Dean Haters = Populism Haters = Status Quo Lovers

Howard Dean's organic, inclusive, responsive, continually expanding and ultimately empowering grassroots campaign is THE POLITICAL STORY OF 2003.


How can I possibly make this clear to people who simply don't want to comprehend?

Dean says: "We can't fail in Iraq. We need to commit more troops."

Over the next day or two, Dean's supporters make themselves heard via the campaign's blog, email, phone banks, meet ups, message boards, etc.

In response to his supporters' overwhelming feedback, Dean refines his message within days: "We need more troops in Iraq: but UN troops, not American troops."

This is the ultimate EMPOWERMENT OF THE CONCERNED AND INFORMED CITIZENRY over media punditry, corporacracy and the tyranny of the elite neo-politi-cons (of both major parties). Democrats can't compete with Bush's 200+ million by raising the money from rich contributors and corporations. But if 10 million concerned, EMPOWERED citizens contribute $20 each ...

Can't y'all just, for a second, step back from the personalities and policies and punditries and get a grip on the populist power we now have the potential to unleash if only we just stop doing everything we can to help the establishment suppress it?

Dean isn't the be all and end all. But by simply yet ingeniously harnessing the pent up demand for SOMEBODY to shout out that Emperor Bush is not only stark naked but also lacking all control over his bodily excretions, Dean's insurgent campaign has almost single-handedly invented the most important new paradigm for returning political power to the "informed and concerned masses" that has ever been anywhere near this effective on anywhere near this scale.

I'm calling it "Informed Populism" for the lack of a better term. Dean's campaign is the only one in history that has ever had it. And there just ain't no denying that America sorely needs it.

What makes Dean's campaign different is that it's a giant network of supporter empowerment with multiple layers of communication that travel in ALL DIRECTIONS, even back to the decision makers and the candidate himself.

Ever heard of "working within the system for postive change"?

Well, Dean's campaign has given us a far more responsive system.

I am very active with the campaign here in Arizona...

treated as significant that makes the campaign historically unique.

I'm not implying that you don't know this. I'm just trying to make myself clear.

The thing I love the most about Dean is the level of commitment from the supporters.

It's when I was surprised by the "to" that I bought into the "from."

They have such energy. Tabling is fun but man getting with people who agree with you...

hasn't got the cojones. I like him a lot. But not being sold
yet doesn't mean I agree with your title. I however will vote
for satan if he can defeat bush and I think its going to take
a combination of the candidates running now to do it in a way
that drags all across the spectrum. Keep hammering, Dean.
Pairing you with someone else means the status quo will go.

since...

he may some day be that important, but not yet. In the meantime people may just not like him and that is okay, right?

There, I said it. lol

Both typical and expected. Way to cover all bases.

and to instead be generically dismissive and willfully close-minded?

Well, that's a value judgment.

:eyes:

all over America as the crowds cheer and say "dear god we have never heard anything so moving and brilliant as this man so let's go write a check and move the earth...nay the stars"!! Ain't gonna happen. See Dean gets money from little people. Great. Money to mount national campaigns against repuke opponent take the big money from organizations like Unions, Vet groups, etc. Howard is unsaleable to these people. They know he won't make it on the big stage and they can't sell him to even their people. They are not going to shill out money for a massive defeat. If Dean gets the nomination, Bush will have $300 million dollars and Dean will have his same grassroots trying to dig an extra ten bucks out of their pocket. He should be able to buy a weeks worth of ads on that dough while it's all Bush all the time. People like Clark or Kerry are an easy sell to their members and they (who have political sense and not star struck gazes) know they are much more saleable on the national scene to the general populace who don't reside on the wings. They will spend money on what they see as a good bet. So, please, we've seen the Howards come and go on the political scene and it's been assumed over and over that America will come running with a checkbook. I repeat: ain't gonna happen....not for any of them. People don't give much to political campaigns. It takes the big boys to finance the party.....that's just a reality check.

