I'm having second thoughts about Dean.

First of all, it is not my intent to have this post degenerate into a candidate bashing fest. We all should know the dirt on the various candidates by now. There is a difference between presenting hard criticism, personal feelings, and mindless "Go-Team" smearing shennanigans.

I'm making this post to share some concerns about Dean, to brainstorm what options are ahead of me, and to inquire what advice I should follow.

I became a Dean backer way back in March, when he gave his famous "What I wanna know" speech where he came out strongly against the war in our darkest hour, and basically laid out why a meek Daschle-like strategy isn't going to win us elections, though Dean didn't say it in those words. I saw a lot of passion from the guy, and a lot of sincerity.

During the summer, despite what other campaigns and Bill O'Reilly have said about Dean blowing interviews and such, Dean has generally been good. While he wasn't the most polished guy in the world, I appreciated that he didn't give me a line of b.s. when asked difficult questions. I also liked the way the campaign took risks from fundraising to the various media stunts, which put Dean from worst to first. Lastly, Dean did all of this without singling other Democrats out directly for bashing, making vague comments about "Bushlite" and "backbone."

Things are a bit different now, and I'm concerned. Since Dean has become the frontrunner, the campaign has become extremely risk-averse. Dean no longer sounds sincere in his answers to questions, and I'm sure others pick up on this too. Dean sounds very "stumped," and some have described him as "shifty." Well, I agree. His staffers have totally changed his appearance, and in every debate, Dean now sounds like a Washington-style windup toy candidate. The problem is, he's not very good at it, and it sounds extremely fakey.

Secondly, Dean is starting to get negative with other candidates. When he attacked Clark last debate, it didn't seem like Dean really meant it from the heart, it merely seemed like he was trying to get political points. I wish Dean wouldn't say what he doesn't mean.

The campaign has stopped taking major risks. The strategy seems to be keep Dean on autopilot, don't make any mistakes, and cruise to victory next spring. This may be a good idea, but I'm not convinced we could keep a lead on George Bush with such an attitude, nevertheless the other candidates. Why not keep it fresh?

To summarize all of this, while Dean has criticized all of the other candidates for being "Bush-lite," I believe he has become "Kerry-lite." Dean is trying to sound like a Washington candidate, though Kerry is much more polished in this regard. Secondly, Dean's attacks are flimsy, while Kerry, as everyone knows, likes to do the underhanded stuff and is pretty professional about it. Lastly, the Kerry campaign has been consistent throughout the campaign, while the Dean campaign doesn't seem sure where it wants to go at the moment.

I originally supported Kerry, and am wondering if I should switch back. While the war resolution vote still pisses me off greatly, Kerry's ideas on other issues make a lot more sense to me, such as on the environment, on a graduated tax policy, the death penalty, and so forth. If Dean loses the authenticity that his campaign originally had, all of his advantages are flushed down the toilet and all of his disadvantages remain, making someone like Kerry a superior candidate. If Kerry wasn't making the entire election about Dean, getting the goods about John Kerry in the open instead about taking out the garbage about everyone else, I may have joined back already.

As I was taught back in my music performance days, an audience will forgive you for making mistakes, but they will never forgive you for being boring.

How long should I stick with Dean? I'm not ready to jump ship yet, but am dissatisfied with the current direction. Dean supporters, remind me of the positive things Dean is doing! And any other campaigns, remind me of what *you* are doing right! I don't want to see any candidate bashing.

Thanks for listening to me wiffle-waffle! I've done it before, as everyone knows. :toast:

--jason--

I love Dean and am solidly behind him, but I have yet to see him in a debate where he has really done well. But I do think that he will look great going up against Bush.

I think that by the time your primary comes up, the choice will be easy for you. Until then, you have the luxury of enjoying all of the candidates. So relax and enjoy.

be easy.

I wrote this up in another thread...I have my own problems with Dean:

His antipathy to a discussion of progressive taxation, his language about cleaning up the mess of the tax code (calling the tax code a mess is the language flat tax’ers use), his Wall St background, his balanced budgets at all cost mentality, his absolutely convoluted chat about race, his insistence on revolving his candidacy around things other than middle class opportunity (to me, the ONLY issue this election year), his record in VT with IBM/taxes/secrecy/dismantling rail lines (OK, that one's very nuanced, but I have my reasons), his statement at a Philadelphia fund raiser that he couldn't give back the middle class tax cuts because he'd be accused of helping the upper middle class (the person I’m voting for BETTER be accused of helping the MIDDLE CLASS – he said he’s focusing on tax policy for the poor—well thanks to Bill Clinton and EIC, the poor are probably doing better than the middle class – Bush wants to transfer the wealth created by the middle class to the upper class, Dean wants to make them do all the work to balance his budgets, which is great for his bond broker buddies on Wall St, and the other candidates want to make sure the middle class has enough money and options and hope to pull America out of this economic slide orchestrated by Republicans), his talk about Medicare, his relishing of the notion that he's a fiscal conservative, both the fact that he told the CATO Institute they should like him AND the fact that he was even at the CATO Institute, the odd preponderance of donations from AOL-TW employees, his mother's comment about people discovering that he isn't really a liberal, all make me worry that he's not really on the same page as I am on, especially with the core economic/budget issues which I think better be at the center of the Democratic message.

It's really hard to have a really good quality debate with so many candidates. On one hand it's good to have so many ideas, but on the other hand, it makes it impossible to have a debate that really shows how the candidates are different. I'd like to see 4 drop out. Trying to have a debate with over 5 people is just never going to amount to much because no one gets much time. With how compressed things are this time, the bigger field is going to be harmful in some ways.

which is natural during the course of a campaign, but Dean for me is still far and away the most honest and the most intelligent of the candidates. I'd see he and Kucinich are on par regarding the strength of their convictions.

He is playing it safer now. He's had every sentence examined under a microscope and is trying to avoid mistakes he's made in the past. All of that is largely irrelevant. It's the man and his ideas at the end of the day.

(1) What's your evidence that he's the most intelligent candidate?

(2) What do you think his ideas are, in a paragraph?

He's more risk-averse? Perhaps a little because he's got something to lose now. But he's still gutsy and says what needs to be said.

He's a good man and I'm gonna love him as our candidate and then as president.

he's swung back and forth on so many things: the Kyoto Treaty, Medicare, Social Security, the war in Iraq. He tries to sell himself as "pro-environment" when he has a horible-horrible record on the environment.

I think he is the LEAST honest person in this race. You really need to start looking at his record as Governor in Vermont. It's very scary.

I havent made the same assesment about Dean but yours is a very well thought out position.

I understand what you mean. I'm a Dean supporter myself, but I couldn't go back to Kerry. I'm never going to forgive him for the Iraq vote.

My other criticism about Kerry is not that he supported the war, but it is that he is part of the Washington Culture. They really don't listen to the Democratic voters anymore. And besides, many people will view him as being some kind of Massachusetts liberal.

However, I've been wavering between Kucinich and Dean. Now Kucinich WILL probably never have a chance to be elected. But he knows what he is talking about.

Kucinich understood the broken spirit in the Democratic Party. Dean had some understanding of it, but not the whole picture. We could go into the election next year and the liberal groups will throw all this money at it. But that's not the problem. A lack of money is not the problem now. The Democratic Party needs to do some SERIOUS soul searching. I think that Kucinich is the one that can soothe that wound.

Why is soul searching important? Because it's what brings out the vote.

Many Democratic voters in California didn't come out to vote because, even though they didn't vote for Ahhnold, they felt that their party was useless.

However, I am a forum moderator and I know that we will be putting together the policy for the Dean campaign soon. We even have a forum for fixing the Democratic Party.

Kerry and the rest of them don't understand what we in the heartland are saying. While they are all smug and comfortable in Washington, we're out here left to hanging while they give the President a blank check to go to war. There is a huge disconnect between the Washingtonians and the Party Activists. This war created a huge schism in the party.

And I don't like the DLC. I like the DNC because we always need some type of speaking pulpit. But the DLC does not represent the values that this party has held for a very long time. They feel that they are the embodiment of all Democrats.

What the DLC did was make us "less ambiguous" as a party. They need to wake up and realize where the party is instead of just looking at polls and determining their policy from there. That's Karl Rove type of policy making.

I know how you feel, but the Dean campaign will have a much more concrete policy two to three months from now. Just stick with the campaign and maybe we'll see something amazing happen.

because they are trying to create it top down instead of listening to what their candidates and the members of their own party are saying.

I see what you're trying to say, but I think they are trying to make us less ambiguous by forcing us to believe their platform instead of listening to our ideas, which they don't do. I think we just have different rationalizations of this.

I think that what the DLC is trying to do is remake the image of the Democratic Party as one that recognizes the more conservative fiscal desires of much of the country. I also think that they would like to be able to undo the image of the Democratic Party as being "soft on defense". I don't think these are bad goals.

I guess I don't demonize the DLC as many here and elsewhere on the 'net do. They are one interest group. But they're not the only interest group.

He's got zero chance of getting elected, so your vote won't count.

Thus others will be deciding from among the frontrunners, and you will lose your input in that decision.

In my opinion:

*the heart and soul of the democratic party

*a strong message about where you want the party (and the nation) to go

*your vote is actually about issues; a show of agreement for Dennis' stand on the issues.

Those are good things to stand for. If you really believe that one of the other 8 candidates is worse than Bush, and that the primary is more about making sure that candidate loses than supporting your vision for the country, then don't vote for Dennis.

If you believe that the primary is about choosing the best person for the job, based on issues and record, then feel free to vote for Dennis or for any candidate of your choice. Your vote is not a waste. It counts.

Do be careful about the marginalizing tactics of someone who tells you that your vote "doesn't count." That's why the dems have lost many people to 3rd parties. That's why so many eligible voters don't bother to show up at the polls. Because they are convinced that their vote "doesn't count." Again, just my opinion, folks who actually spread that poisonous propaganda are doing as much or more harm to democracy in America than Bush Inc. Remember, that if everyone who is told not to waste their vote if it won't "count" actually votes their conscience, those votes will most definitely "count."

Don't let someone else make the decision about whether or not your vote "counts" for you.

And I'll put you on ignore, as I do to everyone who is rude.

I won't go so far as you did by saying voting someone who can't win is doing "harm to democracy" nor will I be so rude as to call your opinions "poisonous propaganda" as you did with mine.

Only a few people have a shot to win, and SOMEONE needs to decide which among them would be best to put forth as our candidate vs. Bush - that's all I said.

Voting for your choice in the primary does not "enable Bush to win." What would enable Bush to win would be voting for someone other than the democratic candidate in the general election, or not voting at all.

I'll stick by the statement. Telling people that they are wasting their vote if they spend it on the primary candidate of their choice is propaganda poisonous to healthy democracy.

It makes sense in the primary and it makes sense in the general election.

If you like Kucinich's populism and you think Deans' fiscal conservativism is the exact opposite and you think he has no chance of winning the general election, you might want to think about voting for Kerry, Edwards or Gephardt to make sure that Dean doesn't win the primary and get the nomination.

If you like Carol Mosley Braun because she's a woman, however, then there's no strategic vote that makes sense, and you might as well vote for her.

