Capturing Saddam = Anybody But Dean

I tabled today. Several people told me Dean was untrustworthy. When I asked for examples, they said they didn't have specifics, but they just saw (read) something to that effect ...

Saddam's capture + Dem anti-Dean mudslinging = the beginning of the end for the most amazing national grassroots campaign in US history.

Unless we redouble our efforts immediately, the hopeful promise of the Dean campaign is about to be destroyed.

. . .not everything in the world is about Dean!

after being in that...uh--lockbox?. let's just say, there's a world out there, parts of which are not revolving around dean. Then we go from there. Baby steps...

Because you can't say it's not about Dean and then use it to score popints against Dean.

This capture only strengthens Bush but Iraq is still not self-governing and we still can't find Bin-Laden.

I don't get it at all.

Dean is strong as ever

Bush is weak as ever

Saddam was supposed to be captureds/killed months ago

Qhat took them so long?? Saddam is a smart guy.

" Dean is strong as ever" Did you just see him licking *'s boots?

"Bush is weak as ever" If you do not understand how this strengthened Bush you must have rose colored glasses stapled to your head.

" Qhat took them so long?? "

It's called politics.

Haliburton? Clark at the Gague? Both stories DOA now.

I was impressed with him when he first announced his candidacy, but soon there after came to the conclusion that he was unelectable.

Just my opinion, I wish him and his supporters the best.

Jesus Christ, WHY do you people lay down and die so effortlessly?

Criticizing Dean does not equal passivity as you claim. Capturing Hussein has nothing whatsoever to do with Dean either, are you folks really cultists?

Deans record as governor indicates him to be a centrist of the first order, some may find that open to criticism, his conversion on the road to the convention, his reaching out as a "Wellstone democrat" due to this vision he saw(the vision was of himself sitting in the Oval Office) is ,by any measure, self serving, manipulative and lends itself to such critical thought.

First of all, I defy you to find one Dean supporter who isn't aware that he is Centrist. Dean never claimed to be anything other, but any Democrat who demonstrated an iota of challenge to king George was immediately marginalized by DLC directive.

In addition, why does the capture of Saddam herald the death knell for Dean?

How nice of you to adopt Republican talking points, not to mention the cult slurs. From you, I would have expected better, and am offended.

That Dean is a Centrist who is open to positions on the left is no surprise to anyone who has been paying attention for the last, oh, 11 months of so.

as the upper right corner of the post indicates rather plainly. Dean himself seeks to mask his centrism, claiming to be from the"democratic wing of the democratic party"... now where did I hear that before? Further ,his hiding of his records as governor is a blatant attempt to avoid "embarrassing " references to his decisions in favor of corporate interests, his anti gay stances and his abitrary cutting of safety nets for seniors and education budgets for kids.

Further, criticism of a candidate is not adopting republican talking points, but your referencing them as such is a cheap shot at best. When I see folks totally blind to the misstatements and distortions of their candidate, thoroughly enamored of a strategy (internet use)rather than the position of their candidate I use the word cult-like. I do not say that you yourself are a member I know your posts on most topics to be far more open minded and thoughtful than are those on the subject of dean.

As to the capture of Hussein and its effects on the Dean candidacy, I never addressed that , havent a clue why you would ask me and dont care much at all......

The problem is that people keep misinterpresting what that means. Wellstone, more than being a liberal, was a fighter. He was principled to the point where he would fight for what he believed, even if it wasn't popular. Wellstone wasn't only a fighter for liberals. He was a fighter for all Democrats.

to sell himself to primary voters, and is fighting only for HIMSELF. If he was fighting for his longheld principles he wouldn't have changed so many of them earlier this year would he?

...retaining them even in the face of changing realities? That's just plain stupid. Or republican, take your pick.

and changing one's mind are two very different things.

He's a moderate. He has never until now held himself out as a progressive and if he gets in the whitehouse he will act like any other moderate dem. He is much more clinton than wellstone.

Dean's campaign has helped rebuild the Democratic party. That was due to the fans (and Trippi), not to Dean. We'll all vote ABB, but I wouldn't mind seeing either a 1) stronger candidate or 2) at least a liberal (and Dean isn't a liberal, remember?)