But, of course, we already knew that.

as far as the eye can see because we are going to stand on the shore and wait for our ship to come in. When you have 2/3 of our own party who cannot name one Dem candidate, do you expect to be hauling in the loot in a wheelbarrel?? Do you think we don't need no stinkin' ads, we will just go love people?? We want Bush out. But, I also don't want Doc Dean who dances real close and cozy with repukes and big business in. I want a change. I don't want Bush III. Howard is a fiscal conservative---nice; but his idea of being a social liberal is to liberally screw people do be able to be fiscally conservative. Talk about status quo---Cheney doesn't want to cough up secret papers and neither does Dean (funny smell, don't you think). I don't think any of our other candidates have "sealed papers", do they?????

donate 100 bucks a quarter that is 40 million a quarter. There are four of them a year of course which means 160 million. Nothing to sneeze at.

Those big boys who supposedly finance the party can't anymore, that's the breaks of campaign finance reform. Bush raises huge amounts of money, but most Republican fundraising is small donations, with huge bundling groups. Dean is one of the few Democrats who's been able to draw in large amounts of small donations. He's not only raising more money than the more "palatable" candidates, but he's using the internet to bundle thousands of folks' $50 dollar donations into big bucks.
America already is running with the checks, with a million dollars raised over a four-day stretch.

Let's face it, even in the big bucks days of Clinton, we still got outraised by the Republicans. All we need to do is get reasonably close- Gore was outraised by 30 million in 2000 and still won by 500,000 votes. Bush is going to raise 200-250 million, not 300. All we need to do is come close to that number, and luckily the unions and others are already setting up post-nomination funds. Dean's small-contribution strategy, when grafted on to the donor bases of all of the other candidates (assuming he wins the nomination) has the best chance of raising close to Bush's numbers, much more so that say Kerry or Edwards, the previous big fundraisers. At least Dean's way doesn't mean we have to whore ourselves out to any passing corporate suit.

He is still near the top of my list DESPITE his supporters.

Those who hate Dean on DU - and I am not one of them - hate him not for his liberal positions but for his conservative positions. they have every right to do so. They are in favor of immediate and massive progress quickly. They hate the status quo just as much as the Deanites.

though I don't hate dean he does nothing for me and a brilliant campaigner isin't necessarily a brilliant President. I think the assumptions of this post are assinine. I personally hate the status quo and that's why Dean does nothing for me. Sheeesh he's not even willing to repeal the patriot act. Thanks for validating my right to say NO to Dean.

Just realize what you are saying "YES" to instead:

THE CURRENT POLITICAL STATUS QUO.

and Dean will keep us in the Status Quo who are you trying to fool. He isin't interested in repealing NAFTA or the WTO, the patriot act. These things are of concern to me. I notice with Dean fans they want to talk about his campaign alot because it is so successful. Let's hear why the man is so great instead.

Noam Chomsky or somebody else who has ZERO chances of winning?

Dean wants to repeal much of the Patriot Act. He trashed the Patriot Act as written at every opportunity.

Dean wants to "renegotiate" NAFTA to include basic worker rights and environmental protections.

Now, what other viable candidate is committed to doing anything more on either of these issues?

*****

Finally, please note that YOU are changing the subject here, not me.

My point is not that Dean is the perfect candidate. He isn't. No one is.

My point is that Dean's campaign has developed a very powerful and extremely successful paradigm for radically shifting political power away from big money and back to an informed, caring, activist citizenry.

So, if you really give a damn about changing the status quo, you'd better start paying attention to the real story here. And it ain't the nuances of how much of the Patriot Act and NAFTA that you want to repeal over a divided Congress.

As President, I will devote myself to protecting Americans from terrorism. I will improve the preparedness of our first responders; dedicate more resources to defending seaports, airports, and land borders; take significant steps to improve industry and infrastructure security, especially hazardous sites like chemical plants; and improve our intelligence gathering and sharing capabilities. I will work to shore up relationships damaged by this Administration’s arrogant foreign policy, because collaboration and intelligence sharing with other nations is critical to preventing terror attacks. I will also focus attention on the root causes of terror abroad.

But as we fight the war on terror, we must be vigilant in protecting civil rights and liberties. The rule of law and due process must continue to be the hallmarks of our judicial system. There is no contradiction between protecting the country from terrorism and ensuring the protection of our basic civil liberties every step of the way.

