the Dean Appeal

According to various news articles, Dean appears to be the front runner. GOPers are delighted, they see Dean as an easy candidate for Bush to beat. The DLC is concerned - they see Dean v. Bush as a repeat of the Nixon-McGovern race.

Both are missing the obvious. Just what is the appeal of Dean? Why is he the "front runner" and not a more moderate Democratic candidate?

For most of us, we have seen various Democratic members speak out against Bush, only to "cave-in" and apoligize hours later. Time and time again we are angered and frustrated by the Democratic party's lack of balls and spine. Gelded Jellyfish is a term that comes to mind (no balls and spineless).

So just what is the appeal of Dean? Dean has tapped into our anger at the current administration and the frustration with the Democratic Party.

Polls do show that the majority of voters favor moderate candidates. But, being moderate doesn't mean being apologetic - this just feeds into the overall image that the Democratic Party is a party of weiners and whiners that cave-in at the slightest hint of opposition.

When the Texas Killer D's bolted out of Texas in protest - we cheered. Why? When Congresswoman Pelosi orchestrated a week of hell in the House of Representatives - we cheered. Why?

We cheer because FINALLY there appears to be at least a few Democratic members that have spine, that have balls, that have the guts to stand up, speak out and not apologize for it a few days later.

I watched a recent broadcast of the DLC conference in Philadelphia, PA. There was some criticism of Bush's mis-administration, but it was diluted with soft language and moderate tones trying to seek a "middle". Unfortunately the "middle" that the Democratic Party is seeking is like an egg balanced on a barn roof - it will fall whichever way the wind blows. This leads to an image of indecision, whishy-washness, and of being a party of gelded jellyfish.

Dean has the guts to stand up and speak out - this is his appeal. The Democratic party, as a whole, needs to take a few lessons from Dean.

-------------------

I know that Kuchinich is also standing up and speaking out - but I focused on Dean because he has been able to garner wider media attention. That being said - flame away

The fact that you mentioned that he is a fighter too is good.

were the "front runner" instead of Dean, the post would have been titled the Kuchinich Appeal :)

the point being, whether it's Dean or Kuchinich or someone else in the "lead" - the Democratic Party needs to stand up, speak out and show some guts

They know their weak point is the war on terror and homeland security. GOPers appear to have a lock on this issue. But the Dems can break that lock if, as a whole, they start showing some guts.

There's no reason why the Democratic Party can't be "strong" on defense and security - but they keep apologizing and bending over. Going to war, especially pre-emptively, should be the last resort - however this doesn't mean that talk, discussions and negotiations is being chicken-sh*t - quite the contrary - seeking peaceful means to settle problems requires a great deal more courage and skill as opposed to just blowing some other country to smithereens.

He bashed everyone of them who gave Bush carte blanche for the war. He bashed Bush for even thinking to ask and not be a better CIC and report back to the congress. He also is one to watch. He also is the anti-jellyfish. There are three of them, and I will say this again, Iwould like all of them except Liberman to be the Pres, VP or a cabinet position. I know Al Sharpton would be the most dynamic Press Sect. this country has or will ever have!!!!

and I'm impressed with him - but he hasn't announced if he's going to run

I think Clark would give AWOL a run for his money. The question is - is Clark willing to jump into the mudpit of politics?

The Dems can easily rip the Repugs to shreds on security issues.

First of all, Clinton actually did a better job recognising the threat of terrorism on US soil, and I recall a very subdued Millennium celebration in the US because of increased threats. When Bush first came to the Whitehouse, he dropped the ball on everything Clinton worked on, including the priority of terrorism. Bush ran like a coward on 911 and has been exploiting it to set his own agenda since. Aside from lack of funding for domestic security, he has only served to increase hostility towards the United States and insulted and alienated all of our essential allies - as well as international organizations, such as the UN that serve as a integral global force. It is painfully clear that our aggression against another country was based on inflated fabrications and now drain the US economic resources and leave our young soldiers suspended in a hostile and increasingly dangerous environment.

