Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

The others seem hell bent on attacking him, and thus turning off his supporters.

Still, it's early, so there's a long time to mend some fences should the unthinkable happen--Dean NOT be nominated!!!!!

SOME of the candidates can't seem to stop criticizing other Democrats. Stupid and counterproductive but they do it anyway.

And we all realize the importance of taking Down G Dubya. If any other candidates cut Dean off, then kudos to them. They will inherit about 450,000 supporters and our large grassroots organization.

We are focused SQUARELY on getting Bush out of office. We will gladly go for candidates like Kerry, Clark, Kucinich, with some relecutance, Gephardt and Edwards. However, Liberman will be a problem. We're not sure yet on him.

There IS too much attacking going on, much of it pretty senseless. As an active Dean supporter, I can assure you, we will turn out to beat Bush. Dean will go along way to ensuring that happens as he has made it clear to me in person that he will actively support the nominee. Dean will be a part of the next Democratic government in some form so it makes sense for him to support the nominee

Every candidate in the race (including my preference) has something I dislike. Regardless of who is nominated, I'll be there supporting them 100% (or in Lieberman's case, 75%-since that's about how often he supports Democratic positions)

I didn't love Al Gore. I believed like Daniel Patrick Moynihan that he was a loser and I supported Bill Bradley. Then when Gore won, I not only fell in line, but I fell in love.

America that we allowed the election to be stolen. We got what we deserved for "going along."

I am curious as to what else could have been done? I don't, myself, think the election will be close next year, but suppose that a similar situation occurs. What is to be done, then?? Or do we all just pack up for Canada?

I will support any dem candidate BUT Lieberman against Bush. Giving Lieberman the nom. would be a slap in the face to the liberal base that has been whipped up by Dean. That said, Kerry and Gep. are REALLY starting to irk me and should just stand on their merits rather than attacking Howard.

And Kerry has a lot of merits to stand on, he has simply engage Dean in the heated rhetoric he so likes.
and Peter- what do you mean "if"?

It's just these accusations about Medicare. Be serious. There's nothing wrong with wanting to fix a plan that's run inefficiently.

If Lieberman is on the ticket and the other half isn't anti-war (Dean/Kucinich/CMB) I will likely waste my vote on a Green candidate. I'm very sorry for this and don't want to do it. I'm sure Lieberman has been a good congressman. His stance on the war was tough for me to take. The other thing that bothered me was his stance on health care at the first debate. He literally said that we can't even move in the direction of universal health care. He wants to keep the status quo and I can't accept that.

...for whatever their reason is and do the same thing as you do, we end up with 4 more years of Bush. Nice logic there friend.

Don

That's 1 guy out of 9 (used to be 10) that I won't support, the most conservative one. I'd say that's pretty reasonable. No need to get personal.

:hi:

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

Thanks for the welcome. I was beginning to regret showing up.

Getting Bush out of office is critical.

However, since many of Dean's supporters never participated in politics before his campaign, I'm not so sure they'd have the same enthusiasm for any "Brand X" Dem.

Yes, they'd give their vote for the other Dem, but I'd doubt they'd give their time and money to the same degree.

Not a Newbie though, I've been around long enough to have got "Clean for Gene". I know what a "Brand X" Dem. is though, someone with an existing DC office who is rubber stamped by the DNC/DLC and has voted YES to anything over last three years.

You're right about the last as well. Any other candidate will merely get my vote, not my money, my passion nor my time. They won't even get a YEA here at DU and that's free.

Dean has awakened something that I believed died in thought if not concept 20-30 years ago, at least on the national level. The man is willing to roll in the mud and fight.....with anybody....over principle. Not just talk about it, not debate it, but fight.

Did you see the poll done here at DU a couple of weeks ago about that? There is a progressive/green element that doesn't switch from Dean. It depends if it's Bush vs. Bush lite or military industrial candidate #1 vs. MIC #2, PNAC vs. DLC. Many won't vote, because they're not represented or there is a 3rd party candidate that more accurately reflects they're positions (Nader, Kucinich maybe).

Real change is what is needed, and, if not, then let Bush do it again until people are ready for real change. It's like boiling a frog, if you change the temperature slowly, they stay in the pot, if you don't, they jump out. We are the frogs and going from Bush to Bush lite is changing the temperature only slightly, so we don't jump out. I've never boiled frogs BTW, just heard that is what they do.

When Bush wins, people die.

