Dean: Hope is source of his anger

Posted 10/16/2003 11:36 PM

Former Vermont governor and Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean addressed a luncheon Thursday of USA TODAY and Gannett News Service reporters and editors. Among his comments:

On Democratic presidential candidate Wesley Clark:

"He's very bright, and he's a good candidate, but he's going to have to go through the mill like everybody else. Nobody's going to get a free ride here."

On trade:

"We're hemorrhaging manufacturing jobs. I was a supporter of both NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) and China's entry into the WTO (World Trade Organization) for strategic geopolitical reasons. But those agreements are written to favor multinational corporations at the expense of working people both in other countries and here. ... I believe that trade also requires human rights and labor standards and environmental standards that are concurrent around the world.

On whether the United Statesis too biased in favor of Israel:

"I used the word 'evenhanded,' which apparently means something in the pro-Israel community that it does not mean to ordinary people's ears. I think I've made it very clear that my position is not any different from Bill Clinton's. We've always been a strong ally of Israel; we'll continue to be a strong ally of Israel. Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East.

On whether he's too angry to be president:

"What we're really about is not anger, it's hope.

"Is there some anger? Sure. There's a lot of anger at President Bush. The way President Bush has harmed us the most is not the 3 million jobs we've lost or the loss of face and loss of respect around the world, it's the loss of our sense of community. ... He's a very divisive president.

more...

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/2003-10-16-dean-excerpts-usat_x.htm

Dean has a unique personality, and he is just outspoken by nature. Since I am that way, and just tend to come right out with what I thinking....I can appreciate it.

Or should I just say he says things in a plain way (I won't use simple as that applies to Bush). Maybe too plain, but I can take it as long as it is the truth.

The last couple of years we have nearly thrown things at the TV as the lies spewed out. Speak truth, Dean, explain later.

My view on the anger.....the only ones who are not angry are the ones who don't have a clue.

Phrenology? Palm reading?

I think you are just rude. I think you intend to be. I have a right to be at this forum without someone being that way to me. Back you go.

Just 'cause I'm more interested in politics than pop-psychology or pseudo-psychology!

I'm the first to admit that I have had more than one moment of frustration and/or anger towards Bush* in the past, but I'm more concerned with finding constructive ways to remove him. Now when I see Bush* lie, I immediately smile and think how that lie can be used against him. I certainly have a clue, but I'm not always angry.

Personally, I'm having a hard time dealing with Dean's anger. It makes me uncomfortable and rather nervous to listen to him speak. I don't dislike his platform and will vote for him if he gets the nomination, but his demeanor has put him near the bottom of my list.

FDR's response was to have the fireside chat and tell us that fear was the only thing we should fear. FDR knew that if he were angry in response to Hitlers VERY frightening speeches, he would only be opening the door for fascism in America.

ever talk about fear? I am just wondering and if he doesnt no big deal, I like Edwards. You know I am a Kucinich supporter and Ive heard my man talk about fear and etc and he brings up Roosevelt.

untapping the potential of America.

He sort of stands as a symbol of what anyone could do with the right opportunities (good public schools, health insurance, decent wages, and a job which rewards hard work).

There's nothing in there that has anything to do with fear.

If he could somehow come up with that same kind of spirit directed atcoming out of this terrorism a better and stronger country, I bet he'd be doing alot better. He's got the hope and optimism on the country in general, but we also need hope and optimism that we're not going to live under a terror threat forever.

It's very much in the mode of FDR and Truman -- a liberal internationalism. He says it's important to take American security very serioulsy, but it's more important to engage in the world in a manner which promotes liberal progress--more democracy, and countries benefitting from the wealth of their own nation (and that national security depends on middle classes and democracies building up around the world).


Actually, this is very much like the movie that I think sets out the argument for liberal politics in contemporary American society -- Spiderman. Spiderman argues that the university is the source of learning and progress; that the military industrial complex needs to be checked by an equally powerful force; and that, with great power comes great responsibility.