This Administration has unnecessarily compromised our freedoms in the name of fighting terrorism. President Bush and Attorney General Ashcroft have adopted a series of anti-terror tactics that erode the rights of average Americans and cannot be justified on national security grounds. Reports of the Department of Justice Inspector General and numerous watchdog groups document a troubling pattern of hostility to civil rights and liberties since September 11.

Sometimes public outcry has thwarted these tactics, such as when the Justice Department proposed a program to reward Americans for spying on their neighbors. But dissent has been stifled by an Attorney General who told Congress that opposition to his policies give “ammunition to America’s enemies” and by an Administration that goes to great lengths to avoid the scrutiny of Congress and the public.

While the Administration’s overzealousness diminishes the rights of all Americans, it has taken its greatest toll on communities whose cooperation we need in the fight against terror. Policies that single out immigrants for special registration procedures and coercive interviews amount to ethnic and religious profiling. These tactics antagonize minority communities without enhancing security. The detention of thousands in secretive federal custody for weeks and months, sometimes without formal charges, is also unacceptable. And recently the Justice Department’s Inspector General identified credible allegations that detainees have suffered physical abuse in custody.

Other anti-terror tactics are similarly offensive. There is no justification for the Bureau of Prisons to monitor communications between prisoners and their lawyers without a court order, a policy that undermines the attorney-client privilege. The FBI should not be authorized to spy on religious and political organizations and individuals without evidence of wrongdoing. Military tribunals that fail to protect the basic rights of the accused lessen our moral credibility in the eyes of the world. And labeling American citizens as “enemy combatants” to hold them indefinitely in military custody without access to counsel and the courts offends everything our nation stands for.

I am also deeply troubled by some provisions in the USA Patriot Act, which was enacted in the wake of 9/11 without meaningful debate. The Act gives overly broad investigative and surveillance powers to the government and strips federal courts of their traditional authority to curb abuses of power by the executive branch. Many of the Act’s provisions have little or nothing to do with combating terrorism; in fact some had been previously rejected by Congress. But the Ashcroft Justice Department took advantage of the climate of fear following the attacks to make fundamental changes in law enforcement procedures. I am concerned that this Act:

§ allows law enforcement agents to obtain information about an individual from a library, bookstore, bank, telephone company, credit card company, hotel, hospital or university without individualized suspicion and without meaningful judicial review;

§ expands the use of “sneak and peak” searches, even in non-terror cases;

§ allows the police to collect information about an individual’s internet use without a showing of probable cause;

§ allows the government to conduct wiretaps in criminal cases using the looser rules intended for intelligence investigations;

§ authorizes the Attorney General to detain immigrants based on a mere certification that there are "reasonable grounds to believe" the immigrant endangers national security.

Now the Attorney General is seeking to supplement the Patriot Act with Patriot Act II, included in the Administration’s so-called “Victory Act” proposal. Rather than expanding the Patriot Act, we should reconsider the wisdom of the original bill.

The September 11 terrorists sought to disrupt the American way of life, including our constitutional freedoms. They must not succeed. As President, I will lead the war on terror in a way that protects civil rights and civil liberties while protecting our safety. I will ensure that the United States is not merely a military or economic leader in world affairs, but a moral leader as well.

=How is that not anti-Patriot Act?

he doesn't outright say he will repeal it. that is simple talk repeal the sucker. Why won't he say it.......

else.

Dean hater response summary:

We have some blanket close-minded dismissals. We have an ad hominem. We have a couple clever needling rejoinders. And we have a few attempts to change the subject from Dean's campaign to the nuances of Dean's policy issues.

Sorry, but I'm not playing these games anymore.

is bogus!

Neither you nor I know about all the provisions of Patriot now, do we? Your criticism is not factually based.

If you think there's anything about Dean that's pro-status-quo, you're simply ill-informed.

Eloriel

history.

It is literally unprecedented in our entire history. It is reshaping politics from the ground up, which is exactly where it MUST be reshaped from, and it IS re-empowering We The People.

You know I've tried to explain it to DUers before, just as you are doing now.

I have trouble understanding why more people don't get it, and why in fact more DUers aren't absolutely head-over-heels for this aspect of Dean's campaign alone.

This IS the revolution we've been praying for.