The Republicans are right, we give up.

in terms of significance, IMHO.

I agree that we have got to redouble our efforts.

I also agree that this bumps the Gore endoprsement and surging in the polls off the talk shows. But, wait, maybe not.

However, Here's the spin:

You have addressed the wuestion that first popped into MY mind. How does this effect the Dean machine?

I say it has little impact overall. It is a so what moment.

It is going to be the SECOND news story today: How does this effect Dean.

WE HAVE TO STAND UP AND SHOUT "NOT AT ALL". BUSH IS STILL A LOSER!!!

This will not stop the Iraqi resistance (who will now be proven to be not just Saddam loyalists but grassroots nationalists pissed off at the occupation)

It will have no impact on Afghanistan which has been a horrific quagmire lately, the UN is pulling out and we are bomnbing children with impunity.

It will not stem the suicides and civilian deaths and disillusioned troops getting killed needlessly - sent to their doom by Bush for political reasons and oil money.

Yes it bumps Dean as the lead news story today and for a few days (as CNN recycles Jessica Lynch type lies and reenactments)

But does this hurt Dean? Not at all. The marginal fools who will be impressed by this are not smart enough to votre for Dean anyway.

The negativity of those who say they support Dean has GOT to stop.

I AGREE that we need encouragemant to work harder. But criticism, negativity and compaining is NOT the way to do it.

Peace, man. I hear you.

But there is a better way to fight the power than being a surrender monkey to the Chimp. He is a weak loser alchy preppy ego lump.

Dean will kick his ass. And we need to keep saying it.

Dean is gonna kick the Chimp's ASS!!!

Believe it!

the Democratic nominee!

Eyes on the prize, remember? This is about getting AWOL out!

Saddam was just one man when he was captured. I doubt that the capture will stop the resistance to the West.

Capturing Saddam does not prove Dean wrong.

It doesn't prove him wrong. It makes his anti-war points harder to swallow for anyone who doesn't already support him.

I find it interesting Dean hasn't been on any of the Sunday talk shoes, that I've seen anyway. Perhaps he's a tad tongue-tied?

If they capture Saddam and the resistance continues (which I believe it will, since it wasn't coming from Saddam)and we still don't find WMD's (which they don't even talk about anymore), then it undercuts the "saddam must be removed" case for War.

Nothing has changed in IRAQ.

This will have about as much impact there as the Turkey Photo-Op.

Sure it will be a speed bump in Dean's path, but if the attacks continue, there is one less bogey man to blame them on and Bush is revealed as a miserable failure.

Not everything in the world revolves around Howard Dean....

Please folks - get a grip. We have work to do. We need that grass roots campaign.

This is about getting rid of the squatter. Let's pick the best guy to do it - and then work like hell to make it happen.

now you want our help? That is chutpa.

and your paternalistic tone to Dean supporters does nothing but alienate us.

After some of the ignorance I've read here today I'm on the verge of going NBD...Nobody But Dean. Dean has said he wouldn't run as an Independent, but if he did, he has enough supporters to win.

of political impurity then? Say it ain't so! Dean saves! Praise the Dean! You have the power! The tea is in the harbor! dean loves! Joy to the world, the Dean is born!

Note that this post lament's the end of "the most amazing national grassroots campaign in US history" rather than the fact that we won't have President Dean.

I've said for a long time that the Dean campaign is more about the effort itself than the candidate himself.

Just pay attention--half of the Dean threads are about the campaign itself (ie how many activists they have going somewhere)and within those other candidate threads you'll read more about the campaign than the candidate's policy initiatives.

This is another example.

I also like to carp on the religious element to it too: the deliberate ignoring of any flaws, and the extreme overinflation of his good qualities.

To answer the "untrustworthiness" question raised in the thread starter, here are a few that the Deanies never seem to want to respond to:

He repeatedly called the four Senators "tax-cutters" and in league with the ruinous policy of this administration, yet they all voted against the '01 tax cut, and they all voted against the '03 divident tax cut. They fought the latter so tirelessly that, when they knew they didn't have the votes to defeat the plan, they tried a valient rearguard action to float a compromise bill that only did half the damage. For this heroism, Dean repeatedly accuses them of being "for the tax cuts", and is irate and petulant when confronted with it.