The problem with the Democrats is their unwillingness to continually blast through the Republican illusions that they are tough, and expose them for the careless fools they are, risking American lives and security based on some false imminent threat. As if it was all some sort of pretend game, dressing up in jumpsuits and playing army man.

The democrats must wrest back reality from the propaganda machine of the right and not compete or frame the issue by those terms.

I thought you might be interested that Kucinich was at the CDC (California Democratic Council) Convention this weekend. He came by our Dean table, stopped, shook my hand and said, "Good luck." In return, I said, "Thank you, Congressman, good luck to you as well." He's my #2 but I thought that was a class act thing to do.

He is the best thing that has happened to the Dems in a long time.
The primary race wouldn't even be news right now without him.
Politics for the 2004 election has started in force extremely early compared to past election cycles. Even Chris Mathews stated it as such the other night.

at the right time.

The dem party needs to take a lesson from Dean? I don't know how a political party as big as the democrats can take a message

it's made up of individuals who think for themselves. The party doesn't take messages

Although apparently ambiguity is something that the Dean people have a real problem with.

From what I've heard, Dean is DLC. So what does that mean, that Dean is in lockstep with Evan Bayh? No, and neither are any of the other so-called DLC candidates. They all think for themselves, and some of them might use the image of being a moderate to get themselves elected, something you can't seem to understand must happen to change anything

of the Democratic Party. They represent the ANTI-LIE Wing of the Democratic Party.

There was some criticism of Bush's mis-administration, but it was diluted with soft language and moderate tones trying to seek a "middle". Unfortunately the "middle" that the Democratic Party is seeking is like an egg balanced on a barn roof - it will fall whichever way the wind blows. This leads to an image of indecision, whishy-washness, and of being a party of gelded jellyfish.

This "middle" or swing-voter was polled as being more critical of the Iraq mugging and raping than members of both parties. I can't really imagine anybody being more critical than I on that issue.

and when Dean lied about Edwards voting for a tax-cut, that didn't get him into the pro-lie wing?

I don't buy that the GOP wants to run against Dean. It'd be much easier to run against some of the others.

Dean is getting the attention because he is saying things that Dems and others want to hear, and he says them so they can be understood. He keeps in mind that the press doesn't always play fair, and avoids saying things that can be taken out of context or that need a lot of explanation. He's hitting all the right notes with Mainstream USA, and takes care not to say things that will scare them.

The Dean supporters I know were supporters before the war. His being anti-war doesn't hurt any, and I don't think he is "McGovernable." People want healthcare; they want to the government to stop hemorrhaging money (OUR money); they're tired of having a bloodthirsty monkey being the face of America in the world.

He is deffinetely a solid candidate.
Bush sucks, Repugs worry.

it really means they hope that they get nominated?

you'll say anything to dismiss obvious signs of dean's UNelectability

Why would Media Inc, the Voice of the Corporatocracy, give Dean all this unearned press unless the owners were eager to have him as the 'opposition' candidate? (I call it 'unearned' press because others are speaking out at least as clearly and strongly as Dean is, but getting no press).

free air? The media are definitely pushing him. Be afraid. Be very afraid.

Usually, the press prints stories because they think people will be interested in them (which will increase the audience, which will sell ads, which will generate profit). Undeniable, there is propaganda in the American press, but not everything is a conspiracy.

The same appeal that radringe is talking about (and, although you may not feel it, many, many others do) lends itself to stories that are appealing to many readers.

Specifically Dennis? If the only thing required is that it be a 'good story', then why is it all about Dean and no one else? What makes him alone a 'good story'?

Also Dean provides an actual outlet, a way for us angry Democrats to get involved in politics "hands on" again. This is something else that Kucinich is also doing (my second pick) too.

Every year the party has been bleeding members to the Right and to the Left (the Greens) because those two parties allow a lot more personal involvement. The Democrats have become stuffed with older members in leadership who refuse to step aside when their time is over. They've made it a chore to become involved. That's something the Dean/Kucinich supporters, the RW, and the Greens all understand. You have to keep the people involved or they'll split.