This IS the campaign which, wonder of wonders, is giving The People their power back, and reminding all of us of the power we've always had but forgot or got confused about.

I do NOT understand why DUers aren't ALL flocking to him. They don't seem to understand -- but then one has to get beyond OTHERS' translation and the media's filters and go to original source material (Dean, his blog, etc.) in order to "get it."

Has has not so far taken corporate money (that I know of), which leaves him COMPLETELY UNBOUGHT, accountable ONLY to the people. And yet he stands to surpass Clinton's fundraising record when he was an INCUMBENT President of $10.3 million this quarter -- all from people like me, in $10 and $25 and $55 dollar dribs and drabs. This alone is a revolution.

For all the ABB folks -- and they're a majority on DU -- by definition have admitted that the specific policies between the candidates don't really matter that much, which is why it further boggles my mind why more DUers aren't discovering and supporting this REVOLUTION IN AMERICAN POLITICS which is:

TAKING OUR COUNTRY BACK!!

Can you dig it -- could you IMAGINE a country where The People actually have the power that the founders intended them to have?

The sky's the limit with a setup like that. And yet there are people here who are completely blind to this whole "movement" that grew up around Howard Dean and HE allowed it and then encouraged it.

I won't ever understand. This is our chance. We can take our country back, and there are people here who not only don't get it but don't want to.

I'll never understand.

Eloriel

afraid of the people.

that they understand the appeal of the campaign but don't particularly want to buy the product? And I, for one, do find the policy differences between the candidates important. The primaries are a refining process. Even if Dean does eventually get the nomination, the support for other candidates - much of that support issue based - is important in defining critical issues for the general campaign. Why is that so hard to understand?

to ARGUE your policy points and quite possibly MODIFY Dean's position to something more to your liking -- if you have a cogent argument and you can sway enough of his engaged supporters to your point of view.

And you can work with YOUR candidate to invoke a more responsive, populist campaign model in his or her campaign. I realize, of course, that one can only do so much in a day.

Just don't put up any wind breakers. It would be more helpful to direct the wind because it's already blowing strong and it's headed in an auspicious, albeit not perfect, direction.

Hopefully it will be how John Kerry was able to keep the Democratic Party from acting like proverbial lemmings and riding off into its final sunset with the "new messiah" who turned out to be a false prophet.

I like the line, "new messiah turned out to be false prophet" I will make a note of that one.

Maybe Dean's populist campaign is a just a hopeful chimera.

Maybe our only chance to change the status quo is to have our "best" establishment candidate (read: Bob Dole) run a status quo campaign.

But at least understand the most historically successful national insurgent populism you are demeaning, dismissing and actively campaigning against in favor of the political status quo.

and he is using "you".

;-)

Who wouldn't even HAVE a campaign were it not for Dean's. I understand Kerry now has -- whoa!! not a bat, but a HAMMER. Oooooo, how CLEVER. Wonder where he got that idea?

Eloriel

their candidate's influence? (IOW: don't flatter yourselves) :shrug:

Oh yeah...when the antiwar crowds grew. All of a sudden the compromising centrist decided to run from the left which he had scorned for 11 years.

If Dean actually was a populist, I'd be singing his praises louder than anyone here. I'd be the loudest voice in the Deanut Gallery.

as a fiscal conservative. Every speech I have heard him give, including the ones in person. In fact, it was the people that made him talk about the war.

You don't trust Dean.

You think he'll take all of his campaign's populist energy and either run it into the ground by losing to Bush or else "Trojan Horse" it by acting like he cares about his supporters while fundamentally selling them out.

Those are valid arguments against Dean's candidacy. But these concerns are about Dean himself, and don't address the issue of his campaign paradigm.

Can Kerry raise $100 million in $100 increments? Would he even try? Does he even give a damn about new populist campaign paradigms? Are regular folks even a small part of his favored contributing constituency?

Because if he can, he'd better start cracking. When he does is when I'll consider helping him.

and he's been able to exploit it very creatively.

As for not being status quo, how does a self described "centrist" fill that role? Dean is as status quo as they come.

Has anybody EVER gotten anywhere NEAR his number of supporters, volunteers and small contributors? And more than a full year BEFORE the elections, no less!

