One concern with Dean...

First off, i like Dean more than any other candidate by a long shot. i will give my money and my support to him because his grassroots movement truly is revolutionary and he has very reasonable policies; however, the thing that makes him so appealing is also the thing that could make him so vulnerable. I've heard all the candidates, i know their policies, I know what they're like on the stump, and they're OK, but they are not Dean. Dean's success is clearly not an accident. However, we cannot deny his weaknesses. I tend to overlook them because I've seen and heard so much that outweighs the negative, but he is a vulnerable candidate because he doesn't sit in one place ideologically. He really is a pragmatist and that could be a problem because the mass media will grab onto the slightest misstep and try to define him by it. Now, if you are a pragmatist you should 'entertain' a whole spectrum of ways to solve a particular problem despite political ideology, but in doing that you can isolate a number of people. so, for example he wants to repeal the tax cut to pay for social services but he also considers other ways to address the problem like increasing the age of retirement by a year. therefore, he's considering supporting social services and cutting them at the same time. however, any true intellectual will tell you that a consideration is a long way off from being an endorsement. so he might consider something and he might communicate that by saying 'i would entertain such and such', but he never really endorsed it. now someone like kucinich comes along and says dean WILL raise the age to such and such and dean, knowing his intentions maybe better than his latest remarks will say 'no, i never said that' because there is a big difference between endorsing something and entertaining something. when you are an ideologue it is SO EASY to state your position and stick to it because there aren't nearly as many factors to consider. so kucinich, i don't think, understands that dean wants to have a balanced budget, AND save social security, AND have universal health care AND all the other stuff. Dean has more of a consolidated view of what needs to be done and i think he understands the dynamics of the situation because he has been in the situation, as governor, where he has had to balance needs against each other and make some tough decisions. Believe me, I used to be a naive socialist myself - actually, i really miss those days. But, what really takes courage and what really takes political savvy is to be able to weigh the fervor of your ideology against the reality of the political environment without sacrificing your integrity. So, it is extremely easy to say he's just a wolf in sheep's clothing, because a complex mind is an unpredictable one too and some might try to classify it as being untrustworthy. anyway, i guess that could be the difficulty in expanding his appeal. There's a reason why intellectuals don't make good politicians and Dean could have too much of that in him, but he could also have just the right combination, at least I hope so.

and for what it's worth, Dean has almost single-handedly made me optimistic about the future of our party and our country.

these are the clips that really struck me. please take a listen, if you haven't already. i'll shut up now

an interview on npr...
http://www.onpointradio.org/shows/2002/07/20020703_a_main.asp

an interview with The Nation...
http://stream.realimpact.net/rihurl.ram?file=webactive/radionation/rn20030709.rm

a video of a speech in san fran...
http://www.howarddean.tv/clips/SanFran_DeanSpeech02.mov

a public tv special about his campaign...
http://www.nhptv.org/outlook/sprogramdate.asp?prog_num_id=668

a video of a speech in front of the california teacher's union
http://www.howarddean.tv/clips/CaliTeachersAssoc_Dean.mov

He is tired of some ideologies getting in the way of helping this country.

Yet he has his own ideals, ones we can respect and ones a lot of the American people will respect. Look out in the general election!

I agree with you wholheartedly. I have become very confused by the meanings of the words "liberal" and "conservative" lately. The conclusion I have drawn is that they are just measures of flexibility. Oddly enough, as far as flexibility goes, Dean is much more "liberal" than DK. At the same time, he applies his flexible mind to achieving a goal that is fairly conservative in nature. He's a problem solver, and his mind is open to alternatives. You're right that considering an alternative is certainly not the same as supporting it.
I like DK's positions, but his rigidity makes me very uncomfortable. A singular approach applied to any and all related circumstances is not an appropriate approach to leading a country.

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

interesting perspective.

I am sorry, but the last thing Kucinich radiates is flexibility. When one thinks flexible, one does not picture a person standing at a podium angrily bellowing and making totally uncompromising statements. How is talk of working aroiund the Supreme Court flexible? How are "line in the sand" policy decisions flexible? How is it flexible to promise things (repealing laws) that the President cannot even do flexible?

Admire Kucinich, admire his policies and his stance, admire even his anger and his heuvos grandes, but do not call him flexible.

I thought the poster was saying that Kucinich is inflexible in his position on issues, while Dean is flexible. I was just asking which issues.

His speaking style is irrelevant to his ability to negotiate and compromise. However you are picturing your ideal of a flexible person is irrelevant as well.

indicates he is willing to compromise on anything. He speaks in nothing but absolutes. Cancelling NAFTA, repealing the Patriot Act (which he cannot even do), repealing Taft/Hartly (never gonna happen).

:shrug:

"...however, any true intellectual will tell you that a consideration is a long way off from being an endorsement. so he might consider something and he might communicate that by saying 'i would entertain such and such', but he never really endorsed it. now someone like kucinich comes along and says dean WILL raise the age to such and such and dean, knowing his intentions maybe better than his latest remarks will say 'no, i never said that' because there is a big difference between endorsing something and entertaining something. "

http://www.msnbc.com/news/912159.asp

 Russert: Well, in 1995, when you were advocating that position, you were asked how would you balance the budget if we had a constitutional amendment...
       Dean: Yeah.
       Russert: ...calling for that, and this is what Howard Dean said. “The way to balance the budget, Dean said, is for Congress to cut Social Security, move the retirement age to 70, cut defense, Medicare and veterans pensions, while the states cut almost everything else. ‘It would be tough but we could do it,’ he said.”
       Dean: Well, we fortunately don’t have to do that now.
       Russert: We have a $500 billion deficit.
       Dean: But you don’t have to cut Social Security to do that.
       Russert: But why did you have to do it back then?
       Dean: Well, because that was the middle of—I mean, I don’t recall saying that, but I’m sure I did, if you have it on your show, because I know your researchers are very good.
       Russert: Well, Miles Benson is a very good reporter for the Newhouse News.
       Dean: Yes, he is. No, no, no. I’m sure I did. I’m not denying I said that. I have...
       Russert: But you would no longer cut Social Security?
       Dean: But you don’t—no. I’m not ever going to cut Social Security benefits.
       Russert: Would you raise retirement age to 70?
       Dean: No. No.