There are two issues: (1) What are your politics? and (2) Is there a strategic vote you can make to see your politics manifested in the election of someone manifesting them.

If voting strategically meant not voting my choice in the primary, then I probably just wouldn't vote. I am aware of and understand the "strategic" factor. I use it in the general election. I use it in all of my local elections. Here's the thing:

I spent a lifetime belonging to no party, because no party represented me. There are many, many of us out here. The time-honored tradition of "strategic" primary voting wouldn't even occur to me, because I have never before participated in a primary.

I became a democrat last February for one reason. To support Dennis Kucinich. Someone telling me that my vote doesn't "count" is telling me that I shouldn't have bothered; my votes aren't welcome to democrats. I've spent plenty of votes on dems during my lifetime; I'm a progressive, and I'm sure not gonna spend them on repubs. But, do I belong in the party? Maybe not. Maybe I shouldn't be in a party that is willing to marginalize my choices that way. Which is exactly why I say it is not healthy for democracy. Shouldn't there be a time for a voter to actually cast a vote for something or someone that they believe in? Shouldn't the primary be that time?

This is something that I don't think many democrats "get." You don't pull in the non-voters or 3rd party voters or disenfranchised members of your own party by telling them that their votes don't "count" unless they vote strategically for business as usual.

Why do you like your candidate? I presume it's because you like their position on an issue. I'm not going to tell you how to think about the issues. You got yours. I got mine.

Any sensible person, then, would vote in a way to get their issues prominence. On soe issues there is a spectrum of opinion among the candidates. It's obvious. So, if your issue manifests itself at different points in the spectrum in different candidates, and certain candidates look like they're going to do well in the primary, it only makes sense (especially when there are 9 people running) to vote for someone other than your first choice. However, if your issue is ONLY manifested in one candidate -- and many issues are only manifested in one of the 9 candidates -- then you don't have a strategic vote.

Like I said, I'm not going to tell you what issues to vote on. And I totally respect you if your issue is one of the ones which only one candidate manifests. But if it isn't, it's obvious that it's in your best interest to vote strategically.

just you and I, is big picture vs small picture.

The small picture would be the individual candidate, and the big picture would be moving the issue by supporting a candidate more likely to win who might move partly in the direction you want to go.

I agree with this part.

Part of me is also looking beyond this particular presidential election...the even bigger picture.

Do voters support the democrats' move to the middle by going along, or do they use their vote to voice the direction they want the party going in general? If they want the party to move back to the left, do they support centrist candidates? Does winning the battle mean losing the war?

I don't have all of those answers, or even an opinion today. I'm thinking about it, though, and that's a good thing. Thanks for giving me more food for thought!

:hi:

This month even.

Coupla' things:

- Dean just can't possibly respond to the same stuff in new ways every day. The correct response sounds great at first, but after the 20th time you hear it, and the 500th time he has had to say it, it sounds a little "canned". No way around it. The only alternative is to find a creative response every time, which is very dangerous- one is bound to say something stupid fairly regularly if the goal is to just say something different every time.

- Dean was an "outsider" and "darkhorse" just 6 months ago. That is no longer the case. He IS the front runner, he has a chance to win this. Us activists are his base, but I couldn't justify abandoning him as he now tries to attract the non-activist voters. Example: people are mad at Gore for not winning his home state in 2000.. I am mad at the Tennesseeans who abandoned him for not spending resources in what should have been a safe state so that he could use those resources to win a swing state. Keep your eyes on the prize.

- Dean has probably wrung out the internet activist support for all he's going to get from it. Not to say we won't stay with him, but there is only a finite amount of support he can get that way. Time to branch out and start pounding the streets. I had a good conversation last night with another volunteer, and we want to try to find creative ways to branch out the campaign beyond the internet. We will still have to do door-to-door canvassing at some point, but we think there may be other, unconventional ways to get the word out. Anyway, Dean has to not only BE responsible, and electable, he has to APPEAR responsible and electable. The other candidates already know he has a bit of a temper, and they are trying to bait him into blowing up.

- Rumor is that a couple of the other candidates are coordinating their attacks on Dean. The Doctor will have to be very careful for a while in order to not fall into a trap. We need a little patience here.

- It is October. Activists and political junkies have been paying attention for a while now, but it probably won't be until January when the mainstream gets hooked up. Until then, it seems boring to us to have to hear the same things over and over, but there are a lot of people who are hearing that stuff for the first time. I believe (and hope) that Dean will stoke up the passion again shortly. if you read the blog today, you get a clear sense that Dean (and the traveling team) are extremely tired, and even practically starving. They are back in Vermont now, resting up.

-I was surprised to see this on the Dean website:

State campaign directors:
Arizona: arizona@deanforamerica.com (www.deanforaz.com),
Michigan: michigan@deanforamerica.com
New Mexico: newmexico@deanforamerica.com
New York: nyhq@deanforamerica.com
Oklahoma: oklahoma@deanforamerica.com
Texas: info@texasfordean.com www.deanfortexas.com
Virginia: virginia@deanforamerica.com (www.virginiafordean.org),
Washington: washington@deanforamerica.com
Wisconsin: Wisconsin@deanforamerica.com

I didn't realize they were building campaign staff in all those states already. Cool. Now I gotta go try to get Georgia on the list!!

Cya.
YOU HAVE THE POWER!

edited for persnickety punctuation.

from the moment he started stating that he supported AIPAC...
Not only that, but the funding that he has received from them concerns me greatly.

Bottom line is: the dems have neocons in their ranks...and there is nothing that we can do about.

Honestly, at the time, I don't think he knew what he was talking about. However, he's made the most statements that have drawn a flurry of protests from people like Kerry or Liberman.

I think he's all in support of Bush's peace plan. However, I think he would take seroius action against the settlements.

I think he has hired some political consultants and this would be a mistake.

His best appearances are at rallies, and that's likely why he draws such big crowds that way. He has short sound bites that really resonate with a frustrated and angry base, and kudos to him and his campaign for recognizing it, and running with it.

In debates, he seems to falter if he deviates from some of his stump lines. He is trying to (1) talk slower, which is unnatural for him, and (2) look less angry, which I think might account for his stiffness in a debate format. Also, he REALLY needs to learn to just put on a "debate face" when someone is dissing him in that format, because he HAS to know by now that the media does a split screen to try to catch his mouthing words and facial expressions when it happens. They do this EVERY time.

he didn't have any before?

Right-o.

Man, I've got to hand it to Dean. His consultants were able to make it look like he didn't have any consultants. And now people are blaming consultants rather than Dean for Dean's problems. Clever.

It seems like he has changed his message just a bit... You don't think so??

not because he has different advisors. And, by the way, you can hardly describe Joe Trippi as being a DC outsider, and he's been part of this from the beginning.

He did what he needed to do to get the attention of the Angry White Liberal Males, and now he's doing what he thinks he needs to do to secure the center left, where all the votes are.

Unfortunately, he has to contradict himself to do that.

In many ways, he is in fact very close to the cener (fiscally, and on taxes he's probably the most conservative person running).

so try somehting else to smear him with, AP.

I suspect you support Kerry, but only suspect, because to be honest, the only posts I've ever seen from you on DU have been Dean bashing ones.

I never get why people who like a guy don't spend more time pumping him up. To me, your relentless bashing becomes a broken record, and I rarely read what you write anymore. If you had said some interesting things about Kerry, however, I'd have been paying more attention.

Despite the fact that I've been helping Dean out (I picked him because I thought he had the best chance of beating Bush but also plan on helping out whoever the eventual candidate is, though crossing my fingers it is not Lieberman - the big thing for me is to make people aware there is a campaign going on to oust Bush and they need to get involved, too) I am still open minded. I like Clark's chances, too. I'm trying to give Kerry a chance, but oddly enough, he just sounds like you - Dean, Dean, Dean a la Jan Brady.

become president without their support. Witness the maestrom Dean set off by suggesting that the US be balanced in dealing with the ME!

Only 30 percent of Jews align themselves with AIPAC. More than 51 percent of Jews support APN (Americans for Peace Now). They are a Jewish group who believe in the two state solution and feel that the settlements should stop now.

It's the hard core zionist jews and the evangilical christians (like tom Delay) who are the ones that support AIPAC.

It's not just a Jewish constituency that supports the hard line of AIPAC. It's the zealous fundies as well. And they have a massive support system that gets politically involved. IMO, the fundy right wing is equivalent to the madrassas in Pakistan - spewing hatred as God Sanctioned.

It's so sad. :(

Kucinish DOES NOT support AIPAC, and I highly doubt he will, as Peace is a major part of his campaign.

IMHO, it IS possible to be president without supporting AIPAC. Most Americans are clueless as to what AIPAC is in the first place, nor do they care. If you can convince a majority of American voters that your plan is the sanest way to achieve peace in the region, you CAN win the presidency, AIPAC or no AIPAC.

I think a lot of the early Dean supporters are starting to examine his positions a little closer, now that he's becoming the front-runner. This is a good thing, as you should vote for the candidate who most reflects your views and values, and not who you think can "win".

I believe we're also seeing that Dean is starting to behave more like a normal politician as well: modulating his stance, based on his audience, and heading for the middle of the road to somehow get 'conservative' voters on board, instead of appealing to the mass of disaffected voters that he appealed to last spring.

Either that, or he's showing his true colors as just another politician, now that he's assumed front-runner status.

If you want to see what fair and honest brokership by the U. S. would look like, check out his site. Supports Israel, but not those illegal settlements, an actual Palestine that has territorial integrity and isn't divided into two pieces with an Israeli whip-them-as-they-go-by and we'll-close-it-whenever-we-want corridor,Israel share their water with the Palestinians and their neighbors....

Kerry is the typical Washington insider, who supports the failed "roadmap" that specifies that all violence must stop before any negotiations. The violence stopped for a time and Israel did NOTHING to advance the peace process. Now it is violent again, and Kerry can only diss the Palestinians.

And how many trips were paid for by AIPAC: re DEAN?

Way back at the end of last year, I was pretty happy with both Dean and Kerry. I watched both Dean and Kerry on their MTP appearances. I liked Dean's response to the Vt civil unions law (I had to be able to look at myself in the mirror over same civil rights for ALL Americans). At that interview, he wasn't challenged in the least. He simply got to say his schtick, and Tim Russert accepted it. His health care for everyone sounded so good. And I was very concerned about rising deficits, and his attitude toward balanced budgets was a breath of fresh air.

I was impressed with Kerry before the IWR vote, and I was disappointed in his vote, but I listened to his position in his floor speech that day, and I said to my roommate - "THIS is what a leader sounds like - he has to take a very unpopular position, but he is explaining WHY he is doing it. I had hoped that there was a way to stop the Bush War Machine. But truly, at that point in time, we didn't know what we know today about whether Iraq had WMD. I didn't want to go to war, but I also didn't think that Kerry was voting *to go to war*. He was voting to hold Saddam responsible. I was disappointed, but I also recognized that there wasn't going to be a way to stop Bush, either. I held out hope for a long time that Bush would simply use the threat of force to get inspectors into Iraq and avoid war.