How do you think the unknown former Governor of Vermont became the clear front runner in this race?

Can't you see the power of Dean's new paradigm of a few million SMALL contributors rather than $200 million in rich, corporate and special interest money?

I grant you that Dean is running a very energetic, creative campaign which is going to attract a lot of copycats, but that doesn't make him a populist; when all is said and done, I believe that he represents the wealthy and powerful rather than the common slob on the street; he's simply using populist techniques to arrive at non-populist ends. That's my opinion, and maybe it's wrong, but I don't see ti changing anytime soon.

I simply don't trust Dean. I liked what I heard of him at first, but once I saw him and the more I get to know, the less faith I have in him--his policies are strictly status quo, though frankly, I doubt that anything other than status quo has a chance of being elected.

However things shake out, it is going to be an interesting campaign.

Do you trust any status quo, establishment (read: "electable") candidates more than you trust Dean?

the answer is probably not, at least as far as the "electable" candidates go. I like Kucinich. I love what Sharpton says, but I don't trust him either. I do trust Dean more than I trust Holy Joe though! Among the "electables" there is a difference in approach and tone, but I don't really see much difference in the direction, which is basically a Democratic version of the PNAC nightmare--same track, same destination, different engineer. The most I can hope for is that some one puts on the brakes and slows things down. This country is very scary right now.

centrism would be a great step to the left.

And the fact is that Dean is a populist... look what he supported in Vermont. Health care, social programs, jobs, economic development, unions... these are populist positions.

Some get mad at Dean and try to claim he only just started being a populist, which is pure crap. The man was a populist from the start, just like he was against the war and calling bush on being wrong about this war from the start.

therefore centrism, which is basically the same thing as status quo, is going to remain to the right. His positions strike me as middle of the road--he wants to have his cake and eat it too, and maybe that is the safe approach. The original populists wanted to bring the monopolists and corporations to heel--servants of the people rather than their masters. I don't really see this motivation in Dean, but maybe he'll surprise me; if nothing else, he isn't Bush.

In fact, I'm not even totally sure "populism" is the right word. Maybe it is. What it is from MY perspective is a veritable revolution. If allowed to continue and succeed, the U.S. will start on a long road of becoming what all of us have wanted it to be, in our hearts.

People here at DU have said that a Dennis Kucinich presidency would usher in a "sea change" in America. It would, I'll agree. But it wouldn't be anything like what is happening with the Dean campaign, which is revitalizing the democratic process itself. Drawing new people in, people who've felt disconnected, alienated, disenfranchised for their entire lives. People who've NEVEr been involved in any campaign before and many of whom have never even voted before. He's attracting Dems, Greens, Libertarians, Republicans, Independents -- absolutely across the board. "It's not about Left or Right, it's about WHAT'S right."

People are gravitating to this man, this campaign, like no other in recent history. If he can get the nomination, it will totally revolutionize this country. And NO OTHER CANDIDATE can say that or offer that, or deliver on it.

Eloriel

Democratic Party as pro-political status quo and against the type of radical power shift that a campaign fueled by an informed, activist citizenry represents.

so you don't have to stretch out so far and wide here?

Not having defined "Dean Haters", and in light of many of his supporters vehemently deriding all criticism as cruel opposition, one is left with the impression that a "Dean Hater" would be anyone who's spoken out here against him for any reason; for that you deserve resistance. You're casting a very wide net; you guys don't have a monopoly on virtue, but the whiff of that righteousness is inescapable. Please define your terms in the future.

You've just insulted anyone who has misgivings or dislikes Dean as being the voices of anti-humanity. Personally, I haven't stomped on any little kitties with my lineman's boots for at least five or six hours, so I just don't feel particularly heinous at the moment.

There are plenty of reasons to not want him as the nominee, and to intimate otherwise is intolerant and insulting. It's also a tacit slap in the face of the other candidates for deigning to contest his just god-given place as lord of all he surveys.

I don't like being fucking told that there's only one way to be a decent human being, certainly not by supporters of a candidate who likes to sling mud and make bombastic pronouncements--often incorrect--and then have problems copping to them.