Glad to hear you've never actually boiled frogs, btw.

his supporters and not take our support for granted. The Dem Party leaders are a problem in the Party and in this country as well as Bush and the Repukes. The Dem Party barons opposed to Dean support the right wing/pro-corporate status quo. They don't want change, which is what Dean's campaign is all about.

If the non-Dean Dem nominee is picked in the backrooms by the Party barons due to a locked convention, that nominee will have to fight a legitamization crisis along with the Rove media machine. If the non-Dean Dem nominee wins the nomination fair and square with the people's votes, then there won't be a legitamization problem.

While most of us will vote for the Dem nominee over Bush that does not mean that we will work and contribute $ to the Dem nominee if that nominee shafts us or Dean. Many of us Dean supporters want regime change in the Dem Party as well as in our country. That is why many people who have never contributed to a politician before are contributing to Dean. We want our country and Party back from special interests and corporate crooks!

I wouldn't count on it.

Dean's success has been about much, much more than simple "grassroots fundraising". It has been even more about involving the grassroots in a campaign, and abandoning the classic "top-down" model in which a bunch of Beltway insiders choreograph everything and grassroots are only used for stuffing envelopes and making phone calls.

Like William Greider said recently, the Democratic establishment wants to defeat Bush in 2004, but they are scared out of their wits of an invigorated grassroots that could actually revolutionize the party. Dean has tapped into this, and that helps explain more than anything the vigorous attacks against him by the DLC itself, and proxy attacks through its minions such as Joe Lieberman.

A better question, Pete, would be if the Party is willing to include this invigorated grassroots in the political process, or will they seek to return everything to the dictates of the "experts" and put the people back in their "proper" place.

Just like Clark, once he entered the race, preferred the "tried and true" insider techniques to the untested grass roots movement that "drafted" him, the mainstream Democrats are suspicious of a group who offer so much support in the form of time and money, but who have expectations that can't be predicted as well as their traditional donors.

Many Dean supporters, and I count myself among them, believe that is the real issue of this race. Will the Democratic party continue to be business as usual, or is it willing to devote more energy to the demands of its voters over the expectations of its donors?

Will the Democratic party continue to be business as usual, or is it willing to devote more energy to the demands of its voters over the expectations of its donors?

Personally, I think that Dean has awakened a sleeping giant in this election cycle. I don't think that it is a force that will go away very quickly. If the Democratic Party ignores this grassroots force, then it will be eventually overwhelmed by it either through a splinter political movement (like the old Populists and Socialists of 100 years ago) or by a hostile takeover of the party itself over time.

The downside of all of this is, the presumption of this occurring is a continuation of electoral defeats. But it could actually end up being a good thing in the long run, much like Goldwater's stellar defeat in 1964 sowed the seeds of the future within the Republican Party.

I've caught a lot of flack for voting for Nader in 2000, but one thing he said has proved prescient: four years of George W. Bush in office really should be a wake up call for Democrats to pay attention to their base. It should have been our Goldwater. But I have been shocked that many in the party still seem to be ignoring it, and I believe a defeat of Dean combined with a return to politics as usual by the nominee could throw a lot of formerly non-voting Dean supporters back into the non-voter category. Whether it's apathy or disillusionment that causes low voter turnout, the result is the same.

And since he isn't getting the nod, we'll still have to wait.

The difference between Goldwater in 1964 and the plight of Democrats now is that Goldwater inspired the party base in his electoral defeat. There still has to be a Democrat that will step forward and really inspire the party's base to undertake a revolution from within the party ranks.

Right now, all the candidates are really doing (with the exception of CMB, Sharpton and Kucinich) is attacking Bush while offering little more than a continuation of the status quo. There are no bold ideas, there is no willingness to go out on a political limb; there is only the same lip service to the same issues, without attacking the underlying problems that affect those issues. This is true even with Dean -- most of his support is based on the fact that he was just the first candidate to voice people's anger with the Bushies, but he doesn't offer any real reforms.

This is not a recipe for an internal movement within the party ranks. It is a recipe for a splinter movement. The beginnings of this were seen in 2000 with Nader, although Nader really had nothing to do with it -- and, IMHO, could actually have hindered such an effort just through being himself (a self-absorbed curmudgeon).

God help the Democrats if another Eugene V. Debs comes along right now. If they wanted to blame progressives and leftists for "deserting the party" in 2000, I can't imagine how betrayed they will feel if a genuine and charismatic leader emerges that actually speaks to the hearts of the left, and the party loses a solid 15-20% of its counted-upon base.

his appeal is almost entirely to people who, like me, are far more liberal than the norm. Admittedly, his faith may be a draw to those on the other side of the fence, and unlike most Repubs he actually votes by his religious convictions. Still, I think he can't get the momentum built to get into this race (though his presence will certaiinly make it impossible for any candidate to ignore his ideas) and that's what defines a grass roots movement.