I don't hold Kerry's vote against him. I believe that if we had had a responsible President at the time, we never would have invaded. We would have put the pressure on and kept it there, and the world would have been supporting that position. I believe the Iraq war was solely the responsibility of the Bushistas and neo-cons who relied WAY to heavily on Chalabi and those types.

I started having questions about Dean about the time you say you started supporting him. I had such mixed feelings about his CA Dem meeting speech. I loved the "Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party", and I was moved by the "What I wanna know is..." But it was also at that point that he really did start really dissing the other candidates. Kerry and Edwards, particularly. He was flat out wrong about Edwards, and he did end up apologizing, but the fact that he raised that question without knowing the facts raised red flags for me.

I have always believed that the 2004 election will be about two things: The Economy and National Security. I also believed that unless the Dem party was credible on National Security, we'd never get to discuss The Economy. Bush is going to have buckets of money, and as pResident, he's going to get much coverage for free even. He's going to be able to force National Security to the fore, and any Dem candidate which doesn't have National Security creds is going to be spending all their time and money trying to counter what they say.

Those of us who spend a bunch of time on the internet hanging around Dem sites (where Bush loathing is natural) forget that there are a LOT of people in this country who don't feel this way. For whatever reason. If these sites represented the nation, or even everyone other than the hardcore rightwing, Bush's approval numbers would be like 25-30%, not 50%.

In the beginning, I really liked that Dean could speak off the cuff, because it displayed such a remarkable contrast to Bush who can't complete a whole sentence that way. But I also saw that it could create problems. A statesman needs to be able to have "private thoughts" about important things - thoughts that aren't shared publicly. Take Bush's statement about Kim Jong Il being a "pygmy". Or Bush's statement about supporting and protecting Taiwan, in the face of decades of ambivalence over the "One China" policy.

I'm not happy that Kerry speaks so unnecessarily "flowery" and ornately. He is much better when he uses short sentences and small words. But I am able to hear his vision, his plans, and I can see how well thought out these are. I think he DOES respect the opinions and beliefs of others, possible much better than Dean does. I started seeing Dean as much more arrogant and less like he listened to "regular people". I guess what I think Dean listens to is the frustration and anger, and that's what he feeds back to the people.

I started wondering about Dean when he was acting like the press was "the enemy" and every encounter with them was a battle.

When the MoveOn vote was happening (back whenever) I was voting for Kerry. My roommate took lots of time to make her decision. She read all of the policy positions that were published by each camp (Dean and Kerry). She ended up voting for Kerry because she said that the majority of Dean's positions were simply "Anti-Bush", but not very much on what he would DO, other than not be Bush. She found Kerry's positions to be well thought out and planned. Even today, if you look at the "on the issues" section of each website, you'll see that, for instance, on the economy, Dean has several paragraphs of how Bush has screwed it up, but only a couple of paragraphs and bullet points on what he would do differently, and the cornerstone is balancing the budget. Kerry has pages and pages of specific points. And as someone who has studied economics and business cycles and tax policies, etc., I believe that too much emphasis CAN be placed on balancing the budget too fast, after the mess we're in. Economies are fragile, and drastic actions can have serious consequences. I agree more with Kerry's plans for rolling back the high income tax cuts than I do with Dean's plan. I believe Dean and Gephardt's positions of rolling back ALL of the tax cuts could have devastating effects.

I am today a Kerry supporter because I believe he has the best chance of fixing our global relationships with our friends and allies. He has the best chance of fixing the economic mess we're in. I believe he has the best chance of healing this country of its divisions because he can explain policy decisions and address the interests and needs of all sides, rather than running roughshod over them.

I guess here I'm at is that while I applaud and appreciate the remarkable internet presence and fundraising ability of Howard Dean, I really believe that John Kerry is the right man to be President at this juncture.

"I started wondering about Dean when he was acting like the press was "the enemy" and every encounter with them was a battle."

A few weeks ago, Stephanopolis asked Dean about his idiotic comment that he is "the only white candidate who talks about race to white audiences."

I have no idea what this comment was supposed to mean, and it strikes me as silly and useless.

I was amazed by Dean's response.

Instead of using the opportunity to talk about his views on race relations, he wasted an entire five minutes or so fighting with George (in an unattractive way) about whether or not he was "right."

I kept asking myself: "Right about what? WHO CARES?"

I have lots of doubts about Dean -- I basically don't trust him -- but of course I'll vote for him (or anyone else) against Bush.

Dean is absolutely not a progressive. Kucinich is the only Demo candidate with real convictions.

to Steph., but if he used it, he stole it from Clinton. Clinton said that at the Harken steak fry (or whatever that gig was).

He said white folks (mostly) only talk about racism when they are talking with black folks. Black folks already know about racism. it's white folks that need to hear about it!

Makes sense to me.

At first considered a rather risky thing to discuss. He was then attacked by other candidates for claiming he was alone in talking about racism. I have checked the others websites--they discuss civil rights and affirmative action--but they don't discuss the dynamics of racism with white audiences.

It was Clinton who got it from Dean.

Gephardt is my choice and I do believe he can win. He is a fine man and a fine American who I see as sincere and can get the job done.
.
I received this via email, http://www.hermes-press.com/HDean/dean_republican.htm some information on Dean. It appears to be a negative site but it does give you a peak at Dean as Governor. I personally liked Dean at first but have since found that he supports some things I'm against and doesn't support other things I'm for. One thing he does not support medical marijuana, as a doctor I find this surprising. He has stated that we will be in Iraq for years......this does not work for me.
.
Who ever we choose will get the sink tossed at them and we as a group had better be ready and know the facts before hand and not select a candidate that in the end will be easy to discredit.
.
We cannot afford another four years of Bush.

What do the websites tell you about what is said in front of live audiences?! Aside from an occasional transcript, not a damned thing.

Sorry, but that's offensive to me. Do you take everything you read on the web as gospel? If not you should question the accuracy of these things as I've pointed them out.

Point of fact, Kucinich in live events speaks of racial division as it applies to people and to issues. He doesn't just toss it out there to everyone all the time, he brings it up in a relevant context. I resent the implication that because it isn't on his website he must not be talking about it to primarily white audiences. The burden is on you to prove that asserion, not on Kucinich or his supporters to disprove it.

actually Kucinich has racially devisive campaign tactics in his past.

"Basically, in the early days -- before he was running citywide, let alone nationwide -- Kucinich's political schtick was posing as the champion of the 'forgotten' white ethnic voters over against the rising force of black political power. Sort of a great white hope type, or great Slavic hope, if you will.

There was plenty of acrimony between blacks and white ethnic voters in Northern cities in the late 1960s and early 1970s. So it was fertile political ground. And playing on that divide for political gain was not at all uncommon. That fissure, after all, was one of the things that broke apart the Democrats' coalition in the North. Kucinich didn't create it. But at the time some pols chose to play to it while others didn't."

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/old/feb0304.html#022603414pm

It is a centerpiece of his campaign. He talks about it to Iowa and NH voters. You must not have seen any of his town halls.

But Howard Dean knows Edwards is talking about race. He just chose to lie about it.

Dean is one sketchy dude, and more people will see that as they look closer.

Clinton and Dean being on the same page. However, you read through that speech and its' the opposite of what Dean says.

Clinton talks about the successes of the CR movement, and says we've reached a new stage, and he says that we need a dialog with the white community at the beginning of that speech, but then, when he gets into it, he clearly believes that the law is the battlefield (not the unconscious prejudice) and then he goes on to talk about the dialog between the black and white community.

It's like Dean hung an entire argument on two things from one Clinton speech which Clinton only used to establish a narrow point which he contradicted or expaned on in a long series of examples of laws, concretes policies, and inter-racial dialogue.

Howard Dean did NOT invent the notion of talking about race to white audiences. And the idea that Bill Clinton is taking signals from Howard Dean is laughable. Clinton is so far beyond Dean on the issue of race - do you really believe that Clinton is following Dean's lead? Please.

I thought a lot of Dean early on. But this ridiculous insistence of his that he is the only white politician talking about race the way it should be done is bull. At first I thought he had just overstated the issue. But his refusal to back down - along with his supporters' blind obeisance to his claim - tell me that he is completely out of touch on the race issue.

As an African American, I find his attitude and comments insulting and patronizing. They also make me think that he knows very little about the complex issue of race in America and what has been going on in the area for the past 50 years. Frankly, I think that only white people who know little about the race issue would think that Dean is doing anything extraordinary in this regard.

Howard Dean is NOT on the cutting edge of the race discussion in America. In fact, he's not doing or saying anything particularly interesting, innovative or insightful. Yes, I think his heart's in the right place and that he means well. But there are many white politicians have been dealing with this issue in much more in depth than he has. He talks a good game, but what is he DOING besides talking about race? A couple of weeks ago, I asked for examples of anything Dean has actually DONE to fight for civil rights. I received not a single response. Dean supporters love to talk about Dean talking about talking about race. But that really means very little.

I'll give you an example: During the first CBC debate, in answer to a question about his favorite song, he said, "It's one you don't know. Wyclef Jean's Jaspera."

White folks may have been impressed by his cultural awareness. But I don't know a single black person who was impressed - in fact, I don't know a single black person who even BELIEVED him. Yes, perhaps he likes that song, but no one believed that this was his favorite song by a long shot. And Howard Dean liking a song by a black artist - even if it's his favorite song - is not going to make black folk want to vote for him any more than the fact that Chaka Khan sang at the Republican Convention is going to make us want to support the GOP.

But what made it worse, was his smug assertion that the black woman who asked him the question didn't know the song. What would make him think that? Does Dean really believe that he is just SO hip and into black culture that he is aware of songs that black people just don't know? And even if he believed that, it takes considerable nerve to boast about it to an African American commentator.

So, I suggest that Dean and his supporters stop claiming that he is the only white politician talking about race. Stop saying that he is the only one talking about race the "right" way - how would you know, anyway, unless you are following every white politician around the country and listening to everything they say? And, please, don't claim that Clinton "got" anything, especially his views or comments about race, from Dean. All you're doing is making him look arrogant and ridiculous to those of us who have been in the middle of this issue.

I'm going to try to comment on a couple of things here anyway.

"supporters' blind obeisance"- I can't speak for all supporters of course, but I don't believe that Dean is the only white guy talking about race to white folks, and I don't believe he believes that. I'm not certain of the wording he has used that you are referring to, but if he is repeatedly saying it that clearly, then I think it is a mistake on his part.

I don't watch all of the televised stuff (debates and other "impromtu" comments especially), partly because of my schedule and partly because under the kind of microscope these guys are under, they all end up saying stuff that doesn't accurately reflect their intentions or even meaning from time to time. It's the overall picture over time that is most significant, and if Dean (or any other candidate) is consistently saying stuff you disagree with, fine. Or if the vaccillate enough to bother you, fine.

I guess my opinion is that the candidates are not developing their policies "on the fly" during debates and interviews. They develop their policies seperately and then try to articulate them in whatever format they find themselves in. I would agree that it is instructive to observe how they react in these situations, but more to make sure that their impromptu responses match up with their policies rather than reading a lot into their tone and intent in any particular event.