He states (at a Black Caucus sponsored debate in a former slave state) that he's the only one who "ever talks about race in front of white audiences". When journalists ask other candidates about this, and they point out that it's in their stump speech, Dean shrieks as if he's been attacked, and then snivels that he can't be held accountable for knowing everything the others have said. (I'd say he does, since he's initiating the comments based on his premise that he knows what they've been saying at all times.) That's bad enough, but when confronted on the flag flap, he complains that he said it once nine months earlier. The response to that from one of his detractors was that if he'd known about it then, he'd have said it then. Dean's campaign then insults the detractor for not having hung on his every word. Those two incidents, in tandem, absolutely define hypocrisy.

He's for energy deregulation, depending on when and how you ask the question. NAFTA's just peachy, except when the whetted finger raisend on high seems to suggest otherwise. His war stance was nowhere near cut-and-dried, yet to mention such facts, as Will Pitt's done, is heresy. He's a gun-owner's best friend, but he definitely waffles on "local option" when having to explain himself to the Democratic base. He claims that he gave health insurance to the children, when he took office with something like 93% of the people already covered. He's been very supportive of HMOs.

More than anything else, he entered the campaign as the most shrill, abusive and derisive of the bunch, calling the others "Bush-lite" and saying that he represented the "democratic branch of the Democratic Party", then cries bloody murder when people point out his flaws. Who does he think he is, a SURGEON?

All this is VERY slippery, and calls character into question; couple this with an extremely combative and dismissive persona that makes pronouncements and tells people what's good and true, and it's an issue.

Your point--from which I've strayed--is very true: it's PERSONAL for the stalwarts, and it's about their personal efficacy. This is natural, and I'm not getting any joy from raining on their parade. (Okay, I'm getting some satisfaction, but no joy.) It's tough to be trampled by the ugly powers-that-be, and when you believe in someone who comes seemingly out of nowhere to beat the odds, it's only natural to view resistors as a bunch of philisdeans. It's about the joy of the movement and the personal power of those in the flock. They need to remember, though, that the rest of us have also suffered under the yoke of corporate bullshit, so we don't deserve to just be crushed as further dupes and facilitators. Deanies aren't the only ones with hopes, dreams and feelings, and they have no right to wreak revenge when their camp started the nastiness and has been the most vigorous in sustaining it.

It's a religion: all good springs from him, and nothing bad is ever his fault, including his own actions.

A big, big concern I have if Dean gets the nomination is that his supporters take it as an affront any time a question is raised about the Dr., his history or his platform. If they are behaving this way with fellow Dems how can they possibly deal with what will be coming from the pugs.

Many religious people are dedicated.

Many of Howard Dean's supporters are dedicated.

Therefore, Dean is a cult leader.

Sorry, the argument is transparent bullshit.

Religious belief is based on assumptions that are treated like fact. The social dynamic of group belief is to band together and dismiss all contrary theories.

The actions of those who overemphasize their belief's "truth" and "goodness" are generally to grant themselves sweeping amnesty for the ill caused by their beliefs out of some "virtue dispensation".

Everything good comes from god, but god didn't have a damned thing to do with the Nazis or the death camps.

When one claims the right to be above reproach based on empirical evidence, one is not playing fair. The principal Deanie response to all criticism boils down to this: "well, he's really good, so none of that matters". I daresay that many Deanies are so swept up with this that there's virtually nothing that would dissuade them; if it was conclusively proven that the war issue was nothing but a cynical calculation and opportunism--a conclusion I don't support, but am only offering for sake of argument--I'll bet many would find some way of equivocating this too. They'd say things to the effect that he's such a populist and all that, and even if those points were disproven, they'd find something else to buttress their argument.

