Salon: Will Dean's anger burn up the Democrat's chances in 2004?

The article lays out the Republican strategy to portray the Democrats as "hateful partisans" attacking a President "most Americans still like." Ends up concluding we need to focus on a positive agenda and the Administration's policy debacles. Also suggests Dean is already attempting to lay the groundwork for a shift in this direction (actually, it seems to me all the Democrats have presented positive agendas of varying quality, but the media seems much more obsessed with process, which raises the issue of whether the Democrats will be allowed to shift to a substantive debate). It's a premium article, so you'll need either a subscription or a day pass to read it. Worth the time.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/11/14/democrats/index.html

<edit>

Like a prizefighter hitching his trunks high above his waistline so that he can claim his opponent keeps hitting him below the belt, Bush's cornermen are already trying to get the Democrats disqualified as hateful partisans, even before he and his as-yet-unchosen challenger start squaring off.

The message that the Democrats are crazed with anger at Bush is reverberating through the Republican echo chamber. In a recent memo to party leaders, Republican national chairman Ed Gillespie attacked the Democrats as the party of "protests, pessimism and political hate speech."

Sounding a similar note in a fundraising appeal this month, Vice President Dick Cheney warned Republican donors to expect "fiery rhetoric" from the Democratic presidential contenders, including attacks on Bush's "character, his veracity, even the president's leadership of the war on terrorism."

Last month, in response to a razzing by a heckler, Florida Gov. Jeb Bush called Dean the candidate for "hot, angry people that aren't rational and are screaming and hollering." Over the summer, the Weekly Standard did a cover story about Bush hatred, titled "The Democrats Go Off the Cliff," while conservative columnists from the New York Times' David Brooks to the Washington Times' David Limbaugh warned that the Democrats are too nasty when it comes to Bush.

All this suggests that Bush's backers are reading the same talking points: The president is a man of moderation beset by hateful partisans.

more...

eom

Joe Conason posts regularly to Salon. Maybe you should ask him what he thinks of the above article.

Democratic leadership?

War.
Deficet.
Unemployment.
World loathing.

...let's try it with a little fire in our bellies this time.

This was also broadcast from the USA Today's front page the other day.

Clark should count his blessings that he is being allowed to fly beneath the radar.

He was announced as too angry to win the nomination 6 months ago. Now his chances are excellent.

He has pretty damn good reasons for his anger.

and that is the anger which motivates primary voters to the polls. First and foremost it is the primary voters who decide the candidate.

Golly gee whiz! Democrats are going to stoop so low as to "even attack Bush's leadership"?

Isn't that the whole point of a campaign?

Sorry to the Repukes, but I don't think the Dems are going to campaign on "We love the Chimp, but vote for me".. As much as they'd like to see that.

Yes I know I know "Gore won." But he made it a damned close one and his numbers were significantly affected after he came of arrogant and consecending in the debate. Why do we somehow pooh-poo the issue of self composure when it comes to Dean ?

but an issue of anger. One can be angery and well composed... Dean is a great example of that.

As was posted in a thread yesterday it is all they really have. Poor little Bushie* Big mean Democrats are picking on him and it just isn't fair. Republicans would Never Criticize a Sitting President Remember if it hadn't been for Bush* the world would have already ended. He is our savior. Don't forget that. It is all just mean Democrats spouting hatred.

He should use it , acknowledge it, and explain WHY we should all be angry as hell...

angry because:

we are being driven backwards over a cliff by a drunk driver
our treasury has been looted and handed over to the richest in the country
we are fearful for our future, instead of looking forward
we are losing our international respect
we are watching our hardearned tax dollars being turning into "profits" for Halliburton, Bechtel, Kellogg, Brown & Root, among others
we are angry because millions of working people cannot even afford to go to a doctor
we are angry because the self proclaimed "uniter" has turned out to be the ultimate "divider"
we are angry because, bush "pioneer" donors have stolen our retirement money
we are angry because this administration sees no obligation to the public, other than spending our money on themselves and their cronies
we are angry because someone who ducked a war, is so ready to send other people's children to die in an ill-conceived war

He needs to make this a mantra.. USE the anger to diffuse the issue..

Everyone should be angry..

Anger leads to hate - Hatred leads to power... that's not a mantra I particularly agree with.

we can win without anger... anger feeds the lack of comity we see today, and it will take us all down a terrible road. This doesn't mean I dont get JUST AS PISSED OFF as you do, i just try very hard to let it go.

If you're not angry, you're not paying attention.

that clusterf&@k was my governor before he was your president... and after he's done he'll be back here making my life miserable

The anger is NOT attractive to the 37% of americans who are unaffiliated, and it serves to energize the pub base. Your anger feeds them.

i want to win, and i'll vote in the primary for a guy who presents a positive enough message that it not only appeals to me but I think it'll appeal to people in the fall. A lot of people were angry 4 years ago - they felt they weren't getting a candidate they could get excited about, they were pissed that their choices were Al or Shrub... so to demonstrate that anger they didnt vote, or they voted for Ralph. Look where it got us. Be practical, we cant afford to be blinded by passions in this one.