As for your contention about Dean being the only one to ever do this, Eugene McCarthy did it at least as well in 1968, and he didn't win the nomination. He listened to his base and honed the message according to their input too, so that argument just doesn't hold holy water.

And you guys wonder why so many people have such a sour taste in their mouths over your antics.

That's a bullshit response to what I wrote and you know it.

Eugene McCarthy was in contact with 400,000 supporters 14 months before the 1968 election?

Eugene McCarthy broke all Democratic fundraising records?

Try again, POE. It's the grapes that are leaving that sour taste in your mouth.

The sour grapes line is more befitting a conservative; dislike of your guy is not proof of poisonous jealousy. (At least you're not a Clark-barker, he/she would have taunted me as a whiner.)

This goes to the heart of your stated position: that opposition to your guy is only explainable in one simple way. Many other reasons can contribute to dislike (or mere dampened enthusiasm) and to say otherwise is to credit oneself with grandiose wisdom or deliberately deceive by attempting to skew the debate.

It's an impressive display, and it heartens me to a great degree for many reasons. It's thrilling to see trampled moderates and assorted lefties actually make something special like this happen. It's also nice to see the world wake up and see that there's a real and popular groundswell out there, and that the conservatives don't run the world. Not loving the messenger or much of the message is not hatred for change and coddling the establishment, and saying so is more than just irritating.

from your perspective. So sue me.

On second thought, don't sue me.

Sue Diebold instead. You could probably win.

Hopefully you did too. Just...come on. It's gonna be a big snarly snotfest for awhile; I accept that.

Empathetically, I'm sure it's very hard to fall in love with a darkhorse, have him succeed beyond one's wildest dreams, really take the world by storm while energizing a brave new world, and have a bunch of ingrates thump on him. You're going to get it from many directions now, and for awhile; that's because your horse is the frontrunner. Yours is now a vastly different battle, and the tactics have to adjust in order to succeed.

Not liking him or parts of the message or some of the supporters and their tactics is not some form of collaboration with the forces of stodgy cluelessness or evil, it may actually be somewhat founded.

Inevitably, some of your opponents and some of your allies will be creeps, but some of both may also give a damn and have valid visions too.

So, nice playin' with ya. Fetch!

You know, it's way cool that you're all pumped up about YOUR guy, but accusing folks who support OTHER Dems of being against populism and for the status quo is just plain arrogant and disrespectful.

sw

only the folks who "hate" Dean. Do you "hate" Dean, scarletwoman? If not, then stickdog's not talking about you.

But I do strongly dislike self-righteous accusatory posts.

sw

As for "self-righteous accusatory posts", well I kinda thought yours had that tone as you were accusing stickdog of being "arrogant and disrespectful" for something he didn't even say.

IMHO, you owe stickdog an apology.

accused anyone not in Dean's base as being anti-populist and pro-status quo. What do you make of him?

Dean Haters = Populism Haters = Status Quo Lovers

Unless you think all supporters of other candidates must be "Dean Haters".

In addition, read post #38 by stickdog.

That's not the way intelligent Democrats argue.

"Dean haters" <> "anyone not in Dean's base" by any rational definition.

Thanks for the inflammatory words. I meant nothing of such, it was my mis-understanding, really. But the defensive stuff could've been replace by a courteous reply.

could not reply, too little posts. Couldn't find your e-mail, either.

What I wanted to say is: It is all good.

just what he doesn't stand for.

Support whomever you like. I'm trying to make a very important point about Dean's campaign, not your understandable preference for your favorite -- and especially if your favorite is an even more "insurgent" candidate.

There are several reasons Dean's campaign took off instead of Kucinich's -- not the least of which is the fact that Dennis UTTERLY frightens the establishment.

I'm simply talking about the extreme importance of Dean's campaign dynamics here -- especially to future progressive candidates and causes.

I'm banking on the fact that Dean's amazing success with his campaign of "informed populism" will help pave the way for even more populist/progressive candidates (like Kucinich) in the near future.

"...Dennis UTTERLY frightens the establishment." I think you may be correct.

I will also offer you my apology for misreading your post, as w4rma pointed out. I admit that I was reacting to what seems to me to be an unnessarily adversial tone to your original post. However, my bad for jumping into this thread in the first place, when I KNOW better.