It's personal. It's dangerous when personality cults get to the point where the person is good simply by definition. Beyond all that, it makes the true believers shrill and without rational mechanisms to sway others. Many of us don't buy it. We don't like him, and even though we can grant him many good points, that's a very legitimate issue if it's not based on some inscrutible physical issue or something like that. I don't like his arrogance, pronouncements and extremely nasty attack style; this coupled with his thin skin is just juvenile. (His apology for the flag issue was a truly honorable moment, though, especially since he broadened it to encompass a self-perceived personality issue, which he didn't have to do.)

It smacks of religion, and much as you wish to characterize my logical path as a simplistic couple of statements with tenuous, I've repeatedly layed out specifics. It smacks of true belief that transcends and actively dismisses pesky mortal facts.

Many religious people are dedicated.

Many of Howard Dean's supporters are dedicated.

Therefore, Dean is a cult leader.

Sorry, the argument is transparent bullshit.

perspective by the weeks end. :hi: Afterall, that's what leaders do.

For goodness sake. Dean isnt Kucinich. He's not some progressive superstar who was going to change the system. He's a middle of the road democrat who ran a high risk campaign because he started out as an underdog.

Maybe you should have made your grassroots campaign about issues and not a freakish cult of personality around an undeserving Howard Dean and you wouldnt have this trouble.

What the fuck on you on about?

You seen no promise in the democratizing nature of a campaign built around 2 million activist citizens donating $100 each to take their country back from the BFEE?

Why not?

they were donating to ONE politician. Howard Dean, a democrat with a fairly moderate record. Of course the lot of you pretend you are part of some holy crusade to take back the country. Thats the problem, you act as if the Dean campaign is some huge progressive revolution.

It isnt. If you want to change the face of politics, find a true progressive and give you 100$ to him. If you are just concerned about winning the whitehouse then the last thing you should be doing is committing to a candidate early and pushing hard for him throughout. You should be stepping back, watching the political landscape and supporting the person who is in the best position to beat bush, then donating to them for the general election.

But dont act surprised when the movement fails, its a movement based around a person who isnt suited to head a movement. Dean isnt some visionary politician who wants to be the voice of progressiveism. He is a man who wants to be president and is taking whatever course there he can.

That's all we are asking for this time around.

And we're going to keep organizing and working until we get it.

alot of people in this race, maybe all of them. They all have similar platforms, and they are all decent men. The question is, in the places where they do differ, are any significantly better suited for the job. And, I think more importantly at this stage of things, which of them stands the best chance of beating Bush.

Now, with a republican congress atm, and the state that the democratic party is in, and with the economy in turmoil. I dont think any candidate is going to be able to push any ambitious plans in any area. Any candidate that gets in will be in a Bill Clinton situation. Having to worry mostly about getting reelected, and in this case trying to win congress for the dems. After that there is the economy and the Iraq situation, which will for the forseeble future tie up the president. It will be a game of politics and trying to fix a crisis that should keep any of the candidates from persuing any major activist changes.

This is unfortunate, but its the truth as far as I can see. That is why I argue that in this situation, our concern should almost solely be with picking a person who can take out Bush. That is job #1 and is worth putting everything on the back burner to accomplish. We need to get rid of Bush and then we have alot of work to do before we can get the country back on track.

If this is the case, and beating Bush should be our biggest concern, then I dont think we should be allowing ourselves to get caught up behind any candidate wholly. IE, if things in Iraq dont go how most of us are predicting, Dean may face a huge huge problem against Bush. I think that some of his choices in the primary have made him more vulnerable in the general election and this scares me.

I dont think he is an aweful candidate, or that anyone who supports Dean is crazy, I just get scared by the strange movement around him which doesnt really fit with him as a man or a politician. I think energizing the base and getting down to the grassroots is something we desperately need to do to save this country, especially to regain congress, and to reorient the democratic party behind populism and progressive ideas. I hope that what we see with Dean is a precurser to that, but Dean himself is not the man who will do that. He is not a progressive idealogue or a man on a mission to change the party. He just wants to be president. If he can do it, fine, but lets divorce progressive grassroots populism from Howard Dean.

We ain't gonna beat Bush by agreeing with him that up is down and war is peace. We know how that worked in 2002.

