Dean Campaign - a Battle Over Dem Party and Its Clinton-Era Legacy

from its own goddamned, losing self. As if that isn't self-evident.

do you believe that all the Democratic party needs is a new, stonger, "real" leader? Not all people can be leaders and, although, there are many great people in the Democratic party (my Congressman Vic Snyder being one - NO on Iraq war resolution, NO on partial abortion ban, etc.), there hasn't been one in a while strong enough to be a "true leader of the party.

I believe that, instead of constantly bashing current members of our electorate, we need to elect them a "true" leader to the top position in this land - one that will lead each of them to "be all that he or she can be".

The question that we must ask ourselves is this... who should that person be?

offered by the Republicans (either you are for our illegal war, or you are a Saddam-loving queer!).

A smart Democrat could offer leadership and also run on Clinton's success, as most of our smart candidates are doing. There's no reason to assume they are mutually exclusive, but then USNews would like to have us frame it that way.

Considering Dean's praise for Clinton.

It was fun to see the "he only appeals to angry cranks!", "he's too liberal!", and "He has no positive message!" spin from his opponents, though.

Bill Clinton has nowhere to go after having been president. The person who would be considered head of the party should be someone who has somewhere to go politically, a mission.

The candidates other than Howard Dean seem to be charismatically-challenged. None of them have a real message that a political observer could plainly state (except for Kucinich and his far-reaching goals and--ugh--Lieberman, the candidate who is hanging in there just in case the war turns out to have been the right thing to do after all).

Thats why he has surged so dramatically in the polls.

There are some good candidates, but none as effective as Dean.

Lieberman and Gephardt are using the above - but it fits the Dean - and indeed all - campaigns.

And I like the sound bite!

:-)

…
Since declaring himself a representative of the "Democratic wing of the Democratic party" during a rousing speech to party members at the DNC's winter meeting last February, Dean has taken party leaders to task for lacking vision and backbone. Dean reportedly told allies that he planned to remove McAuliffe from his post as chairman if he won the nomination, though Dean later denied it.
…

Drudge -- Wrong Again

Anyone who knows anything about how the DNC works -- knows that there is no way any of the candidates for president could have any impact on the DNC chairmanship -- least of all the Dean Campaign. Particularly in the days following the New Hampshire primary regardless of the result. No one from the Dean Campaign leaked anything to Drudge -- this report is like a National Enquirer headline proclaiming "Martians surprised that George Bush is our leader"

Now back to the process of encouraging Americans to participate in their democracy.... Keep the focus on how each of us can encourage one more friend, co-worker, or family member to join the Dean Campaign this week.

Ask them to visit our website or this blog and sign-up.

Joe Trippi
campaign manager
Dean for America

Posted by Joe Trippi at 11:15 PM
http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/000630.html

…
"The question is whether Dean will learn the lesson of the Clinton years, that you have to have a positive message," DuVal said.
…

Dean: Hope is source of his anger
…
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.

"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."
…
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/2003-10-16-dean-excerpts-usat_x.htm
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=170660

…
And, of course, if Dean were to win the presidency, he would supplant Bill Clinton as leader of the Democratic Party for the foreseeable future, something that is not likely to happen if he merely wins the nomination but loses to Bush. Also, if Dean were to become the nation's 44th president, it would wreck Hillary Clinton's plans for running in 2008.
…
Sen. Clinton does NOT have plans to run for President! That statement on Sen. Clinton proves that this piece is a GOP hit piece. They gotta keep that boogieman up. :puke:

is that they don't fall behind learders the way Republicans do. Ask Clinton what he thought about Liebermann during the impeachment efforts. Ask Clinton how he feels about Gore when Gore wouldn't run on Clinton's record. Ask Clinton how felt about Gephardt when Gephardt was criticizing him as much as the Republicans were in 94. Or how about all those Democrats who voted for Bush in 2000?

So, one might ask, is dean saying "let's take back the Democratic party from ourselves"

because we don't control any branch of government. But the nominee will become the de facto leader of our party, whether it's Dean, Clark or somebody else.

but she's dropped the ball. Has she forcefully spoken out, or just let Bush define the terms of the debate? What's she scared of? SF is not exactly a Republican stronghold.

Even though she ostensibly represents San Fran, she ultimately has to answer to Corporate America. As does any other elected official in DC.

I'm not bashing Kerry, Gephardt or any of the other DC candidates here. I am simply pointing out that they too often find themselves between a rock and a hard place- representing their actual constituents or their campaign/monetary masters. And unfortunately, this doesn't look like it will change until we have public financing or better regulations of corporations.


One of the things that has drawn me to Dean is his willingness to speak up. I know that Kerry and Gephardt have great service records, and are great Dems. But they have been too unwilling to vote against Shrubbie's agenda. I understand why, and will have no problem voting for them in the general. But I'd like someone more forceful to be our next leader.

Start wwith the gutless, bought off, Democrats who voted for the *Bush bail out today.

...but I still can't tell if Dean is for or against the $87bil? At the last debate he was for it, now he's not for it, or partially for it?

I would like STRAIGHT ANSWERS from our candidates, not meaningless "explanations". :eyes:

HAVING IT BOTH WAYS
       
With the $87 billion vote ahead for Congress, this note as to Dean’s Iraq position: The campaign will not say how Congress should vote. It also won’t speculate as to how the governor would vote had he been able to. The reasoning: This vote might well have been avoided had Dean been in Congress when the war was first discussed and thus it is better to take no position than to speculate about a single vote. That said, the campaign does say that the $87 billion needs to come from the president’s tax cut and that it should only be approved with a sound rebuilding plan in place.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/958689.asp