I am satisfied that Dean has good intentions and is smart enough and aware enough to act appropriately when it comes to racial issues. When he came to speak in Atlanta, he brought a couple of his college roommates with him to speak, one of which was African-American, if it makes any difference. I am in close contact with several African-American volunteers here in Georgia who evidently are not bothered by these comments. I haven't spoken with them specifically about this issue, but obviously if it bothers them at all, it's not enough to cause them to question their support, because they are quite active. I guess I am pointing this out to say that, just as I don't speak for all Dean supporters, you can't speak for all African-Americans.

Next, some may think that what Dean is doing is "extraordinary"- I wouldn't use that word. But regardless of whoever's idea it is, and however long it's been around, it seems like a positive message. I don't see anything wrong with promoting the idea of talking more openly, among the white community, about racial issues.

Asking what Dean has DONE regarding race is a little like asking what he has DONE in foreign policy. As far as I know, Vermont is a pretty homogeneous state, and I doubt Dean has been confronted with significant racial issues. That doesn't mean he can't be a good leader on racial issues.

I have little to say about his favorite song. It was a stupid question that, in my opinion, should have little bearing on one's evaluation of a candidate. We can read as much or as little as we want to in the tone, inflection, intent, and meaning of his response, but those are all very personal and subjective observations.

Finally, can I ask if you are supporting a candidate yet?

PS- I don't think I am someone who will just reflexively defend Dean at every opportunity. I disagree with him on some things, and I also understand that he hasn't reacted perfectly at all times. But there are some issues that i think deserve defending. And for what it's worth, I will be paying closer attention to Dean's comments and positions regarding race to make sure I understand more fully where he is coming from. So thank you for your insights.

Thanks for your response.

Howard Dean has repeatedly said that he is the only white politician talking about race to white audiences. As I said, at first I thought it was unfortunate but unintentional hyperbole, but he has continued to make this assertion, even when challenged by others. Now that it's been pointed out that other candidates have been talking about race to white audiences, he says that he is the only one talking about it the right way. His refusal to back off of his comment or to acknowledge that he is not the only one talking about this issue in a meaningful way has led many people - including me - to conclude that he's either a blowhard or clueless.

Here are some examples:

"I'll tell you why I connect with African American audiences. I'm the only white politician that ever talks about race in front of white audiences." CBC Debate, September 9, 2003

"STEPHANOPOULOS: Just the other night at the Congressional Black Caucus debate, Senator Edwards took you on because you said "I'm the only white candidate in the race who talks about race to white audiences." He said that's simply not true. And he's right, isn't he?

DEAN: No, he's wrong about that. White politicians always go before black audiences and talk about affirmative action, all this stuff. Sometimes they, as in Joe Lieberman's and Senator Edwards' and others' case, talk about protection of civil rights. They talk about what they were doing in the civil rights movement in the '60s and all that. That's not talking about race. If you want to talk about race and you're white, you have an obligation to talk about the un, the unconscious bias that people exercise over hiring practices, the fact that ...

STEPHANOPOULOS: But that's not what you said in the debate. I've been on the campaign trail with these guys. And Senator Kerry, Senator Edwards and Senator Lieberman, they talk about race in every single stop.

DEAN: But they don't, none of them have attacked the quota system.

STEPHANOPOULOS: All have attacked President Bush on affirmative action and said he shouldn't call a quotas.

DEAN: But they, well, long after I did.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Now, why not just say, you know, maybe I shouldn't have said it that way?

DEAN: Because I think I'm right." THIS WEEK, September 14, 2003


And, even though he's been called on it repeatedly, just last week on Tavis Smiley's radio show, Dean again made this erroneous assertion.

I just don't understand it. Either Dean is lying or he really believes that he's the only white politician talking about race in any meaningful way. I don't think he is a liar and would never accuse him of such. So he must believe that what he is saying is true. And if he does believe this, what does it say about how in touch he is with the issue?

I'm certainly not speaking for all African Americans. But I do believe that my views represent a significant number of black voters who are not impressed by the kinds of claims that Dean is making. And this is reflected in the lack of significant black support he is getting. Despite his efforts, Dean's support is still concentrated among whites; even though some blacks do support him, he's not gaining much traction among African Americans. He's certainly not catching fire in black communities the way he has in white communities; I think that his reputation for being disconnected from and out of touch with blacks is the reason for this. This reputation may not be fair - after all, it's not his fault there are no black people in Vermont :-). But these kinds of comments do nothing to alleviate the impression.

I once had a high regard for Dean. I'm disappointed in him.

...analogies when he "talks" about "race".

I've never heard any Democrats do that in front of white or black audiences (thank god).

Sounds like Dean is trying to stick to his talking points even though what he is saying about other candidates is not right.

Also, I would be naive if I didn't recognize Dean's weakness in reaching out to the minority community. I see it, and I want to help change it. I think the message is there, it's just not yet reaching the people beyond the early activist supporters (anti-war/gay/internet activists).

I understand your disappointment.

Here is an African Americans for Dean yahoo group if you are interested in checking it out:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AfricanAmericansForDean/

(you will have to sign up).

In his house party conference call, he repeated this statement AGAIN. And then he tried to give an analogy -- and, mind you, that although the caller asking the question was a black woman from TN, Dean was speaking to a largely white audience, so we were going to learn exactly how Dean thought a politician should talk about race to a white audience.

Dean’s analogy was about anti-male (probably white, too) GENDER discrimination in his executive office in VT. So, Dean’s big idea about talking bluntly to a white audience about race was to tell them about how white men are discriminated against.

I guess Dean is right. No Democratic has talked about race like THAT. Most of them aren’t that dumb.

When he was answering the question, he gave the analogy that his secretary was in charge of hiring in his office, and that she tended to hire women because you are most likely to hire those most similar to yourself...

He wasn't saying anything about white males being discriminated against, he was saying that the reason that you NEED affirmative action at this time is that we still tend to hire those most like us (and since most people hiring are white males, then most people hired are white males)...not because of a blatant stereotype, but because we tend to go more towards those most similar...and that's why affirmative action is necessary...to give those that aren't necessarily like us an equal chance...

I thought that it was one of his best answers during the telephone conference call...

race to white audiences. In the next breath he tells his white audience about anit-white male gender discrimination.

I know what an analogy is. I also know the difference between blunt, honest analogies that tell the truth about a situation, and an analogy that panders to white man, which makes them think that they're somehow victims and that they need some kind of protection.

with white people, doesn't it make more sense to put it in a context they can relate to?

And, second, if you want to talk about race in a way that makes them understand it, which is the way, for example, JFK talked about race after the events at the University of Mississippi, which is the sort of talk that turned a generation of southern Republicans like Molly Ivins into Democrats, and which led to the passage of the Civil Rights Act -- which Dean dismissed as being only secondary in importance to addressing "unconscious prejudices".

And I just want to point out tha that unconscious prejudices are UNCONSCIOUS, so I don't know how much you're asking of someone if you're asking them to change the way they think unconscioulsy!

So, Dean should keep talking the way he has if his inention is to make white men feel like they're the victims and that recognizing that they're victims might help them deal with race unconscioulsy.

his intent I suppose, but I probably will not engage in that.

However, I think talking about subconscious urges is precisely what you do to make people aware of them. (I'm no psychologist however.)

I've had prejudices, that I have become aware of once they are pointed out.

required to come to that conclusion. That much is plain as day.

As for subconscious prejudices, do YOU think the problem with race today is the problem of subconscious prejudices?

Do you think that keeping blacks from voting is the result of subconscious prejudice?

Tell me honestly, what do you think is the most serious manifestation of racial prejudice today? Now tell me if you think it's caused by a conscious or a subconscious prejudice.

Again, I'll say that if, when Dean said that Democrats don't talk about race they way he does, he meant that other Democrats didn't try to talk about it terms of psychology and unconscious prejudices, then he's absolutely right. And it's probably a good thing that he's alone out front with this, uh, "blunt" talk.

...about Dean.

And I'd like to add an observation I had about Dean’s Bryant Park speech. As kp says, most of Dean’s stumping is about how bad Bush is. In his Bryant Park speech, Dean opened with about 15 or 20 minutes of statement after statement, each one including either the word “Bush”, “Ashcroft” or “Republican.” Finally, he said, “They say you can’t run for president unless you tell the people what you’re for – you can’t be against everything.” However, he said this with a tone that suggested that he was scornful of that sentiment. The audience picked up on this and laughed, as if it were an amusing notion and that they agreed with him that it’s more fun to angrily complain. (And, yes, yes…I’m angry too. I’m so angry that I want my candidate to be perfect…I want a candidate who doesn’t simply appeal to people’s anger.)

So what does Dean talk about when he talks about what he’s for? He talked about two health care programs he had in Vermont (the home visits for new mothers, and something else I can’t remember). After maybe a paragraph of speaking about this stuff, it was right back to “Bush”/”Ashcroft”/“Republicans” and anger. So, basically, the only things he’s for, which would define him, in the event, say, that Bush doesn’t make it to November 2004, are a couple of state health care programs which might not even be appropriate for the Federal government? And to put health care programs at the core of your stand-alone identity at a time when those issues so clearly fall under a MUCH bigger, more important umbrella – the rape of the middle and working class … well, you know, I’m going to be giving serious consideration to a few other candidates before I give it to Dean.

The avid support for Dean that stirred in me last spring and summer is fading like my summer tan and your post puts the finger on why. Yeah, yeah, yeah...we all can't stand Bush! Got it! Been there, donr that. Now who in the field gets us where we need to go? Careful, it's a trick question. The has to, of course, impress us but then the eventual candidate needs to carry a vast number of voters outside of DU.

Lately I've looked Dean right in the eye -- via the magic of television -- and wonder if he's really the candidate who can get the job done.

...

it seems to be either that because Dean didn't cover all his policies at the Bryant Park event that he's a lame candidate, or that he doesn't have any policies beyond healthcare.

I think someone else linked to the more detailed policies, but here's a quick rundown in case you don't get to see him on TV:

- civil unions
- no death penalty with a coupe of exceptions
- pro-choice
- healthcare for all, starting with kids, then elderly, then the rest.
- balanced budget
- try to cut off Saudi money supporting terrorisim
- engagement in the Middle East (bit of vacillation here, sometimes says we need to be neutral-support both sides, sometimes says we need to maintain our special relationship with Israel).
- repeal tax cuts
- success by six- home intervention for familes with newborns who want support.
- fund No Child Left Behind
- enforce current federal gun laws, states do the rest.
- end Cuba embargo (although not right now due to current dissident crackdown)
- Tie foreign trade to human rights
- repair relationship with UN, invite them in to Iraq.
- Federal seed money to develop a renewable energy infrastructure.
- Companies that move offshore lose tax breaks

By the way, Dean's average contribution is about $70.

important to Dean. And I told you what I heard.

Are you saying that list is from the Bryant Park Speech? If it is, then lots of these points were made by making angry contrasts to Republicans. And that's the point I was trying to make -- defining himself that way isn't helping matters.

You know what I have to say about the average contribution? I looked at his FEC reports, and he seems to have way more multiple donations from the same person in the same quarter. Most people give once per quarter. It wasn't unusual to find people giving four times a quarter. If you multiplied other candidates donors by four and divided the average contribution by four, you'd probably get similar numbers.