A lot of them have had mixed feelings about Dean ever since they started to give the Democratic campaign semi-serious attention about three or four weeks ago. They seriously question whether he can win the general election. They don't like the sealing of the records -- it's an issue that has resonated -- and they don't care for some of his positions. (The tax cut stance doesn't sit well.) They want a candidate who can oust Bush. (Sometimes it's my candidate, Clark, and sometimes it's not.) Dean rubs them the wrong way. They don't care for anger, they are aching for healing from the traumas of 2000 and 2001.

The fact is there is much more to the "grassroots" than Dean supporters and the Internet. As effective as the campaign has been until now, there is a big Democratic electorate out there. We may see Dean's numbers ascend for a while and he might win the nomination. But it's not written in stone. Nor should it be.

What I get is two things: ABB is now in common usage, and people have personality issues with Dean. I don't think the electablity is an issue, except for the penchant for Dean to shoot off his mouth and get himself into trouble, along with the accumulated wafflings and issues for which he'll continue to take heat. What I'm getting from people at large also sustains this: there's a belief that a few of the candidates have a chance, and that Dean is perfectly viable.

My problem with the electability issue is that it naturally plays into panic. Dean is simply not liberal enough for me, and he's a stealth centrist; I think we can do much better, and I hate the panicky need to stampede each other into a premature decision. We also have to make sure it doesn't look like we're subverting the primary season; that'll just further disgust the cynics who feel that the whole thing's rigged. We need those people.

If the tidal wave continues, many swing voters will be turned off. That's a thorny argument, since we've been silly as a party by trying to move to the center to be more successful. What can happen is this: he wins the nomination, then he's simultaneously slagged as an elitist northern limousine liberal (thus peeling off swing voters) and also shoots himself in the foot when he actually points out his centrism, which demoralizes the non-voting poor and left. Don't think the Bushies can do it? They can.

For many voters--myself included--it's a question of personality. I have huge problems with his, and I hear that from many people.

like better?

Remember, all things are relative. Dean keep being compared to some perfect absolute. All he has to do is beat down the Boy King, not some idealized Platonic philospher king.

Edwards is warm, positive and directly questioning the morality of these thugs without foaming at the mouth. There's a reassurance there, whereas with Dean, all you get is the thrill of the shrill.

Kerry is solid and absolutely exudes an air of complete, complex knowledge of how things work politically and diplomatically. His voting record as a liberal is absolutely irreproachable and downright heartwarming. His persona is one of calm, confident decency.

Clark can and does decisively denounce the very essence of Junior's foreign policy, and can show his core beliefs and track record without resorting to blistering attacks on his fellow candidates. He's a bit clunky as a speaker, but there's no doubt when seeing him that he's smart and truly cares.

Dean tells the rest of us inferiors what's good for us and what's wrong with everyone else. He plays fast and loose with facts, and constantly uses cheap shots to his advantage. In the last debate, he looked at his watch and then pontificated how wrong it was to only have 12 minutes left in the debate without having discussed domestic policy; he did this to infer that the rest of the candidates had let us down, when they were, in fact, answering questions at the behest of the moderators. Dean does this repeatedly, scoffing at the duplicity and superficiality of his rivals, and he does it in way that can only be described as passive-massive-aggressive. What do I mean by that? Passive aggression is where you infer and smear without directly accusing your opponent of something; he does it in a resounding way in brutal terms. I'm tired of this autocrat; I want a Democrat.

cipher with no politcal experience or history.

He takes no PAC money. He's not a front for any corporate interests; he's spent his life fighting them, as the monarchists' venom proves.

He's not some darling of the establishment Democratic Party, sent to keep control of the "game". I see no subversive conspiracy for whom he's serving as frontman, so please back it up. I've backed up each of my contentions--including visceral emotional feeling issues--with undisputable facts; you have not.

Do you even know what a shill is? Edwards doesn't fit any of the definitions. He's not an audience plant laughing harder to make people think the show's funny. He's not planted in a rival's show to boo and cause disruption. He's not throwing any game. He's not barking to drag people into some bilking. Just who's shadowy interests is he serving and how?