This is the ONE issue on which Kucinich and Edwards disagree. I don't think that Kucinich believes in liberal internationalism. I don't think that Kucinich thinks it's America has a responsibility to promote liberalism internationality due to the fact that it wields such great power. He seems to be for complete isolation, at least in respect of using military power.

I respect that. But I also think that impulse has resulted in as many (if not more) lives lost as when the US gets invovled (eg, Rwanda vs Vietnam, or Yugoslavia vs Iraq). In some respects, this is Colin Powel's philosophy too. However, Power only wants to disengage when it, coincidentally, reaps financial and political rewards for Republicans.

That's the same as Republicans, democracies don't attack each other. I'm not sure I agree with that. The experience has been too short to make that claim boldly. I would say countries that can identify shared values don't attack each other. It's up to us to define those shared values and the form of government doesn't necessarily have to be part of it. Human rights would be a better starting place than a democratic form of government, it seems to me. Canada & the U.S. have democratic governments, but if we keep veering in different directions, who knows what could happen. The rest of the world can't sit back and let the U.S. consume all the resources and destroy the planet forever. Sooner or later it will come down to survival and if we're in the way of that, democracy or not, we may find ourselves looking at the entire world against us.

I understand Edwards' view of foreign policy. I'm really talking about the way he takes Democratic values and makes it short and simple. They value wealth, we value work. They want to build walls, I want to knock them down. If he could do that with terrorism, something that'll really reassure and offer a clear way out. We won't win in 2004 without it I don't think.

And I actually didn't watch Spiderman. I asked my kids if it had a story and they just said the graphics were awesome! After your post, I'll have to reconsider.

JFK wanted to run on hope and opportunity and he wanted to take away the wedge issue of the red scare. So, he didn't vote to censure Joe McCarthy, and then he went on to sound like a bigger anti-communist that Nixon. That was the end of that issue. He proceeded to run on optimism, equal opportunity, level playing field, etc.

I'm not sure how that translated today. But the lesson is that you can pull the rug out from under the Republican's feet, and you can get home-field advantage on the issues if you're smart and have a good strategy.

You do understand that, I hope???

Back then everybody was anti-communist. Now we have a Democratic Party where half of them don't even want to hear about terrorism while the other 70% of the country wants it dealt with severely. How do we even GET a Democratic candidate who can be as tough on terrorism as JFK was on communism? I grew up in the 60's and never had one of those under the desk drills. I sense more free-floating anxiety over terrorism today than I did over nuclear bombs as a kid. Then there's the problem of being tough on terrorism while also confronting Bush and his pulling 9/11 out to scare people every time he has a problem or wants to implement more of his agenda. I'd like to see somebody pull the rug out from under the fear tactics AND offer a hopeful vision of a world without terrorism. Is that too tall of an order??

He has run a really positive campaign. Unfortunately, positive campaigns don't seem to warrant much media attention. But they do warrant respect.

Indeed another reason why I like him. No about telling people not to let fear rule them.

Excerpt from August speech:

"How do we stop racial injustice and the drive to rebuild the barriers of the past?

"By speaking truth to power and putting our muscle and might in front of efforts to end affirmative action and making sure that people like John Ashcroft don’t take away our civil rights.

"And we must do this with an understanding that, for many Americans, the attack on civil rights is a reaction based on fear and insecurity, not reason or reality.

"We cannot continue to allow this fear to be manipulated for political reasons. We must reach out to people and help them understand that civil rights is not an “us” against “them” proposition.

"That’s why I am fighting to make sure that the judges and laws that are proposed strengthen our rights and liberties, not weaken them.

"America does well when we all do well--when we remember to treat each other with simple kindness and respect.

"That’s what you do every day and that’s why I am reaching out to you now—for your wisdom and ideas.