Peace,
sw

:thumbsup::):thumbsup:

You've got a great head on your shoulders.

Keep on fighting the good fight.

And you keep on fighting the good fight too. I know you've got what it takes! :D

Peace,
sw

BTW check the math in your equation.

but less controversial byline?

but where's that front page pix of a fat elvis or of a monkey that smokes?

i will be happy to discuss howard dean, moe howard, chad and dean, the beach boys or any of the political positions of the democratic candidates, but only if it is based upon facts and intelligent conversation devoid of histrionics and the sickly-sweet smell of "true-believerism."

when you start posting accordingly, you can count me in.

a deanie is someone who claims that the only real issue is dean's campaign, not dean himself....

this is a man who wants me and you to give him a job... a very powerful job, the job to represent you and me on the domestic and international levels... fine...

lets know our candidate... he is really good at persuading smart people to follow him and his campaign while forgoing the merits of his issues...

the truth is the truth and no matter how sugar coated it is, the truth stands... i don't want some jackass vermont style campaign... i want a representitve of me.... of you... of a informed public and i with my voting capital will not spend it on any body less...

n/t

I don't know of *any* "Deanie" who subscribes to your definition.

Other than dreaming the impossible dream?

Ah, my heart isn't in arguing against DK, ya know? And your posts almost always crack me up, even as my hedge is getting trimmed.

So keep tilting, friend, and dreaming of better days.

Stickdog has made this thread about the populism within the campaign, but that's not the same as saying "the only real issue is dean's campaign, not dean himself."

For that matter, if it weren't for "Dean himself," there could BE no populism within his campaign. For another, I and all his other supporters are attracted to him because of his policies, his character and integrity, his charisma, etc.

In the final analysis, it's all ABOUT Dean himself. I read the blog all the time -- I've never seen a "deanie" as you define that.

Eloriel

But you find yourself agreeing with him on 90 percent of the issues? I mean does that make you a Repuke? Or is that different than someone who say, hates Dean because of his personality AND his stance on issues?

I think we should completly withdraw from Iraq and let the UN or the Iraqis themselves handle it.

What your example demonstrates is only that Dean will modify some of what he says on the basis of what his supporters want to hear, and perhaps only if it doesn't commit him personally. That's not quite the same thing as 'empowerment of the concerned citizenry'.

Get him to declare as a firm commitment, on his campaign site that he will balance the budget on the backs of the wealthy elites (his family's peers) who have profited so handsomely over the past 25 years of 'centrist' and right-wing policy. And get him to explain how, so his proposed sea-change can be evaluated for loopholes (the elites do a wonderful job of loopholes).

Get him to declare, again on his web site as a firm commitment, with explanation, that he will provide us the long-awaited peace dividend, transferring major money from the psychopathically bloated war budget to civilian needs, and reforming the military to end its love affair with long-range WMDs.

And while you're at it, get him to declare that he will summarily end the vicious drugs war boondoggle that has had no significant effect on drugs use but has caused immeasurable --literally immeasurable-- harm at home and abroad while wasting tens or hundreds of billions of dollars every year.

If you can do just those three things, then you'll have something to back up your claims about 'empowerment'. Hell, if you can get him to do even one of them, you'll have something.

But I'll bet you can't, because that's not where he's at.

Regardless of its details, it will be a HUGE step in the right direction.

The same holds true for Dean's less than perfect universal healthcare initiative. A HUGE step in the right direction, and politically viable.

Getting the FDA to study pot's efficacy as a medicine would also be a HUGE step in the right direction -- as well as being a politically viable strategy to finally decriminalize the stuff.

In terms of defense spending, no Democrat is going to sniff victory this election by campaigning to rein in defense spending. However, you can trust that a skinflint like Dean -- who drives a beater and darns his socks -- isn't going to lose 3 trillion dollars into the well lined pockets of US defense contractors (read: Bush's best friends and Dean's worst enemies). And just that fact that he's not going to get us into ridiculous warmongering quagmires will save a few hundred billion.

But have fun Nadering for the status quo. I'm all for Kucinich. I'm not Kucinich's adversary -- reality is.