I'm with you all the way, and not just because we've both been subjected to The Carpetbagger as Governor and President.

I think something that's missing in this particular thread is a discussion of the dynamics of primary voting behavior versus general election voting behavior.

Rallying the base, begin angry, giving voice to partisan disenfranchisement, all these things are manna for primary elections. Anger at the out group is a great way to rally the base, particularly when the base has been crapped on for four years. General election dynamics demand different strategies, however. If you go into the general election angry, you will leave angry...and defeated. It's difficult for a campaign that uses raw anger as a driving force to suddenly pick up its petticoats and tip-toe to the political center where elections are won and lost in America. That's why your anger has to be refined into some kind of coherent, alternative policy.

"If you aren't angry you aren't paying attention" is right, but how you go about embracing that anger will mean the difference between evicting George Bush in 2004 or leading our party in a glorious, ideologically pure banzai charge that will see us have four more years of George Bush.

Being angry for anger's sake is juvenile. Being angry and using that anger to build and affirm a coherent, consistent message and platform of alternatives to the current debacle is a winning formula.

ALL of our candidates need to remember this.

Odd tactic by the Dean Critics.

Dean Critics need to learn that once you jump into that idealogical black hole, you won't come out. You might as well include the words Death Tax and Partial Birth ABortion in your everyday discourse, and spend half of your waking hours talking about how much worse the Bush Hating is than the Clinton Hating was.

You know what? I'm not hateful, but I am partisan. I am to be feared.

First everyone is upset over the lack of fight in the Democratic party, then, when one person does stand up and fight back we get hand-wringing over him being to angry.

Articles like this make me want to give up.

when they write, or post these articles. They've won if you give up.

That's why the candidate bashers are here.

said "No disruptor check, punk, unless you rip the heart out of a few more Dean supporters."

Seriously, an article discussing Republican strategy, a strategy already echoed by a willing media, would seem an appropriate posting for a discussion board (admittedly, it would be inappropriate for a Democratic praise board or blog). As a Kucinich supporter and somebody who thinks the world is in pretty bad shape, I think anger has a larger role to play than the author apparently thinks, but that's no reason I should be disheartened. People disagree all the time and that's no reason to ignore what the author has to say. He might, after all, be, at least partially, right. Then again, he might not be. Something, maybe, to discuss.

Here's an article on how focused anger is a good thing:

http://www.heartlandsangha.org/feeling.html

<edit>

David Brazier notes that the Buddha's path of wisdom and loving kindness grew out of the Buddha's own experience of personal suffering. Siddhartha's mother died in childbirth. Knowing that by being born he caused his mother's death must have shaped his attitudes. By being born he caused Dukkha. It was impossible to avoid, and as is the nature of Dukkha, was not something that could be changed.

David Brazier suggested that the great work that Thich Nhat Han has done has came out of the anger over what has been done in his country. He harnessed the passion to use it well. Many great men have harnessed the energy that came from oppression; examples are Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr.

We too can harness the energy that comes up from suffering. The key is to harness it to create a better world. Then we will be on the right track.

<edit>

No matter how many posts you make loaded with (FAKE) concern about what the right is going to do to Dean, you won't make us stop supporting him. I read salon. And the author isn't right or wrong. The fact is, these kinds of articles and these kinds of posts serve as obstacles for people who want to be politically active.

It just won't work on me.

if I could convince you to embrace the dark side.

But despite what apparently is your best effort, it's no good. Problem is, now you have to deal with Unkie Karl's wrath. Looks like we have a new scapegoat for the Plame affair.

You make the bed...

There's a lot of talk about a "rupture" in the dem party, and I say its about fucking time. The Dems ought to use this Dean spirit to clean house and shed all of it's hand wringing, impotent baggage that has gotten years of lost elections and four years of President Goof.

If that makes me a "Deanie Meanie" then so be it. Wear the derision as a badge of honor.

besides I like my Dem leaders to have cajones, not
a weak spine.

They tell me he is too fiery, therefore I should pick a more suitable candidate to their liking? But I thought they loved Dean. :crazy:

I would not have known this unless I read the Salon article. This baby should be in the DU links!
http://www.bushintegritywatch.com/

It includes these about the war (yeah, Joe backed the war, but...)
Not Getting the Truth (Washington Post)
We now know -- as we did even before the war -- that Iraq's links to al Qaeda and therefore to the events of Sept. 11, 2001, were so tenuous as to be nearly nonexistent. The celebrated meeting between an Iraqi official and one of the Sept. 11 hijackers happened only in the minds of administration propagandists. There is no proof of it. In fact, the terrorist in question is now believed to have been somewhere else that day.