"I believe that wherever you live, whoever your family is, and whatever the color of your skin is, if you are willing to work hard, if you are willing to take responsibility, you ought to be able to go as far as your God-given talents and hard work will take you.

"That’s the America we believe in. That’s the America we can create by using the good will that resides in all of us to do God’s work here on this earth. Not just on Sundays but every day of our lives. That’s what I’ll do as your President."

But that speech made me owerwhlemingly confident that I made the right choice.

Fear and anger are not the same thing. Not even close. You might want to look it up.

Google "Fear and Anger" and you get results like this:

Anger can erupt at any moment, and it's not always directed at a person. Sometimes we get angry at circumstances. We're frustrated because we believe we're about to lose something we thought was secure. Or we realize we may not gain something we expected...Fear reveals our attitude toward personal loss. The greater the loss, the greater the fear. Worry, a form of fear, is preoccupation with the possibility that we can lose something valuable.

http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/~bump/Hu305/1/1/FEAR0.HTM

Google "Hope and Anger" and you get results like this:

On 7 August, 2001, Glasgow police clashed with protestors in Govanhill over the closure of their local pool. Campaigner Andrew Johnson explains what happens when a peaceful protest is marred by violence.

"Fight with hope, not with anger. It can be done peacefully and positively," says Andrew Johnson of Southside Against Closure.

http://www.justdosomething.net/home/start-something/start-a-campaign/the-long-haul/fight-with-hope-not-anger-the-govanhill-pool-campaign.vdf

get us to support them. Anger is an appropriate reaction to being manipulated. They are not the same. Try a dictionary next time.

Do a google search. That Govanhill pool example is an excellent micro-level description of how politics work. And works really well with that UT thing. People were angry because they felt something that was theirs was being taken away.

The anger was the wrong emotion to exploit if they wanted to keep their public pool.

You can learn more about politics by looking at reality than reading a dictionary.

which dealt with the depression. FDR had plenty of angry things to say about Herbert Hoover's "hands-off" approach to economic recovery during the 1932 campaign. Doing nothing while 25% of the population is unemployed is pretty despicable, and FDR was very pointed about that.

Democrats have been doormats for the right wing for too long, choosing policy direction based on what the Republican "winners" were doing. It was bullsh*t then and it is bullsh*t now - and if your candidate isn't able to lead us out of this self-destructive behavior, then he is part of the problem, frankly.

If we want people to care and to get involved (and to vote, for crying out loud), we had better give them something to vote for - something we haven't seen until now, obviously.

I really don't care what a candidate SAYS. I'm looking at what each one has actually DONE. What good is getting a candidate who says he's different, when the fact is he's exactly what he pretends to be fighting against?

There are no wolves in sheeps clothing among the 9 candidates. Each stands ready to be judged by word and deed.

To even infer that any of the candidates is not what he seems is not helpful and is, perhaps, dishonest.

By the way, "rhetoric" is not some useless or devious tool - it is a very important aspect of leadership. Often a leader will be required to inspire the population to make a great sacrifice or to right some long-standing wrong - whatever. You will never find a great leader in history that wasn't able to reach into the hearts and minds of the people through his words.

Boring and uninspiring = non-leader.

That is a fact that is neither unfortunate nor unfair.

"Language that is elaborate, pretentious, insincere, or intellectually vacuous"

Suggesting that we look no further than the rhetoric in judging the candidates is what is not helpful. If they each stand behind their words and deeds, then there is nothing wrong in calling them into question to see whether the deeds actually stack up against the words. I see no other way to make an informed decision. I don't know whether there are wolves in sheeps clothing or not. But I do hear there are some cockroaches.

Where did you get your curious definition? Mine comes from Webster.

Candidates that do not have effective communication skills lose - and deservedly so. Dean's ability to channel the anger, that so many Americans feel, is an effective campaign tool. To belittle or cast doubt upon that ability is a mistake. A miscalculation, perhaps.