Unless I completely misread it (in which case you'll have to walk me through my misreading), in your basenote you're telling us that Dean's followers influence his behavior and that's a huge change that everyone should recognise and sign up for.

But here you're implying that, while no change is likely, just what he does offer is a wonderful difference, and we should recognise and sign up for that.

Could you reconcile those two, please?

Sorry. Only you can do this.

A sad thread on many levels. Hate to see it.

Julie

1. I object to your use of the word "hater." Because I, or anyone else for that matter, don't prefer Dean, it does not mean that we "hate" him. Yes, I've seen the prolific posts from a handful of folks who bash/trash him; but most of us aren't in the trashing business, and we don't hate him. I don't hate any of the candidates. I appreciate each of their strengths, including Dean's, whether they are my primary pick or not. And I fully intend to joyfully support the nominee against bush, no matter who that is.

2. There is also a corp of Dean supporters, and supporters of other candidates, who regularly appear on threads about my candidate and bash. Maybe because Dean supporters have generated more energy; maybe because there are more of them, since Dean is "popular;" more Dean supporters deride and trash my candidate than the rest. The gleeful ripping, rarely based on substance, is quite irritating, I admit. Like mosquitos that just won't go home when the bar is closed. My point being that "haters" don't just attack Dean, and that Dean has his fair share of "haters" among his followers.

3. He is one of the political stories of 2003...agreed.

4. I agree that we need "SOMEBODY to shout out that Emperor Bush is not only stark naked but also lacking all control over his bodily excretions." Dean is not the only candidate to do so. Please notice that I'm not mentioning names here; I don't intend this to become an "It takes one to know one" infantile flame fest. I appreciate his efforts, along with those of the other candidate/s who have done the same.

5. Populist: A member of a political party claiming to represent the common people. Webster's 10th Collegiate. This would apply to quite a few candidates, no? Dean has the populist energy. Or he has the "popular" energy. A small difference, perhaps. I guess it depends on your interpretation of "common people." There are other populists among the choices. I agree that America sorely needs the energy.

6. And finally, I object to your subject line. I don't hate Dean, but I don't prefer him. Not choosing Dean doesn't make me a populism hater. It doesn't make me a lover of the status quo. There are other candidates in the race who are further from the status quo than Dean. Which is probably why I ended up supporting one (or more) of them.

I have to say something about the Dean energy. I admire the passion of his supporters. But, Dean started out as #1 on my list. He's further down now. Based on issues; I found that a few candidates more closely match my take on the issues. I know. I read the post about "the stupidity of people who think elections are about issues" recently...before I hit the ignore button. What I've found is that I like Dean less and less as time goes on. And suddenly I realize that it's the way some supporters use that "popular" energy. The in-your-face stuff. The "I can't wait to go into battle for my guy, and I'd rather fight/flame than discuss issues." It's actually turned me away from Dean. I don't/won't decide my vote based on whose "haters" are loudest. But I keep wondering...if this man attracts more of this sort of energy than other candidates, is he really the one I want to lead us for the next 8 years? Do I really want to reinforce that stuff?

I know some really great folks who love Dean. I spent a few hours with 3 of them last night, knocking back beers and discussing the issues of the day. Including all of the 10 candidates. "Hate" never surfaced in word or attitude towards any of the candidates. I guess I'm just saying I wish Dean folks would refocus that energy among his supporters.

A long post...been building up for awhile.

Hmmm, this must be the thread that is causing that burning under the Clarkies skin. LOL!

I have grave doubts about his electability but I don't hate him.
His SUPPORTERS on the other hand seem to have a healthy shrill and strident cohort in their midst.

The intent to bash or cast negative impressions is always accompanied by a disclaimer. I don't hate but.. I am not bashing, but... The jab is always in what follows the "but".

Dishonest representation of intent, when there is no other purpose to the post.

and where's you get the handle? Sounds very anti-depressant like. :)

"you've got a funny name and you really hate Dean"....

Geez hate to clue yuh but nearly EVERYBODY on the DU has a foolish sounding Handle!
And anyway Zolok is perfectly respectable in every way it's the name of a supervillain from the "Lost City" serial....so there!

They all have some real pips supporting them.

Thats why it's foolish to judge a candidate on their supporters.