Is the Dean campaign encouraging people to break down their donations into multiple smaller donations?

you said 'I started seeing Dean as much more arrogant and less like he listened to "regular people".'

I have seen only the opposite. Dean seems more in touch with "regular people" than ANY of the candidates. I'm surprised, if you have listened to him often (not just in debates) that you would not have heard the many times he's said just the things we have been saying here (assuming we are "regular people") - that's one of the big reasons he's had so much support among "regular people" - he's got the same concerns.

I'm fine with the intellectual stuff. But let's look at it from a "person who would vote for a dumb bodybuilder to run a humongous state in times of trouble" perspective - I'd be far more to bet it is Kerry rather than Dean they'd see as aloof. That was probably what cost Gore some votes - the "ivory tower" impression. Dean's appeal is that he's down in the trenches with us. Maybe they both are coming from the same place, but one is, I think, is playing their cards better than the other with respect to voter appeal.

As for the vote on war, it can't be defended. No matter what they use to justify it, a blank check is a blank check. Those who voted for it, ought to just admit they goofed, and move on.

white, socially liberal, economically uninterested) people. But I'm not sure how much of his campaign is driven by ideas coming from the bottom up. I just read the other day here that some supporters met with him and encouraged him to change his position on something (I can't remember what) and he said he couldn't. I think the campaign is carefully constucted around a set of ideas which are not going to change regardless of whether he's pressured fromt he bottom up.

For instance, he's not going to embrace progressive taxation, and he's not going to change the way he's "talking" about "race" (ie, tellying stories about gender discrimination).

He's not going to change what he believes.

If you look at his record, he's been quite consistent about what he believes - long before the "campaign" told him what to think.

You know, you had quite an opportunity here to pitch Kerry to people, and as usual, all you've done is bash Dean - and bash him with a lot of untruths. Just about everything you've said has been a piece of cake to refute.

then how is he running a bottom-up campaign?

I don't think he is. I think he figured out a way to get a lot of people motivated on the basis of image and on a few, narrow issues which aren't going to play well except on college campuses. I think he's relying on those people not understanding what it means to go to the Cato Institute and tell them that they should like him. And I think that Cato Institute thing is the real core of his identity, which he wouldn't change even if all his socially liberal supporters suddenly figured out that it's more important to be economically liberal.

Actually I started supporting Kucinich and thinking I might support Kerry, until about July. The difference for me has been watching the website, the blog, the number of registered supporters and the grassroots fundraising.

This is really a different campaign. I've an active Democrat since 1980 and have been continually frustrated with the disconnect between our street activists like me and the leadership. "Thanks for all your help, now we're going to talk to the big money boys."

The most important thing right now REGARDLESS OF EXACT STANDS ON ISSUES is for the PEOPLE to reclaim the electoral process. If you think any of our candidates is going to be able to push his/her entire agenda with Congress the way it is, you're delusional. The best we can hope for is to slam the brakes on the "Great Unraveling" (with credit to Krugman) and start mobilizing the people in resistance. The "Bully Pulpit" may be the most powerful weapon any Democratic President would have. With this in mind, we need a candidate that is capable of and can can really BULLY Tom DeLay and the rest of the fascists. Imagine Howard Dean's weekly press conferences and frequent speeches.

Remember, even if we win, the "war on fascism" goes on.

To carry this dumb "war" analogy further, if you're going for the jugular, do you want Patton or Monty? Dean is domonstrably a political Patton, he's stolen several marches on everybody, and clearly outflanked Kerry. And goes right for the jugular.

Kerry is more plodding and methodical. That doesn't mean he isn't effective, but he inspires more admiration than passion.

Clark is, well, more like Eisenhower without the broad base of support (yet). We'll see how he develops.

To flog our "war" analogy even further, after a lightning advance, the organization needs to regroup and bring up additional resources for the next push. That's where Dean is. Be patient.

Don't go by these "debates". These are just sound bite exercises, there are still too many candidates to really get substance out of them. Dean is defending the counterattacks handily and readying the next offensive.

Thank you for enlightening me about Dean's comment.

I am still bothered by the weird hyper-aggressive way that Dean deal with it in his conversation with Stephanopolos. He wasted an opportunity to tell a large audience about his views on race, and instead came off as petty and abrasive.

Look at the splash Clark made when he finally dove in and see how his glow is starting to dim. Maintaining that momentum is difficult with the fickle attention span of US audiences.

Compare and weigh Dean's chances and his potential with the rest of the field and you get a better perspective. In other words, if you think Dean isn't batting 100%, look at the others. Amazing how you simply accept Kerry's underhandedness and complain that Dean isn't authentic enough..No one is more boring than Kerry and he offends me with his glorification of military status. What planet is this guy on?

and how he is conducting.

I would urge you strongly to focus on the issues - not the campaign.

I believe strongly that a lot of Dean's support comes from the shear nature of his campaign style, and that's no way to pick a candidate. I believe people are caught up in the excitement of the political process, which Dean has masterfully engineered (to his credit). But when push comes to shove, it's the policies that they stand for and to a certain extent their ability to turn policy into action (case in point: Carter = the best civil servant we ever had, but he couldn't turn his stuff into policy).

I believe Dean is a man who, if he gets into the white house, he will successfully turn his policies into action plans and will implement them. I say that to his credit.

But I too was big for Dean last spring and into the early summer, but when Dean was FORCED to come out and illucidate on his exact policies, more and more I realized, he wasn't my candidate. It was a big awakening for me to realize that I gave a bunch of money to a candidate who absolutely epitomizes the very worst of what I want in policy. And we still don't have the full picture of what Dean stands for. I was caught up in the excitement of the campaign and the bat and all the pretty people who support him (white technocrats who are making a lot of fun noise giving life to the political process)...and I realized I was projecting onto Dean attributes that he has not earned nor cares to embody. That's a recipe for a trainwreck. AND, it's the same recipe that the freepers fell for with Bush, Jr. and Arnold, and all the other candidates who get into office simply by running a particular type of campaign.

So, I urge you to really look at the issues you care about.....in great detail, and find the candidate that embodies them and will fight for them. If that's Dean, great. If it isn't........find your candidate. I will probably vote Kerry, but only because, on the issues and on his record, he most closely embodies what I want.

Note: I heard a talk by Jim Hightower recently, and he explained Arnold winning as a result of people just wanting to be part of a CLUB...wanting to say no to the establishment politicians and be a part of a club - any club. And I think that's the furor behind Dean's popularity. Same concept as with Arnold (except of course, Dean is an intelligent, astute man with a real plan. It just isn't my plan, and I had to give up the club spirit and focus on the issues)

I can certainly respect that you are with Kerry on the issues. I like Kerry's position on energy policy and the environment better than Dean's to be honest. I like Kuninch better on just about everything else.

But I've seen a Carter and Clinton elected on "issues" that they could do nothing with subsequently (energy policy? health care?). I think any Democratic President is going to fight tooth and nail for any small gains we may make. The biggest issue is getting rid of Bush. The second biggest issue is waking up the people of this country to the grave danger to our democracy. I think Dean is doing that better than anybody.

Kerry's little "dig" at Dean's "throwing senior citizens off the prescription drug program" to me just showed Dean's effective use of political brinksmanship with a Republican legislature. Now that's what we want.

I will be quite blunt, in the current political environment a President Lieberman would get just as much progressive legislation advanced as a President Kucinich. This is because our options are EXTREMELY limited at this point. (1) No money, (2) stuck in Iraq, (3) possibly Repug control of both houses even after 2004. We need to slam on the brakes of the Republo-fascist program and mobilize the public.

Think about who can do this most effectively.

This IS about the campaign, because if the Democrats can't mobilize the people in favor of their own interests, then our democracy will fail.

with the GOP, often aligning with them AGAINST the preogressive Dems in the legislature. The "brinksmanship" was displayed AGAINST those Democrats, NOT the GOP.

The manner is which Dean is conducting his campaign has political meaning.

A president is so much more than a collection of policy positions. The sort of human being the president is really does affect the life of the nation. Bush wipes his glasses on a peon's jacket on national TV, he blurts at a reporter, "Who cares what you think?" and jokes about being dictator of the U.S. He raises his campaign cash in neat little million-dollar bundles where each diner/donor writes a $2,000 check. The impact of this vindictive, petty, snotty man (and the many others he has put in power) on our national life and values has been huge. This is the real 'character issue.'

It is impossible to know how Dean, or anyone else, would perform in office, since we pay for our Presidents up front in hard, cold votes; but it's reasonable to believe that Dean's loyalties would lie with the thousands who sent him there.

Clinton's campaign style was optimism, hope, and all that. He had a great personal style -- he connected with people. And he felt their pain.

So, how did he govern? Well, you put the middle class first, and tried to relieve the pressures on them. He went to the public and listened and persuaded, and he was always optimistic.


Gore was all over the place. He was indecisive. His campaign strategy was basicall to impress his daughter and the editorial board of the New York Times. I suspect that's how he would have governed.

Bush? Well, he talks no sense, and garbles language. It's intentional. It's meant to devalue the communicative value of complete sentences and ideas and elevate the notion that personality is message. "He wouldn't do anything bad. He's a nice guy." Blah blah blah.

And all this is only a tiny percentage of the signals these people sent in their campaigns.

You want me to tell you how Dean's campaigning and how he'd govern? Well, he'd do things that were extremely conservative, fiscally, which would make Wall St happy, so that he'd get their donations and cooperation, and he'd cloak himself in a veneer of liberalism which wouldn't be based on reality (other than gay rights). He'd make big business happy, so long as they didn't send jobs oversees. However, by then, they wouldn't have to because US wage rates will be so low that it'll be cheaper for Americans to sew Europe's soccer balls than it will be for an Indonesian. So, Dean will claim that as a success, even though the middle class will continue to ache under a regressive tax code and Wall St hegemony. Which will all make the Cato Institute proud.

You said "You know, a lot of your discussion has to do with his campaign
and how he is conducting. I would urge you strongly to focus on the issues - not the campaign."

But that' won't fly with the sheeple - it's all on the surface for these puppies.

So if our candidate can't put the right message on the surface, he is doomed.

Part of the little test we are giving them - the who can beat Bush test, which SHOULD be a big part of if they pass, or else we are all just wasting our time - has got to be how the campaign is being run.

Take the fax incident on the CNN debate, for instance. Prior to that, Kerry just bored me, I still liked him OK, and I rarely spoke about him on DU since I really didn't have anything particularly nice to say & don't want to diss our eventual candidate in the event he is the one. But after that was pulled, I had to say it was nasty, underhanded, and dirty pool, because that's the gut reaction of how it appeared. Not OK to just blame his campaign people or Woodruff - he had to be able to think on his feet and minimize the damage, and instead, he just made it worse. If he were to pull something like that vs. Bush, he'd probably lose a good 5 points in the polls overnight. Too many mistakes like that, and we lose.

Just asking.

And don't confuse "boring" with "civil" or "neighborly".

Otherwise, hugs and kisses.