Supporters of other candidates naturally look at Dean to find some weakness or perceived blemish on his public record that belies his appealing message. They erroneously feel that Dean's support is somehow deserved or has been earned by their candidate. That is a huge miscalculation.

I do not suggest that we look no further than a candidate's words. I am suggesting that we do not attempt to demonize any of these candidates by ignoring their plans for our future to point out some perceived problem with their public record (especially when the record has somewhat distorted by context or gaffe.)

The best candidate will win this long struggle. I am confident that we will have the strongest candidate at the top of the ticket. I only hope that the nominee hasn't been dealt a self-defeating blow by other Democrats.

Websters. And in politics, and my post, this is the way the word is used.

And as soon as Howard Dean stops calling Congressional Democrats do-nothing insiders and cockroaches, I'll think about the blows supposedly delivered by other candidates.

Don't peole know this?

FDR had the threat of fascism abroad, and he had home-grown fascists on Wall St like Prescott Bush who saw that Hitler would be a good tool to exploit to get elected so that they could implement their own fascist corporatocracy.

The radios and newsreels played Hitlers speeches all the time to scare the public into voting for Republicans (they were no different than Fox and CNN exploiting terrorism today).

FDR had two choices: exploit fear and anger as well. Unfortunately, Tony Blair has done this in the UK (but it's a hard choice -- one wonders what benefits Clinton would have reaped had he told Americans the scope of the threat of terrorism himself).

FDR's other choice was to appeal to hope and optimism and to calm people down to counter the effect of the propaganda. The result was the fireside chat. Those chats were designed to be the exact opposite of Hitler's lunatic rantings in a language most Americans didn't even understand, but the uniform, the tone, the crowds told them all they needed to know.

I suspect that FDR felt that had he tried to exploit fear and anger, he might have temporarily succeeded, but, soon enough, the public would have read that as meaning that their economic and political power didn't matter and that it would be a good idea to turn it over to Wall St so that they would protect them.

FDR chose the right route. Hope not Fear. Optimism not Anger.

RAGE is anger, just for the sake of it. It is one-dimensional, destructive and revenge-oriented.

OUTRAGE is rightious. It is multi-dimensional, constructive, and about solving our problems in a sane, rational way. It's not about "destroying" anything, not even our worst enemies. It's about doing something POSITIVE, so the situation that caused the OUTRAGE cannot be repeated.

In Dean (and in too many of his followers, but NOT ALL), I only see the RAGE. I don't see anything that's markedly different in what he proposes, just the same old stuff that's caused this RAGE, but a little different.

In Kucinich, I see OUTRAGE, but I also see the solutions to what causes the outrage. These solutions acknowledge that the sytem is BROKEN, and needs to be fixed in major ways. They don't just treat the symptoms, they treat the entire DISEASE that's hit this nation. Taking an aspirin to treat a tumor won't work, but removing the tumor will.

"I used the word 'evenhanded,' which apparently means something in the pro-Israel community that it does not mean to ordinary people's ears."

I tell you, I like Kucinich for his plan.

Anytime the issue involves human and civil rights or the equality of any people, Dean is impartial. There are NO second class citizens in Dean's eyes.

trust me, but I prefer the Kucinich plan.

I'm sure he's a nice enough guy, but his politics are way too radical for me. I don't like radicalism no matter what side of the fence it comes from. Kucinich is a perfect fit where he currently is, and that's where I want him to stay. I admire your devotion and belief in him, though. I just don't share it.

What is considered radicalism at one time is considered normal later. Look at history for that. Its ok really I dont care that you think that, I am a far left liberal democrat and damn proud of it and I understand why you dont but I yearn for it, that is a change of things.

This is a great quote, too:

"This anger stuff is mostly about the spinmeisters in other campaigns who are shocked that we've raised three times as much money as they have. I think if there's any anger, it's probably in the other presidential campaigns for underestimating us. Do we say some angry things? Yep. Do we tap into anger? Yep. But what we're really tapping into is the desire to hope again."

that Dean puts on this "spinmeister" comment. He is contending that he earned the reputation for being "angry" just as the Q3 numbers came out?