At the risk of being attacked by those with more vigorous support of Dean than myself, I think Dean the candidate is largely arbitrary. What matters is Dean the movement. It isn't the fact that Dean is the candidate that has created such grass roots support for him, it is the grass roots support that has created Dean the candidate. What Dean supporters really found on blogs and in meet-ups was a huge group of like-minded individuals who already supported a candidate, and that candidate happened to be Dean. It is to Dean's credit that he recognized this and, unlike Clark, appears to be willing to adapt and respond to the concerns of those who support him. And I see my support of Dean going to strengthening this movement as much as to electing Dean.

The most important issues to me that candidates are actually addressing are the environment and health care, but I am equally concerned with issues they aren't paying much attention to: campaign finance reform and transparency in government. I believe a popular movement like the one that has chosen Dean is needed to achieve those goals.

The movement is larger than the man. He may be playing much safer now in his policies, but the energy and innovation he and Trippi are putting into the campain has a life of its own. It's intangable, but quite powerful - and if it's tapped into properly, could be the boost that the Democrats need for 2004. If he runs the White House like he runs his campaign, we'll see some results from a Democratic president most likely up against a Republican congress. At the very least, we won't get pushed around anymore.

Having said that...Go Dennis! I'm active in both the Dean AND the Kucinich campaign, and see no conflict in doing so (Dean meetups are FUN). I'm voting for Kucinich because a strong showing of Kucinich supporters will hopefully make a statement to the centrists that the left wing is still a voice that deserves to be heard. Dean, if anybody, would be the most likely front-runner to listen to that voice, so I hope he gets the nod (barring a miracle Kucinich comeback).

Something to consider...

It would seem that the Dem Party leaders aren't so much worried about Dean's ability to oust Bush as they are afraid of his ability to oust THEM.

Nothing is more worrisome to political power brokers than successful grassroots campaigns.

Just look at the power struggle in the Clark camp that occurred between the newly hired Clinton/Gore operatives and those supporting the campaign's grassroots movement:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/08/elec04.prez.clark.manager/

If he gets the nomination, he will get the max from me.

If a warmonger gets the nomination, he will get NO money and NO time.

I will reluctantly vote for a Dem warmonger PNAC enabler while holding my nose. I'll have to get drunk afterward and pray to the gods for forgiveness.

Yes, the niminee will have a great deal of Dean people behind him. No, you will not be able to mirror his fundraising success, because none of the other candidates, except Clark, has any earthly idea of what it's about.

board. If you take Clark's movement and the ones that support Dean now and others that come to defeat Bush, that might get you pretty close to what Dean has now.

Mike

Clark is having problems among grassroots forces within his own campaign, due to the fact that Clinton/Gore insiders are now largely calling the shots behind his campaign. Do you honestly expect this problem to just go away, AND for many of the Dean supporters to flock to him?

Not if he continues to drift more toward the insiders and away from "them that brung him here", to paraphrase Molly Ivins.

Clark has done some great things with the grassroots, and then BAM, I read about people quitting the campaign and skirmishes between the DraftClark people and his campaign advisors. Not to Clark, I wouldn't alienate the people who worked so hard BEFORE you declared.

I do think there is some tension in the campaign right now, but I think it is more of the concentrated growing pains variety than a true black-and-white schism between the Draft Clark legacy (of which I am one) and the Clinton/Gore campaign people.

I think this Washington Post piece from today is one of the better ones on the subject:

<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31594-2003Oct15.html>

It's not a draft-old school schism. It's SOME of the draft people that are upset, not all of us. To be honest down here at the state level in Texas the different draft movements were not even an issue. We have one state organization that is going great, the same organization with some minor changes that we had in the Draft Clark days.

Some tension is to be expected and I think that is exactly what we are seeing.

You guys have done great work. But why did Dude Man leave the campaign?

The point I brought up was that the DEAN grassroots supporters were not likely to flock to the Clark campaign, when it is even alienating many of the "DraftClark" supporters through its reliance on Clinton insiders to run the campaign.

I'm not disputing that many of the "DraftClark" people will stay, because to many it is about a cult of personality as much as anything else. But the ones who are leaving invested time in money in Clark because they saw him as a hope to turn away from "politics as usual" -- only to be proved wrong when he brought on all the Clinton advisors (I hear he's now taking economic advice from Robert (Citigroup/Enron) Rubin, a HUGE mistake IMHO).