I agree that he has become too reserved of late. It is somewhat of an overkill to compensate for all of the trouble he got into for various statements. I expect that he will get back to his blunt talk in a bigger way later on.

As for Kerry, I once supported him too, but the war vote showed a distinct lack of character. The only reason he voted for it was because he thought it would be popular later on when he made his presidential run. That vote made me ashamed to call myself a Democrat because it showed a total lack of spine on the part of the Democratic establishment that Kerry belongs to. That was the ultimate spineless vote of the century and I will not forgive any Democrat that voted for the war.

I am not supporting anybody at the moment. I went to a meet-up, had my Dean icon, then realized, I don't agree with Dean on taxes. As has been mentioned earlier, Dean wants to repeal the whole tax cut even for the working middle class. I think it is wrong. I believe in balanced budgets, but not at the expense of everything else.

In the days of Eisenhower, the wealthy paid heavy heavy taxes. Our country prospered. I believe in higher tarriffs, as well as a higher portion of taxes on those CEOs who now make 441 times as much as the factory worker. If the CEO is making 441 times what his employee is, you should follow Willie Sutton's advice, and go where the money is.

We are struggling now financially. We make $60,000 combined a year, but my wife and I live in California. Median house prices are now $400,000 a year. $60k is not wealthy here. We need tax relief. It is not radical to suggest that we tax the wealthy at half their 1960 levels. It would basically balance the budget.

It is a myth to believe that somebody who draws $10,000,000 in salary and perks is going to stop working if they are taxed $4.5 million instead of $2.9 million. They will still be taking home $5.5 million. They will be doing quite nicely for themselves.

I would just love for a tax structure that would eliminate taxes on the first $60k of income as a single, and $90k married. That is the lower edges of the upper middle class. This would actually help more people from the bottom work their way up. It should be our goal. No, everybody is not going to become a millionaire, but we should have a tax policy that tries to encourage those in the bottom 60%, to be able to move up the ladder.

If Dean really believes that those in the $40-90k range are paying too little in taxes, I believe he is misguided. The middle class is what grows this economy in the long run. The middle class buy from local merchants, spend the money here. Giving Jack Welch $2.5 million extra to spend on an italian vacation/birthday party for his wife boosts our economy how?

which is code language for the Cato Insitute and the flatter tax crowd.

The problem isn't complexity. The problem is the allocation of the tax burden. And on that issue, Dean is a little more cagey.

The only thing I've heard him say about corproate taxes is some vague statement about (it seems) tying taxes to exporting jobs. That's probaby about 1/90th of the problem with corporate tax today.

IF you are going to bash by making it sound like Dean is in bed with CATO, at least find out what CATO is all about.

CATO is largely opposed to Bush for a number of reasons. But tax cuts aren't one of them.

You will not hear the other Democratic candidates complaigning that the code is too complicated. They'll be complaigning that it's unfair to people who work for a living. Dean doesn't think so. He thinks giving a break to a person who could be construed as upper middle class wouldn't be a good idea.

Do you know ANYTHING about Dean? No, I didn't think so.

went to a Dean fundraiser at a Philadelphia law firm at which Dean was asked his position on the Bush tax repeal and why he wouldn't let the breaks that went to the middle class stand. Dean said that he couldn't do that or he'd be accused of looking after the interests of "the upper middle class".

If that's not true, then you can take it up with the Dean supporter who posted it.

Would you like me to clarify anything else I've said? Or would you just like to hysterically post misleading subject lines in an effort to discredit with slogans what you can't discredit with facts and argument?

I think framing the tax debate in terms of whether taxes should go up or down is incredibly misleading. The tax debate should be about allocating tax burdens.

When you say taxes are going up, the Republicans make it sound like they're going up on everyone. The fact is, relative tax burdens are so unbeleivably skewed, they NEED to go up on some people and way down on the middle class just to get to the point where the tax burden is even remotely allocated in a way that's fair to everyone.

If Jack Welch did pay a higher marginal rate on higher levels of income, and if he were taking some of the tax burden off of the middle class, he'd find that GE could actually make MORE money. He could be richer...if he were willing to work for it.

But that's what this is all really about. They don't want to have to work for it. They want to be assured wealth (and, therefore, political power) by making sure that the people at the top can stay at the top, and the people at the bottom are too burdened to ever rise to the top.

Or, advance on your upcoming tax return, to be more accurate.

I'm also in the $40-90k range, but I didnt' get squat back from Chimpy. I understand it's because I don't have kids. But then almost everyone I know who does have kids didn't get a tax "cut," either, because they didn't make enough money.

The one exception is my sister-in-law, whose combine income with her husband is just under $200,000. She was glad to get that $800 Chimpy check because she said she was desperately needing some new furniture for around the pool.

has NO interest in articulating a more progressive tax structure. He hasn't made one concrete proposal about increasing progressivity that I've heard.

From Dean's website:

As President, I will make job creation a top priority. Good jobs are the result of sound fiscal policies, progressive tax practices, and practical, necessary investments in our communities. To this end, I will propose the repeal of every last dime of the Bush tax cuts. I will work to eliminate tax policies that provide incentives for American firms to move manufacturing jobs offshore.
http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_statement_labor&JServSessionIdr002=21w1qoz0g1.app195a

By the way, AP, I was really impressed with your guy, Edwards the other night at the CNN debate. He did an excellent job, and has now moved up as my #2 choice.

(edited to add link)

...I've ever seen anything from the Dean camp which uses the phrase "progressive tax". It's not part of his stump speech, whereas it is a central theme in at least one of the candidate's meta-message.

And I think it is EXTREMELY revealing that the mention of this phrase comes in the same paragraph of his endorsement of repealing all the tax cuts. The problem with that position is that it isn't a progressive tax proposal. So, this paragraph reads to me as a camoflage. He doesn't want progressivity, but he calls want he wants progressivity? C'mon. And there's the reference to exporting jobs and taxes again. Like I said, even if you did connect those two things, it still won't sove the problem with taxes. In fact, it'll address about 1% of the problem.

(Oh, and by the way, when Bush turns the US into a bananna republic, we'll have jobs again. Your twelve year old will be sewing soccer balls for Europeans.)

So, I'm going to repeat, Bush wants to transfer the wealth of the middle class to the richest Americans through the tax code. Dean wants to balance the budget on the backs of the middle class, so his wall st friends will be OK. The real democrats want to take the burden off the middle class so it can pull us out of this recession, and so that the middle class can have some wealth and political power.

My understanding is that Dean will repeal all of the tax cuts. Much of that will go to help balance the budget (eventually) and some will be used to begin implementing health care, which will SAVE money for the middle class, maybe not in the first year or the second, but as soon as possible. We can delay the tax cut repeal, but it will just take that much longer to do the other.

Other things, like Success by Six, are supposed to save money eventually by allowing us to spend less on incarceration and welfare.

Besides, the vast majority of the middle class (and every other class for that matter) increased their real income in the years before the tax cut, i.e., with the higher taxes. It can be done. Tax cuts are not the only answer to increasing a persons income. We need to create jobs, and get the economy going.

One more thing- we should perhaps talk more specifically about which taxes or tax rates to consider keeping, if any. And it's not all just tax brackets. I'm pissed about the child tax credit. What's that about? Why would we exclude people who don't have kids from a tax break? Bizarre.

You really don't understand why we have a child tax credit? My, my.

America is going to stop dead in its tracks if we don't encourage it to reprduce itself. And we can' t just let rich people afford kids. For many people, it's their children who keep them happy and healthy and off the public dole when they get old. A child tax credit is a small investment America makes today to reduce the chance that senior citizens are going to become expensive wards of the state tomorrow.

And even if you don't have kids, you better hope that other people are encouraged to have them, becuase somebody is going to have to be working to make sure that you get your SS when you're old.

Furthermore, you're going to want to make sure that kids aren't a financial burden on their parents too, even if you don't have kids. Less unwantedness and anger at kids is very good for society.

As of the rest of what you say, I'm just going to have to say that, perhaps, if you didn' understand why we have child tax credits you might want to consider that you have a little more to learn about this stuff...and maybe when you do figure it out, you'll realize why Dean is the weakest on this issue.

You're right. I did not understand that that was the deal.

Did the parents who got the tax break know they were going to get the tax break when they had their kids?

People who are considering having kids now factor in future tax breaks?

This country has grown just fine without "tax encouragement" to have more kids.

a big part of it. And even if they don't, once they have kids, you want to make sure that they're less burdened financially so that they can raise their kids and give them tons of opportunities.

Jeez. This is obvious stuff.

IF you are making 40K (as a family) you are approaching the median of the income distribution.

If you are making 90K (as a family) your income is in the upper 20 percent of all earners.

I know it doesn't feel like you are all that rich.

There is a 25 trillion dollar unfunded deficit in Social Security and Medicare payments for retiring boomers. If you project the demographics out.

Get used to paying taxes soon.

apportioned fairly. It's like putting weight on a thoroughbred. I'm not asking that I should be guaranteed a victory, I just don't want to be carrying all the weight.

The whole economy is going to be better and richer if the burden is apportioned fairly.

Which means we may have to give up a little too.

Put it to the rich, by all means. They have been getting all of the goodies for the last 20 years.

He doesn't think people in the 40 to 60k range pay "too little". He thinks (rightly) that the cuts in services, increases in state and local taxes, increases in tuition and other various items render a higher overall tax burden as a result of Bush's "tax loans". He's right. Don't forget that these "tax loans" were paid for with borrowed money and they fundamentally undermine the fiscal position of the nation. You and yours will repay these loans many times over as Republicans shift taxes from wealth to work. Dean is saying that by repealing the tax loans and coming up with a fiscally responsible program that creates jobs, stops the massive borrowing, shores up education, Social Security and Medicare, we will all be better off. He's right.

Take the long view. The choice is between the hard right or the easy wrong. I'll take the hard right.

...if we were only going to rely on only tax revenue to close the budget gap. (Krugman make this point.)

The way Dean thinks about taxes (only vis closing budget) will do nothing to fix the economy.

To fix the economy we have to unburden the engine of economic growth -- the middle class. And the inequitable tax burden is the biggest thing burdening the middle class right now.

Because Dean doesn't uderstand this (or he understands it and has some other crazy plan) I can't support him.

Every since Dean entered the race I was intrested in him because of his work on Civil Unions and being a Doctor (I live in a fam. of dr's).

He really seemed to speak to me and his anti-war stance was icing on the cake for me to like Dean. I donated to him, followed his website and his speeches very closely.

But during this summer I began to find some of his conservative leanings a bit bothersome. Then I was getting annoyed with his anti-washington, bush-lite bashing, and what seemed to be almost anti-Democrat talk. I was happy he was speaking the truth but I didn't think bashing a majority of moderate democrats was really the way to go.

Finally I began to watch him on TV and he looked like what you explained. Wishy-washy, nervous, stumped, pulling for answers to please who was listening at the moment <-- really what all politicans do but he didn't pull it off very well.

Then I went back to the drawing board and started hearing the other Dem. canidates with a more open mind and ended up with Kerry, definetly not perfect but electable and liberal on issues I feel strongly about.