I don't think so. Folks have been commenting on the anger thing since the beginning of this year, when Dean was the dark horse long shot candidate. It's definitely not "new".

On trade:

I believe that trade also requires human rights and labor standards and environmental standards that are concurrent around the world.

It would be so easy for him to correct himself here. By saying "requires concurrent standards" in the present tense he lends convenient confusion to his trade agenda. He could have just as easily said "move rapidly towards," but it wouldn't get the applause or the contributions.

On whether the United Statesis too biased in favor of Israel:

We've always been a strong ally of Israel; we'll continue to be a strong ally of Israel. Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East.

Last December, Dean told the Jerusalem Post that he unequivocally supported $8 Billion in US loan guarantees for Israel. "I believe that by providing Israel with the loan guarantees...the US will be advancing its own interest," he said. His unconditional support for the loan package, in addition to $4 Billion in outright grants, went further than even some of the most pro-Israel elements in the Bush administration, like Paul Wolfowitz, who wanted to at least include some vague restrictions like pushing Israel to curtail new settlements and accept a timetable to establish a Palestinian state.

http://www.muslimwakeup.com/mainarchive/000119.html

Dean believes the Bush administration should be giving Israel $4 billion in military aid to fight terrorism, not the $1 billion it proposed last month.

http://www.jewishsf.com/bk030418/us02.shtml

That's $4 BILLION in military aid, while Dean demands that any Palestinian state be "demilitarized" (his word). Apparently, "demilitarized" means something different to Palestinian ears...

On whether he's too angry to be president:

"What we're really about is not anger, it's hope.

He's a very divisive president.

And you are a very divisive candidate. Anger has gotten you into the door, but there is no reason why you haven't switched to a positive message by this time. Except campaign contributions, of course. But personally, I'll take a bridge-building liberal over a polarizing centrist any day.

<>

Dean is trying to say something to Dennis Kucinich, and Dennis is ignoring him. Dean has stepped on a whole helluva lot of toes in his campaign of "hope".

they were toes that deserved to be stepped upon.

How many times has Dean belittled Kucinich?

Remember and no offense Dean supporters I dont harbor any hard feelings over the comment when Dean said he was the only one to vote against the war who has high poll numbers some people tried to say it was an error but I think not, now I am a forgiving person and I dont feel mad about that but I think he was trying to infer he was all alone, and we know damn well he wasnt. It was Kucinich NOT Dean who help lead the charge so to speak against IWR in the house, if IWR is your issue wouldnt Kucinich be best then again I like Kucinich for his domestics too and maybe you guys do too. I am not complaining or anything. I will support Dean if hes the nominee I can do that but I dont support him in the primaries, I do prefer Edwards or Kerry to him sorry guys but I do like those two guys despite IWR, however if it comes down to Dean and Lieberman, call me a Deannie lol. Sorry guys if I offended but I dont like Dean impling falsely it feels that he was all alone and that he did the most against the war, he did get more coverage than Kucinich, but that tree still fell, and I know Kucinich fought it.

I know exactly what you are talking about. I'm having problems with PDF files, but you can go to this website and watch Dean say it on Real Player. Fast forward to 4:50 and watch him say how he is the only candidate with a chance that voted "no." Of course, he didn't vote at all, but you can understand how he gets caught up in his own rhetoric.

http://www.ourfuture.org/projects/national_conference/2003/speeches/pres_candidates_8_6_.cfm

PS - You can watch Kucinich (and Kerry) give great speeches, too! It's a progressive conference.

You can also watch the speech by Bill Moyers here:

http://www.ourfuture.org/projects/national_conference/2003/index.cfm

Instead of Dean hollering how the Repukes in Congress are thwarting the will of the people with parliamentary squelch tactics and tabling issues they don't want their members to have to take a stand on, Dean criticizes the ONLY people in Congress who are working as hard as they can to keep some semblance of Democracy in this country.