That situation will only serve to alienate many of the Dean grassroots troops, should Clark get the nomination. And I don't think it's a point that can necessarily be factually disputed.

(sorry for the delay...work called!)

I didn't intend my post to be a blanket answer to your original post. To the contrary, I think you are correct in terms of those who are supporting Dean based first and foremost on his grassroots model of campaign finance and bottom-up organization.

I think that a potential future where Clark wins the nomination would probably force those Dean supporters into an unpleasant quandry. I do believe that those Dean supporters who have come to his campaign based on issues, those for whom the campaign model and the campaign message are separate, that those people would support Clark.

You are also correct to point out that the Draft Clark people who have left have had their vision of the candidate and the campaign refuted. To this I would add that this happens in every campaign, whether we are talking about our current "bricks and connections" vs. "clicks and donations" pairing, the 2000 elections, or just about any in modern memory. I believe the disparity between what some in the Draft movement thought they would get versus what we now have is fueled in equal parts by naivete about politics and simple public choice economics. It has undoubtedly been exacerbated by our campaign's compressed schedule.

In the final analysis, I think one of the most salient sticking points for both the Dean and Clark campaigns is that we're actually mostly from the same base. That's why the competition between our campaigns has been so intense in the last month, and that's why I believe that as long as my candidate remains viable our two camps are going to trade quite a bit of acrimony not so much because we are two polar opposite approaches to the fate of the Democratic Party (as I once thought), but rather because we compete for many of the same demographics.

May the best candidate win! And may whoever wins win in 2004!

I think it's safe to say that Kerry, or any of the Demcrats excpet one or two will able to get a pretty big turnout.

It would take some assistance from the Dean campaign people who are most responsible for the model's success, but yes, I think so.

At this point I really can't see a Democratic ticket without Dean on it in either one capacity or the other.

That being said, it's a long way to Iowa at this point. There will still be many twists and turns...who knows what the Democratic political landscape will look like by that time?

The Dean Internet fundraising model has been the most innovative success of the primary campaign. Dems need to use it to help elect the next president.

I say that Dems should start coordinating this project NOW. Ask Dean and his supporters for their expertise.

The Republicans are counting on us to batter each other and bleed our money wells dry. So they are planning on facing a weakened nominee. They have promised major media campaigns targeted at whoever emerges as the frontrunner this spring.

While we're all busy helping our individual candidates it's time for us to start thinking about mid- to long-term strategies and pooling our resources.

In fact, I'd argue that the Net is a much superior medium for progressives and Democrats ideas than talk radio and network television. I suspect many more committed Democratic and liberal voters spend significant amounts of time working in front of computers than mindlessly listening to rant-away AM Radio or either cable or network television. Any Democrat who moves forward will need to exploit the net, if only because if provides them a cost-efficient, bottom-up way to distribute their message.

If Kerry wins the nomination, I'm sure he'll be able to effectively tap into what is a natural medium for thinking Americans. Whether any individual constituency decides to participate is, of course, their choice - as we saw in 2000 with the Nader voters. But, at the end of the day, I'd guess that most Democrats and Progessives will come together to flush the Bush regime down the toilet bowl of American history.

but whether or not the former non-voters who Dean's grassroots campaign appeals to would continue to support another Democratic candidate who lacks the grassroots support. I think Dean's support base (if not Dean himself) is better defined as populism rather than liberalism and that will not automatically mean support for another Dem.

I have no doubt that Kerry, if nominated, will have the vote of most Democrats. The question asked by the original poster was about whether or not another candidate would garner support from the Dean followers. That is another question entirely.

...which I don't have an answer to.

Let's face it. This primary is going to be messy. The name of the game is differentiate or die. Every candidate trailing Dean in a State is going to try to juxtapose their current position versus his - just as Dean did with regard to the Iraq vote and John Kerry, when JK was the frontrunner. Some of these comparisons are going be harsh but fair, and some are going to be unfair.

For instance, I'd argue that Dean's words to various talking heads in the period leading up to the Iraq war were artful at best, and an attempt to saddle both sides of the fence at one time. I'd argue that Clark was even worse - and that Kucinich, Graham, Sharpton and Mosley-Braun were the only real anti-war candidates. Now, considering the hay that both Clark and Dean have made based on their representation that they were against the war, I'd argue that a ruthless examination of their claims in this regard is absolutely warranted. That process may indeed alienate certain of their supporters, and they may not come back in the fall, or contribute their time, energy and money.

