern flag wavers.

He doesn't give a shit that he's destroying the Democratic Party and making it next to impossible for Democratic Senators and Congressman to get elected next year. He's a gloryhound and only cares about Howard Dean. Standing up on that stage with his 5 minutes of thank you, thank you, thank you, was enough to prove that to me.

Bush and the Republican party. Kerry, Edwards and Gephardt have attacked him in turn.

The gloryhound you describe is out to change America for the better.

Tell that to the people out of jobs thanks to Bush's greedy backers, tell that to the world community who distrust and fear Bushco, tell that to the families who sacrificed loved ones for Bushco's phony freedom, tell that to those Americans who are asked to sacrifice their own personal freedoms. If you don't know what is going on in this country then you'd better start finding out. Surprised you realize that what's going on is not good. Providing solutions, let alone executing them, for the damage done is not going to be easy for anyone and that includes Mr. Bush if he manages to continue in office. Attacking democrat contenders is sure in hell not doing any good for anyone.

Maybe you should get out more.

If you're not angry, you're not paying attention.

When people stop to listen to IWR candidates telling them that a candidate shouldn't be angry, I think that makes people angry and they will turn to Dean, because he expresses exactly what they feel about this administration.

Just shows how clueless the Dem Establishment is.

Dean's campaign message is "You (that is we) have the power to take our country back from narrow minded plutocrats." "We have the power to take back the Democratic Party."

Cause Howard brought down the house.....GO DEAN !!!!

First of all, they're looking for conflict. There wasn't much. Kerry's promise to "go nuclear" against Dean ended up being a pop-gun. Which is just fine, because it was a stupid thing to promise.

And what a stupid thing for the newspapers to say. Don't be too angry? Hello, has anyone listened to the radio lately?

There was only one place where anger was on display: Fred Phelps had his sickos outside the hall with "God Hates Fags" signs. (There was another sign praising 9/11. By the way, God doesn't hate anyone, and the Bible says it is not for humans to assess how God would judge. So the guy just can't get the Bible right.) Why didn't the Washington Post write about that? (I overheard many people around me who had never seen those jerks. They were all doubly motivated to work hard for this election after seeing that junk. One woman got on her cell phone and told her friend, and her friend had the same reaction: this regime must end. Phelps is doing a great job recruiting Democrats.)

See DailyKos for my long post on my experiences at the Jefferson Jackson Dinner in Des Moines last night. (It's in the late Saturday 11/15 open thread.)

One poster asked, legitimately, when has anger led to a successful campaign. My response was: As a young man visiting New Orleans, Abraham Lincoln saw a slave being auctioned on a slave block. Later, he shared what took place in his heart that day. “There was a rising hatred inside of me against slavery, and I swore if someday I could do something about it I would do something to the White House" where, as President, he declared on the first day of 1863 that all slaves were free.

So, stop pretending we should speak in moderate tones, stop acting as though the crimes of the current administration are the consequence of minor differences in policy. We have justified cause for outrage, and we should not be seeking moderate voices to express that outrage.

His speeches were very measured. He did not run a wild-eyed campaign. He never would have stood a chance.

You're too much. What exactly is wild-eyed? :shrug:

That was the most horrible display by a Presidential candidate I have ever seen. Bush was never as embarrassing as that debacle. No wonder Arnold won, people just want an action hero to kick ass. What a goddamn nightmare.

you seem to be saying we should appeal to the moderates. I thought Gore did that in 2000. What exactly is your argument for a calm and peaceful debate with Bush/Cheney?

Forget gun laws. Forget affirmative action. Forget all those social issues, let the states decide, and vote on the economy.

Yeah, he's really got something new going on.

Gore won. Don't forget it. The last thing I want is a Democratic version of George W. Bush.

And shrub resides in the White House. Sorry, friend, it's time for a change.

GO DEAN!!!!!!!!!!