Like him or not, Dean is changing a lot of things for the better for the long term of the Democratic Party. We're going to make things better even if we don't win just by making people a part of the political process again.

Many of us became involved in politics for the first time after Selection 2000, and now look where some of us are now. A whole movement started that brought people into politics because of their contempt over the Selection.

The Dean Phenomena is the second wave of this tide change in liberal politics.

there is definite "right" and "left" to the political spectrum and it moves in one direction or another as a whole. This movement causes the "middle" (or moderate position) to shift.

If the spectrum moves to the right, the "middle" also shifts towards the right, same thing when the spectrum moves to the left.

there appears to be a "20-year" shift - the theory is that approximately every 20 years the political spectrum shifts to the right or left. The 60's and early 70's was shift to the left with the issues of civil rights, women's liberation and the Viet Nam war being in the forefront.

Perhaps being worn down over protests and all the changes that occured - the political spectrum shifted to the right and moved into the Reagan years. I submit that if the economy was doing moderately well, that Clinton would not have been elected and we would have had 4 more years of Poppy Bush. Clinton was elected because Poppy screwed up.

AWOL's 'selection' mobilized those of us that little or no interest in politics - and this is causing a fledgling start to moving the political spectrum back to the left. When will we see a more pronounced left will depend on us and leadership.

Except perhaps on the issue of the war, and perhaps he speaks with passion. The other day I saw Lieberman defending the Iraq war, and I was struck by what a dull and passionless speaker he was. Maybe it was just a bad clip, because I did not remember that from 2000, but I probably never saw him on TV before.

I am probably for Dean for sentimental reasons more than anything - because I like Vermont, and because he got the most press for opposing the war. Also, I agree with what you said, that after the "me too" campaign of 2002, it is nice to see someone who is at least paying lip service to the idea of being a classic Democrat. Maybe it was just my area, but what I heard in 2002 was Republicans saying "Vote for me, because I will cut taxes and government waste and fight terrorism" and the Democratic candidate said "me too". To me that was like Coke changing their formula so they would taste more like Pepsi. More people wanted the classic Coke.

I like Dean because he is an outsider...not part of the washington elite...we have big problems in this country, and they are not all just because of the republicans...40+ years of defecit spending (for example) is not just the republicans fault (though they seem to be accerlating it)...there are many other examples.

How can Kerry, Lieberman, Gephart, Graham and to a lesser extent edwards, who have been part of the problem for decades, actually think they can provide any new perspective on anything? If they had great ideas, and great leadership qualities, they had ample opportunity to fix the problems already...too much blood/dirt on all of their hands...we need new solutions and new perspective to fix some old problems.

campaign personna during 2000 campaign was that he was an outsider...

Would this claim work for Dean in light of AWOL's dismal performace as a Washington "outsider"?

Looking back at a couple of other claims made by AWOL during the 2000 campaign. There were criticisms about his "experience" - he was only gov. of Texas for 6 years and no other experience in government. He countered this by saying that Texas was a big state, Texas was a diverse state and Texas bordered a foreign country (Mexico).

Ok, so Dean has many more years of experience as governor than AWOL had, and Vermont does border a foreign country (Canada), but Vermont is NOT a big state nor is its population as diverse as Texas. This can be used against Dean.

AWOL also claimed to be a uniter...this appealed to many people when at that time most Americans were tired of the Clinton bashing and partisan sniping. IMHO, we are no more united than we were in 2000, if anything we are even more "dis-united"

Reagan's appeal was that "he gave us back our pride...made us proud to be Americans" - Can Dean or any of the other candidates unite us and make all of proud to be united Americans?

We've been yearning for many many years for what I call a "political messiah" - someone with guts, passion and the ability to get things done. Is Dean that person? Is Kuchinich, Clark or any other candidate out there that person? Or is our support of a particular candidate steming from an "anyone but bush" sentiment?

