Best Dean article I've read. Some (pleasant?) surprises.

"He enjoys watching New Yorkers’ attitudes change when they discover he’s not a hick from the state of Ben & Jerry’s. “New Yorkers are tough; they want to know what you’ve got,” says Dean. “But I’ve never had people open their hearts to me more than when they discover that my wife is Jewish and I’m from New York. They look at you completely differently. It’s flabbergasting.”
<snip>
(at the Dean home in Burlington)
"He leads me up the stairs, covered with ripped ancient green shag carpet, to the sunny living area, with a soaring A-frame ceiling. He makes me a cup of herbal tea and introduces his gray three-legged cat, Katie (she had cancer). Excusing himself to join his son outside (shoveling snow off of a back yard hockey rink), Dean is half out of the room when he turns to say, “Feel free to look around.”

This is such an astonishing offer from a man running for president that I toss it back at him: “You mean, look in the medicine cabinets and open the drawers?” Dean looks startled for a second, then grins and says, “I have no secrets.” And then he leaves."



http://www.newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/news/politics/national/n_8376/index.html

Nothing to hide.

has written to his staff and his staff has written to him? Can I see every memo he wrote to his clients and his clients wrote to him? No. Then what does he have to hide. The 'records' Dean has had sealed are those kinds of records. Every speech he has given, every law he has signed, every law he has vetoed, and the schedule that he kept are OPEN records. So when will we see Edward's memos Huh?

If you want to make this about Edwards (which it isn't) consider this:

What does Edwards have to hide? When he ran for Senator they had a bunch of doctors and lawyers look through every case he ever worked on and nobody could find anything untoward. In fact, what he did as a lawyer helped him win that race.

Now let's get back to Dean. Here's my theory. Clearly he wanted his records sealed because he's trying on a bunch of different public personas to win the nomination. He wanted to be the liberal firebrand, so he didn't want his business-friendly policies to see the light of day. He doesn't want facts to confuse the image he's trying to create.

As for whether this sort of behaviour is standard, I'll leave it to the people who know more about VT politics. Does every governor ask for the ten year seal?

I know that, with the Federal gov't, Clinton made it a point to reveal everything and ask for no privilege, and he tried to get as much into the public hands as possible. Nothing to hide.

Is this even true?

What does this have to do with Dean sealing his governor's records.

If it's true, don't vote for Edwards. But, that doesn't mean it makes sense to ignore the implications of Dean sealing his own records. It would be nice if Dean were more like Clinton in terms of not hiding his records.

Nobody measures up to the absolute standards Dean haters use to trash Dean.

If you don't want to hear about them, just ignore the posts referring to them.

Where's the hypocrisy?

exact thing that Dean is doing (and that all 9 of the Democratic candidates are doing). Note also that Bush* has sealed anything and everything and is, possibly, the most secretive president in history.

alledging that Edwards does the same, and I'm saying, I don't even know that he's doing the same (do you have a link?), and this really isn't about Edwards. It's about this article which might be spinning against the story about the governor's records.

And as for other candidates (past and present) -- which we do know about -- Clinton did the opposite and the Bushes have done the same.

My coffee came out my nose.

Ouch.

http://www.mnftiu.cc/mnftiu.cc/war.html

I believe he's now published in Rolling Stone...

First EVERY Vermont governor. Yes I meant the word EVERY, gets 6 years per the Supreme Court. For the math challenged that would give Dean until 2009. And no I won't provide this link due to it having been discussed endlessly on this forum.

Second, You can look at EVERY law the man passed, EVERY potential law the man vetoed, EVERY appointment he made, his schedule. The only things you can't see are his memos to his staff, his staffs memos to him, his letters to constituents, and his constituents letters to him. Again when will Edwards be showing this stuff? If Dean has something to hide due to not showing what Edwards also won't show then what does Edwards have to hide? Well?

Oh and BTW Clinton asked for Executive Priviledge on many occasions during his term. Starr went to the Supreme Court on that issue. He also refused to give Congress documents on many occasions sighting that doctrine. So you are wrong on that too.

Dean asked for more than the law guaranteed, and got less than he asked for, right? Didn't he ask for 20 years?

And again, this isn't about Edwards (and I'm not conceding that Edwards wouldn't give this stuff if asked...has anyone asked for it? Didn't think so.)

I think you're confused about Starr and privilege. Which incident are you thinking of specifically?