This is a pretty damning accusation; it easily goes beyond any of the admittedly serious allegations I've leveled at Dean. Do you actually believe this, or are you just self-justified to a scorched-earth policy because you've met the resistance to which you demand to be held morally immune?

For whom is he shilling? Who's the evil cabal, and what's their plan?

Say what you may about Edwards, but he's his own man.

we need the swing and Independent voters. I'm a precinct delegate and talk with lots of people, too. I hear the same thing...the folks not really interested in poltics other than to vote aren't attracted to the "shooting off the mouth", as you put it, personality.

There is life out there, outside of the deanocentric world. I thought this was about ABB, not about deanotopia. But then again, I guess I was wrong:
"
> Commenting on Wesley Clark's possible candidacy in an
> interview with L.A. Weekly, Dean explained:
> "It's going to be very hard to start late," he says, "and think
> you're going to do well in Iowa and New Hampshire. It's going to be
> incredibly hard. I mean, we've already got 39,000 people working for
> us all around the country ... I really do believe--and I think about
> this--I want to get this nomination, and if I don't ... these kids
> are not transferrable. I can't just go out and say, 'Okay, so I
> didn't win the nomination, so go ahead and vote for the Democrats.'
> They're not going to suddenly just go away. That's not gonna
> happen."
> --
> http://www.laweekly.com/ink/printme.php?eid=46660
> --

bush or dean?

i'm rich.  i'm white.  i went to yale.  i used my wealth / family connections to help me avoid going to vietnam. while poor and working class people my age were dying in vietnam i was busy partying.  i spent a significant part of my career trying out different professions until i settled on politics.  i could afford to do that because i was born rich.  i was a governor before running for president.  i had no foreign policy experience before running for office.  i'm iconoclastic and dogmatic.  it's my way or the highway.  i am quick to tear down anyone who disagrees with me.  i am ruthless when it comes to campaigning.  i like my records sealed. 

I like invoking executive privilege. The hell with campaign finance reform. Flying the confederate flag on government buildings in South Carolina - states rights. Right to work legislation? States rights. Affirmative action should be based on social status, not color. I want the support of the guys with the C-Flag on their trucks. I am as uncomfortable with civil rights unions as the next guy. I am not a liberal. The heck with medicare. Let's raise the retirement age to 70. I employ Rush Limbaugh. Young people had no reason to vote democrat since 1968. NRA is good. I don't care if 70% are against it , I'll do it anyway>

so who am i? bush or dean?

I got an earful when I was petitioning this weekend.

I wish Dean had framed his thoughts in a totally different context because I do believe the Democratic party has to (and could) recapture the working class white voter if a charismatic politician makes the right argument.

Who's the anti-Bush again?

What candidate were you tabling for?

If we nominate Dean, we are destroyed.

Sometimes establishment Dems don't know their own strength.

care to elaborate on HOW we would be destroyed?

We have a long way to go.

Throw a flame grenade and run away - charming.

The question always has been how Bush has managed the war on terrorism, rather, how he's mismanaged it. Going into Iraq and creating a playground for al Qaeda and insurgents is and always will be wrong, no matter how many of the most-wanted playing cards Bush deals. Dean, Kucinich, & the others are on the right side of the argument.

Got it?

the inevitable ABD shitstorm that's already in full swing.

...your use of the term "ABD" and your ridiculous "predictions" exclude you from further debate. Talk to us again when you've learned how to behave.

Not a Vermont governor who goes skiing while people are dying.

Did I miss an election somewhere?

And robotic particpation in a bad,unjust hideous warchild of the military industrial complex hardly qualifies one for anything.

Then you shouldn't go to such pains to seal the records that will enable the public to assess your experience.

To a nicer guy...

Now if Saddam decides to show that he had WMDs and leads thsbush coalition to them, the icing will be set on the cake.

We have to get behind the one that can win. Clark.

wishful thinking by supporters of competing candidates. Or perhaps it's just opportunistic mudslinging.

I'm not even a Dean supporter, myself- I'm pulling for Kucinich. But I've heard "your guy should just drop out" from loyalists of various stripes enough times to recognize it for what it is.