I'd just suggest you look at our field of 9 canidates witha very open mind a see which one perks your interest they are all qualified and interesting to learn about.

Second of all, the entire purpose of the primary system is so that the voters get to see the candidates perform under pressure in the public limelight. This is our chance to see which candidate deserves our support, and which candidate resorts to dirty tricks and tactics.

In the final analysis, we must make a value judgment when we cast a vote in the primaries. All we are doing in DU is express our views. The only thing that counts is the voters when they cast their ballots in Iowa, New Hampshire, etc.

Normally I wouldn't worry about the primaries since by the time the Indiana primary rolls in May 2004, there is usually a candidate with the nomination already locked up. Next year may well be an exception, and we may find as many as four candidates still competing with none of them having enough delegates to win the nomination on the first ballot. If such a scenario were to occur, I would have to think hard about whom to vote for from among those within reach of winning the nomination. I won't know the answer until that day comes.

As to how I feel today about the candidates, I still support Dean because I think he is the only that can bring sanity to our budget. We cannot do any of the things we want to do until we put in place the same fiscal constraints that President Clinton did to bring the deficit down. There are no glorious Democratic programs for the next Administration because there is no money to pay for them. That's the harsh reality, and I am not about to trust a candidate that voted for the Bush tax cuts to be able to reign in the deficit.

At the moral and ethical level, only Dennis Kucinich has spoken about what needs to be done to extricate this nation out of the Iraq mess that Bush, and many members of Congress, got us into. Not even Governor Dean or General Clark recognize the imperative of pulling the troops out of Iraq immediately and unconditionally. Anything short of the Kucinich proposal will lead to more deaths and more suffering. We must end the occupation of Iraq at once!

I think it's a real shame that candidates get
trained to be robotic and bland and vague by
their friggen handlers. Must act lobotomized to win...
Unfortunately it seems to happen to them all.
I really wish it didn't.

I'm backing Clark, and I think he's going thru
the same thing. I don't think he's acting like
the man that Michael Moore, and thousands of us,
urged to run.

My two cents, for what it's worth, is that it's
impossible nowdays to find a serious candidate
that doesn't go Stepford. And Dean's one of the
best candidates.

... or the Buddha, or other spiritual icon of your choice.

Seriously, I agree with you about the candidate bashing and wish they would all simmer down. Plus, it's good not to get TOO attached to any one candidate that you can't change your mind as you learn more about them.

Right now we're all just dating. We don't have to marry any of these guys yet.

On the other hand, I thought Dean was stronger in the last debate than in previous ones. He's a smart guy, and this is his first national campaign, and I think he will get stronger as he goes along. Also, as they are all human beings, none of them will be perfect.

Stay with us!

I cannot see how any other candidate could take Bush out of the White House. Dean is that candidate. Don't believe what the DLC is trying to do. They are the ones apart from the Repubs trying to discredit and smear Dean. The other candidates just don't have it.

Keep the faith!


John

Honestly, I thought Dean was it, now I find myself wanting to support Clark. In the end--I haven't decided.

Clark has so much potential for the general election--and for governing--that if his position on the issues are more progressive than DLC--I'll probably give in to my gut feelings.

On Social Security and progressive taxation--I am very pleased where he stands. But I want to hear more--on the environment, veterans health care and benefits, health care, etc.

So my advice is to watch Clark and listen--and then to compare. That is what I will do.

Well, my question is when one of you guys get elected, for the military families, what are your programs to help them out? I'm looking at -- are there going to be base closures? Are there going to be pay increases, that sort of thing? That's about it.

CLARK: I think there's a fundamental difference between Republicans and Democrats on this issue, because it's simply true, the Republicans do like weapon systems and Democrats like people. (APPLAUSE)

And so, I can tell you, and I would speak for anybody up here, when we take this government back in 2005, we're going to look after pay.

We're going to look after education for children. We're going to make sure military health care works. We're going to take care of our veterans. And we're going to make sure that the military family is giving the respect and the pay increases that it needs to have a good quality of life.

But on details I'd like the following from our candidates..

The GOP congressional leadership is considering giving in on concurrent receipt--but only if they can make it more difficult for veterans to obtain disability benefits in the future. This typical republican response of offering something that "sounds good" to some veterans while stabbing their comrades in the back--is rotten, shameful, and a disgrace.

The republicans deserve to be humiliated over this. So yes, I am pleased to hear support for veterans care. But what I really think we need is scathing attacks on Bush and the congressional republicans from Clark and the other candidates in support of our soldiers and veterans--right now when the republicans are up to their dirty work.

The statements on the candidate websites are good. But to hear the spoken word on issues and specifics is much better. It also helps differentiate between the candidates. So you support this...what do you mean by that?

He is the manifestation of the military corporate industrial complex in the Democratic party. There is no way for him to seperate himself. Same old shit different party?

Same old shit different party!

"You folks at Cato," he told us, "should really like my views because I'm economically conservative and socially laissez-faire." Then he continued: "Believe me, I'm no big-government liberal. I believe in balanced budgets, markets, and deregulation. Look at my record in Vermont." He was scathing in his indictment of the "hyper-enthusiasm for taxes" among Democrats in Washington.

Dean worked to deregulate energy in Vermont.


Dean later went on to raise taxes on gasoline and sales both REGRESSIVE!

As well as balancing the budget on the backs of the poor and middle class.

And he never tells us how many jobs Vermont lost to NAFTA...

Duplicitous to the extreme.

As I said above, I think it's important to distinguish between the various approaches to taxes from which we'll be able to chose in the upcoming election:

(1) Bush wants to transfer the wealth of the middle class to the richest Americans through the tax code.

(2)Dean wants to balance the budget on the backs of the middle class, so his wall st friends will be OK. T

(3) The real democrats want to take the burden off the middle class so it can pull us out of this recession, and so that the middle class can have some wealth and political power.

CATO vs. the neocons is one of the best bits of reading on the web. Sure, we differ significantly in some ways, but there is certainly common ground. One is that many of them view the Bush Administration as equally destructive to the country as we do. Put a Democratic candidate up there they can stomach, and we've just gained enough votes to push us over the edge in an election that could be even tighter than election 2000.

If you want to turn down a lot of Independent voters, fine. But give some thought to what you are dooming the country to - another 4 years of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, John Ashcroft, ...

If Dean's fiscal, foreign, gun control, and civil liberties policy gets us the swing votes, then for goodness sake, put him up there. He's as much a Democrat as any of the candidates up there. If he can beat Bush, then glory glory glory, put the man up there so we can save our country from destruction.

...a general election. Way more democrats vote on economic issues than social issues, and the social issues he stands for may rally some hard core liberal activists, but they aren't going to win many votes outside CA, and the NE.

OR you'd see it's Bush's economic position that has a spectacular opening for a Democrat to attack. People DO care about economic policy, and they rate Bush very low.

Re: social issues - most people are squarely with Dean on those (gay marriage aside - and there is a lot more to social issues than gay marriage.) You're doing a particularly sloppy job of smearing Dean today. Playing fast and loose with the facts. You might fool some of the sheeple, but most of DU is much too knowledgeable about facts to fall for baseless smear jobs.

And once again, you choose to waste an opportunity to tell us how wonderful Kerry is by bashing Dean.

himself and Bush.

You want to see an economic message that plays well against Bush's because it contrasts well with Bush, then look at the candidates in this order, begining with the best: Edwards, Kucinich, Shartpon, Gephardt, Kerry.

In the last debate, Dean confined his discussion of economic issues to: no tax breaks for corporations which export jobs, I have to balance the budget on the backs of the middle class, and we need some kind of healthcare program. That is not a great contrast to Bush. Dean contrasts with Bush most starkly on Iraq. Socially, it's not like Bush is engaging in a war against gays (like Dole did in the first month of the Bush administration) so, I'm not sure how much of a contrast that issue creates (and it also makes a lot of democrats outside the NE and CA scratch their heads wondering whey that's being discussed rather than middle class opportunity).

Don't let the light reflecting the stars in his collar blind you to the seedier side of his military record.

Clark is the Democrats's Eisenhower. Ike was a moderate Republican.

First of all, Clark is even more liberal than Dean on some issues like gun control.

Second, there was a poll on DU that asked Clark supporters what their primary reason for supporting Clark was. The military resume and "electability" were not the two top answers. In that thread, the original poster (not a clark supporter) wanted to see what made the Clark people tick, and he found out, about things like the liberal general concept and moving the nation left, etc. And I'd hoped that that thread would dispell the myth that Clark supportes are blind lemmings blinded by the shiny stars and stampeded by fear. Obviously I was right that the poll wouldn't correct that myth -- although it did change the mind of the non-clark supporter who started the poll. You might want to run a forum search to find that poll.

The reason I said to watch and listen was to help determine how much the DLC may be involved here. Somehow I don't think a DLC type would totally rule out Wall Street getting their grubby hands on Social Security as Wes Clark has done. Clark wants to strengthen Social Security to fulfill its traditional role of providing a minimum level of dignity for retirement.

Clark also believes in progressive taxation--has distain for flat tax schemes. I would think a DLC type might be willing to cave a bit on this.
Also, at least Ike warned us about the military industrial complex. Perhaps it will take a general as president to finally address the bloated wasteful gluttonous defense establishment.

100%. (Well, okay, if it's Lieberman (God forbid), I'll vote for him, but that's about it. Anyone but *.)

I agree that Dean is more cautious now as a frontrunner, and he also feels the heat of Clark's pursuit, which has balled him up more, IMO.

The next few months will be interesting.

good grief.

dwelling on dean the man and not the message and blueprints for local activism his organizations have presented to us is madness.

get past cults of personality. empower yourself with the tools dean has stimulated in the land.

dean mentions this ALL the time.

he is leading by showing us how to lead for ourselves.......he ain't giving us a fish, he's teaching us how to fish.

at least with dean if you dont like what he does, you have by virtue of the grass roots organization he has spawned, the ability to impact the political landscape more than ever.

give the guy some fucking credit...and al gore too, 'cause the latter was moving towards this in 2001-02 when the DLC cut him off at the knees...and dont you think the DLC would rather have gore than dean at this moment?

those who would ride the tiger's back must be cautious not to wind up in its stomach.

dwelling on dean the man and not the message and blueprints for local activism his organizations have presented to us is madness.

get past cults of personality. empower yourself with the tools dean has stimulated in the land.

dean mentions this ALL the time.

he is leading by showing us how to lead for ourselves.......he ain't giving us a fish, he's teaching us how to fish.

At least 'he' and 'his' weren't capitalized. Or instead of complimenting you on that fact, perhaps you should be chastised. :shrug:

that's why i mentioned that the new democratic message of grass roots activism dean is speaking came before from gore.

its not the man but the message that counts... and the general had better start looking towards pushing aggressively to promote this message, and not simply because of that entirely odd and goofy trait in human nature that anyone who shows you how to be free is a defacto leader, but because its right.

now come on back "home" to Kerry! :)

One point of criticism: You say that Kerry is making the entire election about Dean- Not true.

In case you hadn't noticed, Kerry is playing his combat veteran's/foreign policy experience card HEAVILY. And there is a very good reason for that- because the chances are good that the economy will be on the upswing in a year and will not be an issue, and so the international diplomacy/war on terror card will be THE field of battle for credibility in the eyes of the nation on who should be leading it.
Kerry is precisely the man to put into this battle because he turns the whole notion of "democrats weak/GOP strong on defense" upside down. And as a preview of how important that will be in '04, look no further than the immediate success of Clark. America wants a strong and experienced leader.

playing up his combat veteran role is an extreme turnoff to me and really doesn't prove anything in the "democrats weak/GOP strong on defense" fight. I never chose Dean based on his opposition to the war... it was only icing on the cake.... and frankly I'm feeling alot of the same things the original poster is... but Kerry has a long way to go to win my heart.

but I trust him. I've seen that he listens, and that is important to me. I've felt very hopeless up until now, because the Democrats are/were so afraid of chimpie that nobody was speaking up and telling the truth. I trust Dean.

I hope that you're able to put your misgivings to rest, I really think that he's going to win.

I like Dean, but the press will portray him as being mean or not the kind of guy you can have a beer with, they will portray Kerry as being stiff or looking like a mummy. I absolutely abhor the press, and their mean-spirited "piling on". I think Clark will have appeal across the board and it might be harder for the press to "Goreize" him. But let's remember, unfortunately, that people's only concern seems to be their wallet. If the economy improves, we get the Chimp for four more years. I'm not sure Iraq will even matter. Hope I'm wrong.

and strategies based on what the right-wing press will do, we might as well just pack it in.

I have a Republican subscriber who likes Clark. She refers to him as "the Republican".

really, as far as I see the Dean campaign continues to raise the bar--going out on the limb and still talking about the issues which mean something to me. That is why he continues to generate terrific crowds and raise so much money from small donations.

As far as Dean going on the attack--well, he has been attacked at every debate by many of the other candidates for weeks. I was at the Farmer's Market tabeling for him today and that is something I heard many people, many undecideds I may add, say when they came up is "You know he is the front runner when everyone is attacking him" specifically they said Kerry and Gephardt.

I don't think Dean's "attacks" on Gen. Clark have been as hard-hitting as those of Lieberman or Kerry. I also understand in a race for the democratic nomination that people's records will be attacked--even Deans and with Gen. Clark having no record in politics to run on I guess the other candidates think his Republican voting record and praise for Bush and his team should be debated--in some respects I think they are right.

Well Poskonig, you can be the only one to decide. If you don't like Dean in a suit or think in the debates he is coming across without the passion he has on the stump (and believe me he still has that passion at the rallies like the one in Madison I attended last weekend with 5,000 other people) or you think that another candidate has better positions on issues and your basically with Dean because of the war then it is you who must come to terms. I will say this a debate is supposed to be an exchange of ideas and while Dean may be more buttoned down in these encounters than he is on the stump I still find him very effective and still able to muster the fire when needed--such as his retort to Gephardt when he was accused of being like Newt on Medicare.

I could write a response to you about all the good stuff Dean has done in this campaign and continues to do--chiefly make the Democratic party come alive again and take on Bush--but I believe you know all of this and all the issues and the only one who can decide if you are going to stay with Dean is you yourself.

I think everybody's observations here are correct. The bottom line is that what was/is distinctive about Dean is that he ran as The Anti-Bush. When the chances for winning don't seem very real, the irresponsible and fun sort of campaign that that was is pretty appealing. When the opponent suddenly seems weaker than anticipated and the possibility of winning becomes real, things have to change and the question becomes not 'can he beat Bush?' but 'if/when he gets in, will he actually do stuff that is for the best?' and all the fun comes to an end.

In my assessment, maybe three or four of the present candidates are really running for the Presidency. Graham and Lieberman have actually been running for Veep, Edwards probably for Attorney General. Kucinich is sort of a second coming of Robert Reich, in his actions and intentions, and Sharpton and Moseley-Braun are probably amenable to federal appointments of certain kinds too. Gephardt is a problem; the way he's running his campaign looks like genuine Presidential ambition, yet his Veep-type regionally limited appeal makes it all look vaguely deluded and likely none of his peers trusts him as a potential backup.

I don't think there are real differences between the remaining candidates about what to do about Iraq, the Bush deficit, allies, and so on. There is only one good way to resolution for each of them, and everyone here knows what they are.

The difference between them is how well they will be able to do the messy domestic stuff, which will be about ginning up popular support to press against a Republican Congress held by very small majorities (and Tom DeLay's iron immoralist will), and getting/keeping straying Democrats in line. Victory- taking over both chambers of Congress- in the 2006 elections is IMHO the measure of the Presidential nominee-to-be. Without that it doesn't matter very much what his proposed political agenda is because we'll have Tom DeLay doing 50% or more of the running of this country for four long years.

So that's where Dean and Clark seem less capable to me. But I agree, Kerry has to present all of it as simpler and fewer problems than he does now, has to start make broad connections on the stump and feel no need to demonstrate his command of detail anymore until/unless asked.

It means you are not a blind follower; you are a reasoned decision-maker.

I was also initially impressed with Dean, and ended up in the camp of a different candidate. I don't dislike Dean, I just like the other guy more; he more represents the direction I want to go.

I think when you're inner "alarm" goes off, you should pay attention. It doesn't mean you should cut and run, but it does mean you spend time observing, gathering and comparing info, and reflecting before you make a final choice. Happily, we are months away from voting day, and you don't have to make a final choice until then.

You are welcome to spend more time getting to know the candidate of my choice! You've probably already heard about his platform here on DU; if not, you can read about it at his site:

http://www.kucinich.us/

I'll just share the crucial things that helped me make my choice. They aren't all about the issues, although he is closer to my take on the issues than any other candidate. It was differences on the issues that caused me to look beyond Dean; it was the issues that kept me learning about Kucinich, and in the end, it was the man himself who convinced me.

Dennis truly, honestly, believes what he says. He works unceasingly for what he believes in. If he says he supports something, he introduces legislation to that effect. If he says he doesn't support something, he votes to that effect. He is consistent. And he is there. He has the best attendance/voting record by far of any of the other candidates currently in Congress. He doesn't take PAC, Corporate, or special interest money. Every cent is from the personal funds of his supporters. He likes people, and he truly understands and cares about the issues confronting the poorest, most disenfranchised members of our society. He also sees the way their condition reflects on us as a nation. He works for them.

I support his issues because I agree with them. I support his candidacy because I believe our nation needs what he has to offer. I support the man because of who he is.

If he set off my "alarm" system, I would do just what you are doing now; reflect, reconsider, and make a reasoned choice when the time comes.

the moment he opened his mouth to say he would vote in favor of Bush's $87 billion for Iraq. How could he be so vehement in his opposition to the war and yet vote in favor of this?

Dean may be turning out to be another one of those politicians that say one thing but do the complete opposite once in office. Action speak louder in words.

This is really sad as I really did like Dean. Despite his warts and zero to slim chance he has of getting the nomination, Kucininch seems to be the only Dem candidate left I can trust to keep his word at this point. Kucinich is not only against the Bushies in words, but also in action, having sponsored several anti-war measures in Congress.

Damn you Dean!! You have really let me down!!

I opposed the war just like Dean did, but I think now it would be irresponsible to pull our troops out of there at this moment. We should figure out a way to hand more and more control over to the Iraqis so we can slowly pull our troops out of Iraq rather than do the DK thing which is pull our troops out all at once. Can you imagine the mess if we did that?

He has never changed his position or been unclear about it.

Kucinich has always said we must get the UN into Iraq and THEN get our troops out. He has introduced a bill and filed a lawsuit to do just that.

He further says the Halliburton and other US corporations must give up their contracts in Iraq.

The latest polls in NH have Dr. Dean well ahead, with Gen. Clark down to something like 5%. Yet in general national polls Clark has about 25% to Dean's 16%. It's easy to understand why Dean on a viseral level to so appealing. But the same qualities that make him so attractive to Democrats give him a temperamental and uneasy edge for those who do not share their animosity to Bush. Given that the Republicans will still try to whip up fear of terrorism, still raw in most Americans minds, and given that Bush will be difficult to beat unless one counters or coopts or at least neutralises his strongest defense, what works for Dean in one battlefield may work against him in the general war.

They had Lieberman in front for a long time, too. Much of it is name recognition. A lot of people still don't know who Dean is. One thing after another has kicked the primary off the media radar (and it was a struggle to get it there in the first place.)

That said, I think Clark has the profile that will appeal to a lot of Americans, and his candidacy should be given attention. I want to win more than I want this candidate or that. I think a Clark/Dean or Dean/Clark ticket would cover all bases, and not only win, but give us one of our better administrations.

I have some major concerns about him. The environment is very important to me - living in Florida near the Gulf. We have seen the Gulf become more and more polluted - dolphins, fish, coral, manatees are dying. The Republicans and some Democrats are trying to drill for oil off of the coast of Florida. We can NOT allow that to happen. It was a very close vote in Congress the last time. Ironcially, Dubya interceded in behalf of Jebbie - because this would have been political suicide for both of them.

Another big issue is development. In Florida, many animals such as panthers, whooping cranes, manatees are dying off due to all of the land (and coast) being developed.

Dean's record on the environment is horrible ESPECIALLY in regards to letting developers and businesses run rampant.

In addition, the hole in the ozone layer is getting larger and larger. Polar ice caps are melting, global warming is getting worse and worse. Dean initially came out against the Kyoto treaty then sort of waffled. I do not trust him one iota on the environment.

I appreciate that you're concerned about the environment. But I wonder why you don't put this under a bigger umbrella of, essentially, Republican whoring for big business.

It's not like the Republicans are targeting the environment. What they're doing is targeting big business for receiving as much wealth and political power as possible (if the environment suffers, it was only a consequence of their maing goals).

If the Republicans found a way to save the environment in the course of shifting huge amounts of wealth and power to corporations, and if shifting power back to the people (ie, if democracy were momentarily bad for the environment), are you saying that you'd be a Republican?

I really don't get why liberals don't see the big umbrella issue -- the destruction of the middle and working class, the shift of wealth and political power to the top of the ladder -- as the main issue. Why do liberals get hooked on all these issues that flow from it without trying to go after the central causes?

And this is exactly why I support Kucinich; he focuses on the root of the problem on more than one issue, IMHO.

I don't think liberals are necessarily against business per se. It would be difficult to create jobs, help the helpless, supply for the defense, pay the bills, unless business is prosperous. This antibusiness bias seriously hurts the Democratic party. What we object to is business that threatens the public good for its own private gain, that is, not paying its fair share, exploiting the health and safety of its workers, destroying national resources, and endangering the quality of life by exploiting the environment. To say that all business is bad in itself is rather meaningless without convincing people why business is bad. What Democrats have to do is show Americans how Democratic social reforms are not just the right thing to do but are good for business.

which is what FDR knew.

Trust me. What Bush is doing is good for business in the general sense. Business benefits when there's fair competition on a level playing field. That's how you create social wealth and more jobs.

Read my post again, 'cause you got it all wrong. I don't know what troubles me more, liberals who put environment at the top with seeing the bigger picutre, or liberals like you who don't understand what it means to be "for business" and think what Bush is doing is good for business.