But, as we've all witnessed with Dubya, what a candidates says and what they really mean can often be two different things. Some people's ideal of a "positive campaign" is exactly the free pass that Dubya enjoyed when he went around the country claiming that he was a "compassionate conservative" and wanted a "more humble" approach to foreign policy. IMHO, we can't ever allow that to happen again, even if it means alienating a certain percentage of other candidates supporters. We have to, as Americans, cut to the utter core of who a man or a woman is, what they really stand for, and what they would really do once they assume the Presidency.

Bush did what he did post-election to benefit the moneyed interests who contributed to his campaign. If you ignore what he said and look at where the money came from and where it went, his actions make perfect sense. I want a candidate who owes his existence to a large mass of thinking people with occasionally contradictory demands: a candidate who is forced to think about more than just one faction when he states his positions.

Clark's embracing of Washington insiders at the expense of his internet supporters once he entered the race made it clear that he didn't really understand the grassroots effort that was attempting to draft him. I don't think any other candidate really understands the significance of the internet in changing politics. In fact, I don't think Dean fully understands it either, but someone in his campaign certainly does, and Dean has been willing to take that person's advice. Dean didn't start this internet campaign. Some group started a campaign, it started growing, and at some point Dean was chosen as its candidate. I see that campaign, not Howard Dean himself, as the real agent for change in 2004, and I will continue to support it. However, I have no illusions that everyone in it shares my liberal views, and I would be very surprised if the group could find a coherent goal if Dean were out of the race.

who does not support the winner of the Democratic Nomination.

Whether that supporter were a Democrat, an Independent, a Green, a Libertarian, or a Republican. I would vote for any Democratic candidate who got the nomination, but I wouldn't expect that all those people would continue supporting another candidate just because he (or Carol) was a Dem.

Dean's appeal is broader than the liberal base, and we have to view that as a strength rather than a betrayal of the party.

A friend of mine went to a Kucinich meetup a few weeks ago. They spent almost as much time talking (bad) about Dean as they spent talking about Kucinich. Those are the votes the Dems are going to lose. If Kucinich doesn't win, those are the people you will lose.

You know how I know? They said it out loud.

While we're (Dean and Clark supporters) helping our Dem party man a table at the NC state fair, Kucinich people will be walking the crowd with anti-dean, NOT pro-kucinich, anti dean-flyers.

There is no way in heaven or hell I could cast a vote for Clark. There are just too many question marks- and as of yet nothing of real substance. There is no way that I would back a candidate based on the glowing reviews of generals.

NOTE: This excerpt was taken from http://www.williamgreider.com/article.php?article_id=21 -- if it is too long or violates copyright rules, then mods feel free to cut it. Emphases added by me.

***************************************

Incumbent presidents seldom lose reelection unless they are buried by adverse circumstances and it seems obvious the 2004 election is already the prisoner of such events. Bush has very limited options to cauterize his self-inflicted wound in Iraq, but even less control over his jobless economy. Yet none of the Democrats is likely to defeat him if these troubles abruptly disappear. On the other hand, I can imagine almost any of the Dem candidates beating Bush if the country remains in its double-bind quagmire.

My point is, the Democratic nominating contest is essentially about determining the nature of that party, not the "electability" question. Howard Dean represents anti-establishment insurrection from the ground up. His popularity is not about left or right issues (as the media and his opponents keep claiming) but rides upon the swelling anger people feel toward Bush and the Dems' own complacent, top-down, risk-averse, corporate-compromised leadership. The press is still on Dean's case, picking away at his supposed contradictions. But the Washington Post fronted an insightful counter-version by Laura Blumenfeld (October 1) that explains Dean's empowering language and angle of vision. It's not about him, he tells voters, it's about them -- all the people who feel ignored and disenfranchised, not only by Bush the right-winger. but by their own party's Washington elites.

Dean is profoundly correct in this critique. If he survives their assaults and prevails in the nomination (I think he can), it will be like an implosion of the insider illusions governing the Democratic party. He lacks their esteemed connections to the corporate-financial infrastructure that runs politics, so why is he raising more money? Because he has a list of people -- active citizens, not monied contributors -- unlike anything the party itself possesses (I've heard Dean's database variously described as 400,000 or 600,000 or 1.2 million names).