The Man Who Knew (CBS News)
In the run-up to the war in Iraq, one moment seemed to be a turning point: the day Secretary of State Colin Powell went to the United Nations to make the case for the invasion. Correspondent Scott Pelley has an interview with Greg Thielmann, a former expert on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. Thielmann, a foreign-service officer for 25 years, now says that key evidence in the speech was misrepresented and the public was deceived.

I mean, hello....how many great sites are already out there raking Bush through the coals on his lack of character??

Dean is right. If these other candidates can't get their head out of the sand when it comes to the internet they are dead in the water.

for this ploy for decades now...be good little quiet Dems, don't be rude. Children are seen and not heard.
How could anyone possibly be angry at the mass murderer Bush??

because the Democrats waited too damn long to say anything negative about him. The more we "attack" the lower his rating go. Duh!

should be angry and stay angry plus all of us out here and I am angry - very - at what this Administration has done to this country. A total disaster.

just look over any thread about Dean and the nastiness and vitriol from some people is truly sad.

It doesn't "burn up his chances" in the least - I love it - and I would be all for Dean as President. His anger to me is very reminiscent of Clinton's personality - and lets face it - Clinton was a great people politician. We could really use someone like that again.

Dean is way behind Clinton in all 3 categories. (IMHO)

I want someone who sets the goal post, not someone who is willing to play the game where the repukes set it.

bank on it.

he is fired up and he knows most americans share his passion.

did teddy "The Mad Messiah" Roosevelt lose votes because he spoke loud and passionately?

Dean will win!!!

No, Roosevelt didn't lose votes; but he did split a party.

TR also falls outside the scope of the modern Presidency. Although it's an entertaining idea to think what he would have been like with MeetUp, blogs, online donations, and streaming content!

Republicans have been trying to throw a bad spin on any opposition by dems for the last two decades.


Over and over we have seen that when the dems buy into this and try to play nice, they lose. When they fight back, they win.

One of the main reasons that both Dean and Clark are the two guys who have risen from the pack and are getting the most support, is that they are the ones who people see as fighters.

You just have to mix the fight with hope for something better when the fight has been won.

The writer worked for Clinton, and the criticism is all from the DLC and Donna Brazille, who make the claim that Dean is attacking Bush personally rather than on issues. That is flat out wrong and they fucking know it. why couldn't they provide a for instance on these claimes?

Look they are the people who decided to go personal and call ARnold the groper nazi in California. Dean hasn't done anything like that to Bush and never will. He is angry about Bush's policies, and doing a damn fine job of knocking down Bush's poll numbers taking that tract. He didn't get where he is by listening to any of these people. If he had listened to these people he would be facing his "last hurrah" like John Kerry!

Don't worry, I foresee appeasement re: running mate.

the complete freeze-out they are so panicked about won't happened but I guess they won't be reassured until the ticket is settled.

Only then will the smear campaign from the fearful end.

Julie

It's the "establishment" that has gotten us into lost elections for years. I hope they remember to turn in their keys on their way out.

THAT, my friends, is the pivotal question. Salon looks to have been duped again by GOP spin. Talbot should know better.

Which as we know is anything but a sweet flowerpetal bed of nicety-nice.

I wonder if this tactic of theirs will work again this coming year?

that see what this administration is doing to this country.

so what, i say...

as a poor helpless fool. It's not "anger" it's the possibility of any strength undermining this poor guy. How many times have you seen the word "hapless" in reference to Bush? I've seen it dozens. They want him to look like someone who is he's at the mercy of circumstances but who is taking it like a man and leading the country the best he can.

attesting to the fact. I forget who posts it
here but I've watched it. It looks like they
retouch Dean's video and make him look rabid, angry,
and evil.

We can, and likely will, theorize about how Bush / Rove will run against any of the candidates. One thing is predictable, regardless of who we nominate, Bush / Rove will trash our candidate. Count on it like the sun rising in the morning.

All this hyperbole about how Bush will run against Dean is pointless. He will do equally, if different, negative things to any candidate.

The more important thing to focus on is how our candidate is likely to respond. Will he/she respond by being "above the fray", maintaining composure, and allow the "Gore created the Internet" lies to prosper? Or will he/she get down in the gutter and brawl. Trust me, they will be waiting for us there.

I have heard around here that folks are tired of DLC candidates who stay centrist and and don't engage in the fight. Then along comes a candidate with a bit of fighting spirit, and what do I read? A bunch of whiny liberal hand wringing nonsense.

(He is so abrasive) (He won't remain calm during the debates) (He looks grumpy) (He doesn't play nice)... and on and on.

The repugs can't run on their record. Nastiness is their only resort. If we are not ready to engage this moron and his minions head on and swap our best shots, we will be run over.

You get to pick. But if Dean can, by playing relatively nice (compared to Bush / Rove), take your candidate out of the running, imagine what Bush / Rove would have done to them.