Yeah, there are the Zell Millers and John Breauxs that are voting with the R's time and again, but dammit, Dean is dissing people that he'll need support from if he (cough, choke) wins the presidency. He's being short term foolish to get people riled up about "Washington insiders".

I started questioning Dean when he made those awful comments about John Edwards in California, and kept questioning his stupid mouth many times since. The man loses more and more respect from me with each passing day, and each stupid remark he makes.

Yes, yes, I'd rather have Dean as President than the Chimpster, but man, I'd rather have my DOG as President than Bush. Dean is NOT the right choice for this nation, at this point in time.

"I mean, there's a fair amount of outrage among the members who watched Dick Gephardt march to the Rose Garden with the president to declare war on Iraq. One hundred twenty-three people, I think it was, who didn't agree. ... I think for a member in the leadership to do that, it was pretty tough for a lot of Democrats to swallow that."

Not just those in Congress who were outraged at Gephardt's treason, but millions of us voters as well.

I'm glad Dean is speaking up on it. There were 2/3 of the House Democrats that didn't fall in line w/ Geph to support our Shrub in Chief. I think our nominee, whoever s/he may be, needs to be VERY cognizant of this fact.

A big chunk of the Senate Democrats, including Daschle, were working hard on Biden-Lugar (keep in mind that Biden and Kerry very often see eye to eye on the Foreign Relations Committee) when people like Lieberman and Gephardt pulled the rug out.

Gephardt Caves

HOUSE MINORITY Leader Richard A. Gephardt acceded to the drums of war on Wednesday, agreeing to an overly broad resolution authorizing President George W. Bush to attack Iraq. In the process, Mr. Gephardt undermined efforts in the Senate to limit the war authority to disarmament, rather than regime change.

Mr. Gephardt -- who was joined by other centrist Democrats, including Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut -- claimed to have won important concessions from Mr. Bush, and waxed on about how "this should not be about politics." But the concessions he won were minor, and his actions appear to be driven by the political imperatives of the coming election.

Before Mr. Gephardt decided to cave in on the war resolution, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D. had hoped to make the Biden-Lugar resolution the basis of a vote in the Senate. That now appears unlikely. Mr. Biden said Wednesday that he was a realist and knew that the new compromise, ballyhooed Wednesday afternoon in the White House Rose Garden, pretty much meant the end of his approach.

Mr. Gephardt has long favored regime change in Iraq and called Saddam a serious threat. But as recently as two weeks ago he said that Mr. Bush was not justified in waging war to overthrow Saddam, only in disarming him -- a position exactly in line with the Biden-Lugar resolution he has torpedoed.

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/1003-01.htm

Gephardt, standing shoulder to shoulder with Bush, House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) and Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.), said he had "worked to draft a resolution that reflects the views of a large bipartisan segment of Congress" and incorporating "a number of important improvements" reflecting Democratic views. "We have to do what is right for the security of our nation and the safety of all Americans," Gephardt said.

Conspicuous by his absence at the ceremony was Senate Majority Leader Thomas A. Daschle, who was alone among top leaders in opposing the new plan. Democratic schisms were apparent throughout the day, beginning when the four congressional leaders left the White House after an early breakfast with Bush. While Gephardt provided the first word to waiting reporters that agreement had been reached with the House, Daschle said that a number of senators still differed with the revised White House proposal.

As Daschle canceled a morning news conference, Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.), who also opposes the measure, called off a meeting of his Foreign Relations Committee planned to discuss an alternative resolution. By midday, the White House had released the new text and Democratic Sens. Joseph I. Lieberman (Conn.) and Evan Bayh (Ind.) had gone to the Senate floor to introduce it and voice their support. Within an hour, Lieberman and Bayh were standing in the Rose Garden with Bush.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A31884-2002Oct2?language=printer