Clinton didn't want to feed the beast with documents a few times, but they ended up waiving most of their arguments and divulging everything that was asked for.

over Secret Service Priviledge (which Clinton lost), there was the whole case over whether he could be sued in the first place (he also lost that). Again, I agree with what Clinton did but you evidently don't.

You are grasping at straws.

When you produce Edwards' private memos is when I'll take your theories on this seriously.

seen recently.

"When _I_ produce Edwards's records"???

This statement presumes so much (including a stupid reader). I don't even know where to start. This is just silly.

Just two minutes after the start of a pro-Dean thread, you swooped right in there to bash him -- and on a topic totally unrelated to the article under discussion.

What an asset you are to John Edwards' campaign! </sarcasm>

I'm Edwards all the way, now, what with the incredible supporting commentary of his post.

<sarcasm off>

"I have nothing to hide" article is to counter spin the issue about his Governor's records.

Just thought I'd point that out.

Last I checked, there are still 9 people running, and the supporters of other canddates are still allowed to call them as they see them.

when edwards has washed all that blood off his hands will ya?


oh, and nudge us when he gets over 5% nationally...

any criticism of Dean is "well, your candidate...." or "well, Bush is much worse..."

It might feel like a nice way to stifle the internet dicussion, but this isn't the way voters' brains work.

What do you think the average voter is going to think when the hear that Dean did something that Bush does all the time? They're not going to say, well Kucinich did X or Edwards did Y. And if the argument is who's worse at hiding their record, Dean or Bush? Or who had a live of more privilege, Dean or Bush? Or who had a more underhanded way of avoiding combat, Dean or Bush? Or whose father was higher up in the CIA or had a better Wall St job...well, the game will be lost if it reaches that.

AP doesn't do anything in this post to advocate for Edwards, but that's not a requirement just because he has an Edwards avatar. Whatever his motivation may be (I suspect he sees some benefit for his candidate in raising doubts about the frontrunner -- fine), he raises a valid point. And we can rest assured that if he's raising it, the repukes and the media will too sooner or later.

This should be good practice for us (those of us who wish to see Dean continue to do well). We need a response (better to shape it here) that answers:

1) What records were sealed and for how long.
2) How does this compare to other governors when they left office.
3) What does Dean say was his rational for this. What was the reason?

Anything that points the finger at another candidate is a non-answer at this point.

Latest Zogby poll:

Dean 38%
Kerry 17%
Gephardt 6%
Lieberman 6%
Edwards 4%
CLARK (not even declared a DEMOCRAT) 2%
All others - 1%

Throw it in. He's toast. You know, I know, and everyone else who has money to support a campaign knows, that anyone below double digits after August is a complete waste of money.

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=729

And if Dean wins the nomination, I have serious doubts about whether the Democrats will win in 2004. So I'll just keep making my arguments and observations until it looks like Dean's won the nomination.

It's too early to count anybody out and if there is anything significant in the poll you cite beyond Dean's tremendous momentum, it's that Edwards was the only other candidate who made gains.

Don't forget, Dean was at 4% nationewide just three months ago. (Time/CNN by Harris Interactive, 5/23: http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04dem.htm)

The article goes on and I think one point (not usable for bashing tho' so you likely missed it) was the lack of pretention. Did you read the description? Going out to help shovel some snow?

I wonder, does Edwards have any crappy carpeting or does he help out with the outdoor maintanence of his home?

To you, apparently, the point was anything that mayby you could latch onto as a bash-point.

Wanna make a positive difference? Post some great stuff about the candidate you support. Want to make a negative difference? Keep doin' what you're doin'.

Julie--who wonders why some can't understand why we're in "political wilderness".......

Because I have the Edwards logo? This is not an argument about whether Dean does or does not have something to hide?

...that suggested people should remove their candidate's avatar before posting negatively about another candidate. Otherwise, the negative posts reflects poorly on your guy and does nothing but sour people's opinion against your guy.

So, what exactly do you think you accomplished by making every other post in this thread a rag on Dean? Do you really think you changed anyone's opinion? Your case was too lame for that to happen.

Several of the other Dem candidates have learned that attacking Dean tends to backfire, because all it does is rally his supporters to fight even harder. Maybe someday you'll be sophisticated enough to realize this, too.

trying to defend against the criticism will have to use the search feature to figure out to which candidate they need to divert the criticism.

I'm not running from the fact that I like Edwards. And I'm not saying anything that isn't so obvious. When you post the quote "I have nothing to hide" in a post about Dean, you're going to have to resolve that statement with the story about the Governor's records.

date of the article. I haven't opened the link posted, but I read the article months and months and months ago.