This little PNAC adventure is not the cakewalk advertised by the junta and public opinion is, slowly, beginning to turn against it as the manufactured reasons for the invasion change and the body bags pile up.

Health care costs, which are a bigger percentage of many people's personal budget than taxes, are ever increasing and as layoff continue and more people lose coverage, it will be a bigger issue.

Core values of this republic, such as the importance of separation of church and state (which Dean is a firm believer in), I hope will be coming back in vogue as the radical policies of Smirk's handlers continue to backfire.

But the main issue, you pointed out, is Dean's willingness to confront Smirk directly, unapologetically and without hesitation on his policies. Dean does not treat Smirk with kid gloves and does not bow down to the MoronInChief.

Smirk debating Dean should be a very entertaining and interesting thing to watch. I hope it comes to pass.

So many of us have had it with the hand-wringing and half-assed criticisms of the Boy King. It seems our loyal opposition spent a lot of time over the past two and a half years helping Team Bush run our country into the ground.

And whaddayaknow....Dean starts to bring in big bucks and get lots of attention for standing up and saying I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore! and well it seems others are doing the same now too (and I mean even some who aren't running for Prez).

Sure Dean's garnering lots of media attention. He's made quite a stir utilizing the internet as he has. He's the from-outa-nowhere candidate and when you come from nowhere and make a splash, well that tends to get attention.

I am sorry for all those who fall for Rove's rudimentary plan. I can't help but slap my thigh over those proclaiming Dean's unelectability who are supporting Kucinich (for one). He's a great fighter but I think if I were to look up the word Unelectable, I'd see his picture.

As to the other candidates, well, I see a lot of other things too, from the candidates and among the supporters. Sense of entitlement for one. Take Kerry for instance. I have often seen it declared that he has put in all these years and he's due. haha!! Let me tell you, I have seen tlakingshitheads trying to paint Dean as a left-wing extremist when the facts do not suport this at all. Easily countered. Kerry, well, disregarding this time of the Bush Regime, he will far too easily be painted as way too left for the country where it stands now. I do not think his military service will give him the free ride some seem to think it will. The Simian was an AWOL NG and it didn't impede him at all.

Just some thoughts. Good to see you as always Rad--hope all's well with you!

Julie

if taken the time to read his position on issues, most people would find that he is more moderate than a far-left-winger

Unfortunately, he's currently being painted as a far-left-winger and very few people take the time to look deeper than sound-bites, spin and commercials. This will hurt him.

The far-left-winger image is derived from his anti-Iraq Invasion position. This is also his appeal to so many of us on the DU - he was willing to stand up and speak out and NOT back down when the howls of GOPerland filled the air.

I am a former Massachusetts resident, and John Kerry was my Senator. I generally liked him, had no problems with him - but he didn't inspire me. We'll have to see what Clark decides, but given the current field of candidates, I think Kerry is going to get the nomination. The DLC and the rest of the Democratic politic machines are too afraid of Dean or Kuchinich for that matter to let either of them be the presidential candidate.

Yet, someone who is able to rouse the passions, get people excited about the issues is just the person the Democratic party needs to shed the "repug-lite" image.

Bob Graham, I do know, has guts. He is blasting away at the root of the evil shrub in the WH.

Yet you don't even mention him. Why is that? I know it's dangerous to stand along side someone who is a target. Is that what it is? Are people just afraid to be to close to the truth? Just wondering....

but it's not being heard loudly enough by the public - and the general public doesn't look past soundbites, spin, commercials and quick "wrap-ups" on the nightly news.

Dean's blasting is louder and that makes the news.

I hadn't seen or heard Dean blasting away. I've seen Shelby more on the news than Dean.

But tell me....what specifically does Dean say about 9/11 and the intelligence failures?

good straightforward post.

It certainly makes us feel great when someone tears down Bush, but is that gonna be enough? That is what many of us centrists on this board are worried about.