This new form of power is derived from the wondrous technologies (computers and the Internet), but actually involves the way the party used to organize voters before it converted to spin-marketing techniques. The party does not itself keep such lists any more (though it might rent them from other organizations). Why bother with names and addresses when they have polls and focus groups? The Doctor might stumble, of course, but his nomination (even if he then loses to Bush) would produce a profound ventilation -- actually a violent shake-up -- in the modern methodologies of what used to know as the party of working people.

Who could be against that? The Democratic incumbency. The last thing they want in their lives is competitive elections or citizens who come out of the woodwork to launch their own techno-grassroots campaigns. Yes, incumbent Dems all want Bush out, but they would much prefer it's done by a safer, more reliable candidate.

General Clark? I don't mean to pick on him but he seems the perfect vessel for conveying a "new face" sense of change without actually disturbing the status quo. A number of fellow bloggers accused me of seeing black helicopters when I earlier described Clark as the Clinton establishment's stalking horse . But that is self-evident now that Clark is an active candidate. Mr. Bill's Hollywood friends are swarming around the General with money; his campaign is run by Clintonoids. The General's tepid economic-stimulus plan is off-the-shelf stuff from the Democratic Leadership Council. He is being tutored on economics by Citigroup godfather Robert Rubin and Gene Sperling, the DLC's economist in chief.

If you want four more years of Wall Street economics guiding the Democratic party, go with the Four Stars. If you are ready for risk and real change, listen to the Doctor. People who put aside convictions in order to win an election often wind up regretting it. I know I did during Bill Clinton's presidency.

I love it/hate it when someone else speaks my mind better than I ever could.

I look forward to reading him with every copy of The Nation I receive -- although he hasn't been in it as much lately.

The reminds me, I need to pick back up where I left off on One World, Ready or Not.

Greider speaks my mind.

I go back and forth between Dean and Clark. The pragmatist side of me salivates at the thought of a landslide election in the Democrats' favor (as I think would surely happen with Clark), but the way Dean's campaign is changing the way politics is done is perhaps an even greater victory.

I used to think that I could support ABB just as hard as I do Dean. I am convenced that I want our party to stop bring controlled by the big money interests. This is what Dean is trying to do with his grass roots efforts to raise money in small amounts from the average people. I know he will receive some max donations but not like some of the others. When I see another person win and state they intend to bust the big money mold, then I am on board with both feet. I have not seen that yet. It will not matter because Dean is going to win. We want our party and our country back, and we mean to do it!

Kerry doesn't inspire the kind of enthusiasm that Dean's been able to bring out of his supporters. Dean's attractive, Kerry isn't. Young people in particular are hoping that this time around it won't be politics as usual. Their hopes will be dashed if the nominee is yet another bore in the tradition of Dukakis, Mondale and Gore.

Kerry looks Presidential. But, putting that aside, anyone who votes for a candidate based on looks should probably stay home in the first place. This is decidely not what the Founding Fathers had in mind. If this is what our country has become, let's invite al Queda in to finish us off - because we're doomed either way.

the massive - small donation giving - also steps up commitment. The commitment to do more than just hold the nose and vote is what the dem candidate MUST be able to do. So the question is not, imo, whether candidate x or y's followers will follow a different candidate should that candidate win the primiary. The question is instead, would that front runner recognize the importance of a grassroots fundraising/activism campaign - that ratchets up the commitment of a large broad base of people/volunteers who will work like heck to counter the rw spin locally (face to face, person to person), and will devote the man hours needed to win.

There seems to be a lack of understanding by many campaign strategists to this point. For years the strategy has been to run a tight, centrally organized and directed campaign. The campaign focuses linearally on targeted states - just keeping a bit ahead of the primary map and selecting where to devote resources based on the candidates need for particular states and the candidates likelihood of success in some of those states (to push momentum). The Dean campaign is shifting the strategy. It allows for more decentralization of local actions/efforts. It is pushing for high commitment - through its fundraising. The two are not seperate. I do not know if that was always the intentional strategy, or if by going through the net for fundraising (following McCain, and Brown via the 800 number before) the second advantage was recognized. But they are doing a good job tapping into this.

In my opinion, the question is if the other campaigns would be able to recognize that it is not just about the money - but about the commitment on the ground; and will be willing to let go of some traditional strategies in favor of some degree of decentralization. But in order to do that - the use of the internet as a grassroots tool, needs to be recognized as a dual purpose not just a source of money. It is about the money and it is about spurring on grassroots actions, and the money - the hot commodity - is used in a way to increase the commitment of the supporters and increase the likelihood of activism on behalf of the candidate.

I think that if another campaign did this - most of the Dean folks, even if Dean were not the candidate - would be involved.