So much for your little theory.

Eloriel

From the February 24, 2003 issue of New York Magazine.

Eloriel

One line in an entire article and it's an "I have nothing to hide" article?

If it wasn't the media trying to spin in Dean's favour, perhaps it's the person who posted this article and decided the line in the article "I have nothing to hide" was so significant that it features prominently in his or her post.

if he could prevent it. Politics 101...not a Jerry Springer episode.


Controlling the info is the most basic of all campaign designs. Winning is first...revolution next!!!


Dean '04...

think it will work. Just my opinion.

He could open the records. Inevitably, there will be the business-friendly memo or two. Now, it's clear that the Dean supporters are completely capable of dismissing anything which casts a negative light on the candidate. So what's he worried about?

People I have encountered.

So since the reasons Dean is having his records sealed is written in the explainations above I understand it better than from someone who is constantly on the Dean bash wagon.

My TRIBE is better than YOUR tribe.

Please.

it!

It is amusing that you are so-so certain that your tribe is in all ways superior.

In this instance, you do not speak truth. You speak opinion. That and nothing more.

And if this makes you angry enough to respond yet again, it will amuse me even more.

:D

Please.

you're talkin' trash.

Have you learned nothing from the way the GOP seizes on even the smallest, most inoccuous item and twists it into a scandal? Just look at the way they plastered Al Gore over the silliest little things.

Dean is smart not to provide the GOP with fodder for their lies and scandal mill. At the same time, the public records contain ample detail to provide voters with information to judge the his performance as governor.

it's to construct a firmer persona, based on facts, that's impervious to manipulation by the press. I don't see how hiding your record as governor helps achieve a firmer persona.

him with being my candidate! I take this very seriously!

And Dean has plenty of open records for us to look at.

Let everyone else open all of their's who are casting the first stones.

The entire political and law making process in Vermont is open to the public. Politicians couldn't hide anything up here if they tried. The only thing sealed are personal communications. I imagine a lot of it is letters people wrote to him for and against Civil Unions. If he unseals those records it could cause harm to people. Everything Dean ever did as governor is public record. Our press has reported on everything and one of the states leading journalists (who has been both critical and fair) has said there's nothing in those records to be concerned about. Can't recall his name, but he was interviewed not that long ago on a news show.

I like his personal priorities, too.

As a physician, I'm sure he could afford new carpet. But what the hell - who cares? "This is me, warts and all." Refreshing.

Compare that to a Elizabeth Dole, who I'm sure would never allow anyone inside her house unless it were spit-polished with a toothbrush.

Or *, who would hide all the liquor bottles if the RR came visitin', making sure to leave a dog-eared Bible out on the table. Ugh. It's all show and phony-ness.

himself right before the writer got there to
look down to earth. Then he went ahead and
taped that cat Katie's leg up under her for
sympathy and all those things. Don't trust that
Howard Dean.

I think there's another one in either Time or Newsweek that contains a photo of the Deans' kitchen.

An insightful look into Howard Dean, the man. The more I am finding out about him, the more I am loving him. While I am familiar with the policies he is putting forth, it is nice to get a rather personal glimps into his character.

Will it ever stop?

It was the first time I considered Dean seriously. At the time it was wishful thinking: wouldn't it be nice to have a President who was down to earth, principled, and passionate. I remember thinking that this was the kind of President we would have if we lived in the good and just America that I was taught to love as a child. Imagine, a president who would be responsive to the needs of the American people, appealing to their noblest instincts, without pandering to their basest ones. I didn't think Dean was perfect, but his flaws had an openness about them which struck me as very human. This is a quality I've only rarely seen in a politician.

I dismissed the fantasy of President Dean then because I didn't think it was practical. There was too much at stake for me to engage in idle daydreaming. A harsh reality calls for harsh decisions. So I decided to keep an eye on him, but essentially write him off.

Dean has been surprising me ever since.

And whereas I don't expect him to ever meet my ideal version of him, I've been ecstatic to finally be able to consider President Dean as a realistic possibility. I could not only envision his presidency, but his path to the presidency as well. For the first time in a long time, my heart and my mind were in unison. My support of Dean felt right.

I have since come to realize that no matter how hard I try to be pragmatic and adult, the hope of my childhood America lives in me still. This is one conceit I am happy to have.

Nice to see we've come such a long way together! :toast:

Right back at you:

:toast:


:-)

:party: