"Is Dean Goldwater?"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38530-2003Nov13.html

By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Friday, November 14, 2003

This is the key to the Democratic race: Will Democrats decide that this year is about issues and electability, or will they choose instead to build a movement? One Democrat captured a central reason for Dean's surge: "Many of Dean's people are more in love with the campaign than they are with the candidate."

<snip>Dean's signature exclamation to his supporters is: "You have the power!" It is a revivalist's promise. While the other candidates build themselves up, Trippi says, Dean builds up his supporters by saying: "Look at you. Aren't you cool? Aren't you amazing?"

<snip> Battered Democrats are hungry to hear that. So were the conservatives, then isolated from power, who flocked to Barry Goldwater in 1964. It is the Goldwater campaign, not George McGovern's 1972 antiwar crusade, that Dean's movement most resembles. Goldwater was not about "new ideas." He was about preaching the full conservative gospel and giving his followers a vehicle through which they could organize and put it into practice. Goldwater had his share of verbal gaffes. His supporters found them endearing. "Moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue," Goldwater said. You could imagine a Dean supporter saying that.

Goldwater and his legions built a mighty movement that changed the country and affects politics to this day. But in 1964 Goldwater was clobbered by Lyndon B. Johnson in a landslide felt all the way down the ballot.

Dean's challenge is to prove he can inspire a movement and still win the election. His opponents are desperate to show that the price of the energy Dean unleashes is four more years of George W. Bush. Right now the betting is on Dean. Like Goldwater, Dean has the energy on his side.

Comparing Dean to Goldwater, there's an act of desperation

Arguing that Dean is starting a movement on the left similar to what Goldwater started on the right. Doesn't bode well for this year, but if I could be guaranteed that there would be a growing liberal dominance over the next 30 years, and all I had to do was sacrifice this election to get it...I might make that deal.

every time someone writes or says something that doesn't worship dean, it's because they're 'desperate'.

Once at the convention it will be settled..let the best candidate win the nod.

have a say as well:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/11/14/democrats/index1.html
Is Dean too Hot?

NewsMax, of course does it's favorite think, praises Dean, dumps on Clark:
http://12.38.102.164/archives/ic/2003/11/14/101204.shtml

Governor of a small northeastern state who lost in a landslide to George Bush in 1988, remember him?

I don't know how things are going to play out yet, but to me it seems I can hear the death rattle of the Democratic party heading towards its grave. Look at our candidates. A general who has supported some of the worst repugs in my memory. A veteran and long time voice for liberal politics who has been effectively marginalized by a governor of a minor state (whose message can seem to change overnight, with no change in his supporters' rhetoric). Several comgressmen who voted in favor of waging war against a soverign nation "pre-emtively". A black minister who gained notoriety through racially divisive court cases later proved to be bogus. I'm really losing hope here.

I have to agree with you. We all supported Dukakis back then because he was "electable" and "the only one who can beat Bush". His whole general election campaign was based on being "against Bush", but not for much of anything else. Unfortunately I see many of the same parallels in the Dean campaign-- and that's what worries me.

One difference I see though is that Dean is a bit more combative and confrontational-- which can be a good thing. However, his confrontational manner is driven more by anger than logic, which makes he more susceptable to making stupid slips of the tongue in the heat of the moment instead of making rational, intellectual responses. IMHO, this will be his eventual undoing, too. A few slips like this, on the national stage, where ten times as many people will be paying attention than now could really screw him.

I'll vote Dem in 2004 even if my candidate doesn't get the nod. But after that, I'm very doubtful...

a real sea change in politics and very electable.

Deans supporters are just caught up with the campaign, not the candidate. :eyes: I don't care if Christ himself was running, if I didn't believe in what he was trying to do, I wouldn't waste my money and time working for him. Howard Dean IS the campaign. If I believed one of the other candidates was the most worthy of the nomination, I would back that candidate with all of the fervor that I do Dean. IMO, none of the other candidates hits the strings that resonate with me.
This gives the Dean haters, who label Dean supporters "kool-aid drinkers, groupies, Deaniacs" and much worse, more ammunition to back up their claims, even though it's from the Moonie owned Post.
Isn't it possible that Dean supporters think he's the best man for the job? To suggest Dean's campaign is a Jim Jones cult is ignorant and myopic.

not the Post.

Yes, it is completely possible. That's what makes it so scary, because Dean is basically for Dean being elected, and not much more than that.

Dean isn't planning on making any substantive changes. The guy is a straight tweaks-only, status-quo candidate. Find something among his policies that is going to change the direction in which wealth flows. There isn't one.

He's not going to cut the obscene war-industry budget, now approaching the size of all other war budgets in the world combined.

He's not going to take the hands of the wealthy elites out of our pockets on healthcare. Instead he's actually planning to give them $88G MORE per year while still leaving 10M people without healthcare.

He's not going to end the drugs war, which means that while, if he follows through, he's going to switch some money out of the prison industry, he's just going to funnel into the same elite pockets via the healthcare industry.

He says full civil rights for LGB people are a state issue...which is both the status quo and false (equal-treatment clause of the Fourteenth Amendment).

He says he's going to balance the budget. But on whose backs? Obviously not the wealthy elites' backs, so guess whose backs that leaves!

So exactly what does he stand for besides getting elected?

which is why the energy in his campaign is a real puzzle to me...but the energy is there, and is a credit to the campaign.

Dean is in favor of ENDA a federal law. He is in favor of federalanti hate crime laws. He is in favor of forcing states to recognize gay relationships. These are matters of public record. Shame on you for dishonestly pretending they aren't.

"Shame on me?" And how do you know to what I am pretending or not pretending?

You address the GLBT issue, which I will freely admit I am not following. There are people I know for whom that is a primary issue area of interest; I can rely on them to keep me informed on that front.

The primary issues for me are wealth distribution, racism, and civil liberties. In those issue areas, I consider there to be legitimate differences of opinion/interpretation of Dean's record and stances. I disagree with Dean supporters on many issues; I admire the campaign and their energy. If you don't like that, put me on ignore.

I just went to Dean's web site and read through his position on LGB rights. Yes, he's for ENDA to address workplace discrimination. No, nowhere does he say that he's for equality enforced at the federal level, as for example under the Equal Protections clause of the XIV Amendment.

Check your facts.

...education funding has become for Wall St banks.

With Dean, everything is camoflage for the fact that he's not going to interupt the flow of wealth and REAL political power in America.

Goldwater's running-mate was from my house district (how many know his name?) Went to first official rally of Sept. campaign. G was REALLY something: kind of glowed. I was accosted for my support, cars with AUH2O bumperstickers were damaged. (Today this ares is nauseatingly conservative. Timothy McVeigh was from a few miles away, and I HAVE NO TROUBLE WHATSOEVEr UNDERSTANDING HOW HE GOT THE BELIEFS THAT HE ACTED ON) Glad to see the moderation line for a change because it was the tag line to the extremeism is no virtue line which got quoted ad nauseum. Very different time, VERYVERY different ME.
I still respect G though, he modified his conservative (as did George Wallace,BTW) beliefs to some degree. During the Don't ask/don't tell bruhaha he said "Soldiers don't have to be straight, they just have to shoot straight."
The post brings memories, but also chills. G did energize the conservative movement, started the Repug growth in the south. It took a couple of dacades before major changes in voting patterns were definate, and another two to CEMENT them.
But to look at Goldwater as the paradigm for Dean's campaign as a hopeful sign ignores one salient fact: In 1965 we were not a fascist state, governed by ruthless thugs who only believe in democracy when they can control the outcome. We don't have the time to create a movement that has goals down-the-road. It is imperative that we are successful NOW, because the death of the American Dream is imminent.
I'm not saying Dean can't win: I will gladly support him, if he gets the nomination, but to look at his campaign as the kernel for future success is counter-productive: WE DON'T HAVE THE TIME.

The crazing thing about the "movement" Dean is creating is that, like Goldwater, it would move the Democratic Party to the right, not to the left.

The other crazy thing is that it would be only four years after the Democrats WON an election. It's not like you need to move people who were moved already and who lost because they were cheated, not because they didn't have enought people.

Another crazy thing is, Gore lost because he couldn't make the effort to push for a victory. (And people are thinking of Gore as the leader of the kind of more conservative version of the Democratic Party that Dean is pushing for.)

So, by not trying hard to win, he created an atmosphere in which a conservative Democrat pulls the party to the right for no good reason. Crazy.

florida was a nightmare, yeah; gore won the popular vote, yeah... but i think it wouldn't have come down to florida if gore hadn't distanced himself from clinton. The Clint's dnc speech was uh-mazing. if gore had attached himself to that wave instead of dissing clinton it wouldn't have come down to dubya's bro's state :-\

The Democratic Party: Outside In
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/13/opinion/main583484.shtml
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=84412

Then why didn't we get a healthcare program and real integration of gays into the military when Clinton was working with a Democratic congress?

If Dean's to the LEFT of Clinton, why did he go to the Cato Inst and tell them that they should like him because of his antipathy to Dem tax policy and his enthusiasm for privitization and his pro 2nd A gun policies?

A pragmatic centrist. Some policies to the left of traditional Democrats, some to the right...all seen as pragmatic!

Why are so many here so excited about a libertarian?

Why can't the Democrats nominate a democrat? At a time when demographics are shifiting the Democrat's favor, are Democrats responding with an attempt to nominate the MOST CONSERVATIVE Dem in the past 100 years.

Can anyone name a Democrat who was more conservative than a President Dean would be?

Any increases in the size of government or promote additional social programs or propose rolling back tax cuts.

You really exhibit little knowledge of Libertarianism if you believe Dean's policies are Libertarian in nature.

because he's not proposing to pay for it out of a more progressive income tax structure. He's making the middle class pay for it (which is why he's repealing ALL of Bush's tax code). I saw an estimate that it will cost the middle class 2000 bucks more in taxes.

So the libertarians think that, in the unlikely event that it got passed, it would be so expensive that people would end up hating it and turn again to the free market to get health care. They think the middle class would feel the hurt of the health care plan and not like it.

"So the libertarians think that, in the unlikely event that it got passed, it would be so expensive that people would end up hating it and turn again to the free market to get health care."

This is a clear indication Dean is not a Libertarian, since, as you mentioned, he is not promoting the free market for health care.


Ummm...isn't there a significant difference between promoting a plan that Libertarians think will fail...and being a Libertarian?

If Bush promotes a plan Democrats think will fail...does that make him a Democrat? I didn't think so.

I'm sorry your slam that Dean is a Libertarian is proven false by your own statements.

Part of Dean's star appeal has been the genuineness of his campaign rhetoric, even when his ideas are cockeyed. By pledging to repeal the entire Bush tax cut--a move that would raise the average tax burden on middle income families with three kids by about $2,500 a year, Dean is attempting to prove that voters will swallow higher taxes to get more government largesse. In a recent debate, he confidently asserted that when working class voters saw his universal government-run health care plan, they would gladly pay for it. "If we're going to have a system of universal health care in America, we will have to pay more taxes," he said.

Of course, these are the kinds of unavoidable tough fiscal choices that voters should be asked to make, but that most politicians refuse to acknowledge. God save the country if voters actually buy into Dean's health care socialism, but at least he is honest about the sacrifices required. This is not a man who believes in the mythical free lunch.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/073ylkiz.asp

Libertarians like him despite (and partly because of) his health care plan. They're confident that people won't swallow the costs. Perhaps Dean knows it too.

Nonetheless, here's what Dean thinks about his own libertarian inclinations:

"You folks at Cato," he told us, "should really like my views because I'm economically conservative and socially laissez-faire." Then he continued: "Believe me, I'm no big-government liberal. I believe in balanced budgets, markets, and deregulation. Look at my record in Vermont." He was scathing in his indictment of the "hyper-enthusiasm for taxes" among Democrats in Washington.

It was attempted as a slam...and it was false.

Libertarians finding something to like in Dean is not the same as being one of them.

This quote

"God save the country if voters actually buy into Dean's health care socialism" would imply anything but Libertarianism...which is nearly an opposite of Socialism.



On the other hand, my characterization of Dean as a fiscally conservative centrist pragmatic Democrat is not refuted by any of this.

...the cost through a progressive tax.

The rest of the article is far from a slam. It's Dean saying he'd like to apeal to Libertarians, and it's a Libertarian saying he's three-quarters the way there.

Clinton was fiscally conservative, no? Well Dean is to the right of Clinton. Clinton was willing to defecit spend to build more wealth in the future, and Clinton ruled out giving the surplus back as a tax cut. It's Dean's first choice. It was the first thing that Clinton ruled out.

Gore fought for censorship on the Senate floor. Dean has no pro-censorship incidents in his past. Lieberman is still more conservative. Regardless of whether Dean's position on pressuring other nations to adapt better labor and human rights standards as a prerequisite for trade is a "johnny-come-lately" it is still a position Lieberman assaulted, plus Lieberman stood alongside theocrat Bennett and railed against the entertainment industry.

It is the Weekly Standard. Shame on you for not being honest on your sources.

who do you think is going to tell us about what Dean told the Cato Institute, if not one of the Libertarians in the audience who heard his talk and reported it in the Weekly Standard?

Do you think Joe Stiglitz knows what Dean said to the Cato Institute and that he'll writed something about it which will be published in, say, Adbusters?

Who would have more credibility on whether Dean's a closet libertarian than a libertarian writing in a right wing journal?

Right-wing Republican journalism as truthful critique of Democratic candidates.

I won't speak about shame...looks mostly like desperation to me.

And they're using Dean's own quotes.

Tell me what you see in that article which is critique, or untruthful?

Although I do feel like I'm the lone voice on this issue, I'm confindent that I'm right.

Actually, I'm feeling like an expert on Dean. I said from his first speeches that he uses the language and imagery of anger and violence. AFAIK, I was the first to notice this. I think many more people realize this now.

I was the first person AFAIK to note that his talk on race was totally lame. Dean himself made the point perfectly clear months later.

AFAIK, I'm the first person to note that the unifying theme of his politics is libertarianism. I'm just waiting for this one to hit the mainstream. I'm confident I'm right in my assessment. I don't know (or really care) how many other people realize it.

I'm not desperate. I'm just observant.

It's smear by association, to be more accurate.

That Dean is a Libertarian by quoting articles that speak of his socialist health care policy and pointing out Libertarians like his candidacy because they feel that his non-Libertarian policies will fail causing OTHER people to agree more with Libertarians.

Again, you destroy your own argument.

Libertarians like Dean (according to what you quote) because they feel he will destroy public faith in liberal (or even Socialist) policies.

It's the same thing as wanting an ultra-right wing Republican to run as a Republican nominee here in Illinois expecting the public disgust with that nominee will cause more people to sympathize with Democrats.

I won't argue it any more, but it's clear you destroy your own argument...what these articles say is Libertarians like Dean because his liberal policies will bring down public trust in liberalism.

That is an argument that he is obviously NOT a Libertarian.

I've noticed that the better he does, the more shrill and incoherent the attacks become.

see the man behind the Dean curtain, the more likely they'll mischaracterize the facts you state as being "shrill" and "incoherent" rather than try to engage in an honest discussion about Dean's libertarianism, funny ideas about race, anger, bad campaign strategy, etc. etc.

As I said elsewhwer, you don't realieze how NOT desperate I am. I'm just one person, so I know the limits of my ability to influence the outcome of the primary campaign. However, I'm extremely confident that my assement of Dean is at least 99% accurate. No shrillness. No desperation. Just calling them as a I see them.

is going interpret that article the way you do -- ie, desperately looking for any little sentence which contradicts the general theme of the article? Or do you think the average reader is going to understand what this person is trying to say in this article, which is that Dean is very libertarian.

The average reader will at least make it to the third paragraph, right?

"You folks at Cato," he told us, "should really like my views because I'm economically conservative and socially laissez-faire." Then he continued: "Believe me, I'm no big-government liberal. I believe in balanced budgets, markets, and deregulation. Look at my record in Vermont." He was scathing in his indictment of the "hyper-enthusiasm for taxes" among Democrats in Washington.

And if they do get to the 3rd paragraph, they'll like what they've read.

What we're talking about is not how many people will read the story. What we're talking about is whether and honest, unbiased person would read this article and, taking into consideration all the facts, and after propertly discounting the fact of the author's stated biases, then conclude that Dean has, as a unifying political philosophy, libertarianism in a degree UNPRECEDENTED in a democratic nominee for president.

Why are you afraid to admit this? Many libertarians who post here at DU embrace it.

I deny it categorically. Dean is *not* a Libertarian; the mere fact that they may agree with some things he has done no more makes him a Libertarian than the fact that I happen to like corn makes me a cow.

"Indeed, Dean has taken many positions that should make life easy for the Republicans' opposition research team. As governor, he supported and successfully enacted a whole menu of dimwitted liberal causes: a state-funded universal health care system (which as president he would take nationwide), government-subsidized child care (even for the rich), a higher minimum wage, a mega-generous prescription drug benefit for seniors with incomes up to four times the poverty level, one of the nation's most liberal mandatory family-leave laws, and taxpayer-funded campaigns. It's no wonder the "Almanac of American Politics" calls Dean "one of the four or five most liberal governors in America."

Note the word "liberal" here

"The word Vermonters use most often to describe Dean is "frugal." Coming into office amidst the early 1990s recession, he cut formerly sacrosanct welfare spending to keep the state out of debt. The Cato analysis shows that during Dean's first four years in office, Vermont's budget grew much more slowly than other states'. He cut income tax rates across the board (much as President Bush did). Although he raised overall business taxes, he approved millions of dollars' worth of incentives to lure smoke stacks back into the Green Mountain State. It was during these early years that the head of the state's powerful Progressive party called him "a very right-wing Democrat." And during a time when President Bush has been piling up mountains of debt in Washington and 47 governors face record budget deficits of their own, Dean admirably left Vermont with a $10.4 million surplus when he left office this past January--which would certainly be one of his trump cards against Bush. If Dean were ever elected president, I'm convinced he would be monomaniacal about balancing the budget--though certainly not in ways that would please conservatives."

Note - certainly not in ways that would please Conservatives.

"Republicans are said to be salivating over the prospect of a Bush-Dean match-up. They shouldn't get carried away. Howard Dean, warns John McClaughry, has been "underestimated throughout his political career. He has an uncanny knack for finding where the political capital is stored and walking off with it." The trick for Dean is to ensure that the ultra-liberal positions he has taken in the primaries, which contradict his sometimes centrist record, don't cripple his ability to reach out to Middle American voters in a general election--should he make it that far. If he does, and then finds a way to zig-zag back toward the center, Howard Dean could be George W. Bush's worst nightmare."

Note "ultra-liberal" positions and "centrist" record.


Libertarians believe primarily in less government...lower taxes, no regulation, and no social programs

They don't support any of this from Gov. Dean's record and quoted in your article:

"a state-funded universal health care system (which as president he would take nationwide), government-subsidized child care (even for the rich), a higher minimum wage, a mega-generous prescription drug benefit for seniors with incomes up to four times the poverty level, one of the nation's most liberal mandatory family-leave laws, and taxpayer-funded campaigns."


Your analysis is fundamentally flawed.

He opens with the hypothesis that Dean wants to appeal to libertarians. He gives examples of the libertarian policies he embraces. He gives examples of the things which aren't libertarian (and there are only the few you cite). He then says don't worry about the non-libertarian things because Dean is doing it right -- he isn't hiding the costs (ie, he's not arguing for progressive taxation and increasing the tax burden on wealth individuals and corporations).

Then it finishes whith a few smoke signals the author thinks liberals will respond too, and some other loving words for Dean (like, that he's good looking). And then he says that he thinks Dean could give Bush a run for his money because he's fighting for the center -- the same territory Bush occupies (ie, the conservative center, because senior fellows at the Cato Inst think that's what the center is like-- they think it's populated by deregulators who don't like democratic tax policy).

What makes you such an expert?

And why isn't the word Libertarian mentioned in the article?



This analysis is definitely stretching...just as far as someone who wants to find a slam against Dean will.

Care to find something published that actually says "Dean is really a Libertarian."

We're supposed to believe this convoluted second guessing of what the author's real intent is?

The Weekly Standard article is painfully clear. Google "Dean+Libertarian" and you find a few libertarian bloggers who can see what I see.

What's a stretch is you considering that what you're saying is a counter-argument.

Read paragraph 3 of that Weekly Standard article. Accept the fact that many libertarains see in Dean a fellow traveller.

I found something published in which Dean says "you libertarians should really like me" because I do libertarian things. What more do you want?

Do you want to conced that he's an aspiring, but occassionaly failing libertarian?

You don't have to believe me.

But I don't think it's convoluted to quote Dean's actual words.

I have a question for you: as a Dean fan, are you a libertarian who doesn't want Democrats to catch on to the truth, or are you a Democrat afraid that you've been mislead into supporting and giving money to a guy who aspires to a libertarianism with which you don't agree?

oh, and Mondale...take your pick.

I see him more as Jimmy Carter in '76--a small state ex-governor who was not taken seriously and then shocks the establishment.

Well, he is not McGovern but I think Dean will get as many electoral votes as McGovern if Dean gets the nomination. I don't want that to happen but I fear that's going to happen.

That is unless things are really humming for Bush.

Deans support comes from his willingness to take the administration head on. The fact that the campaign is also an empowering one only adds to the apeal.

Heres why I support Dean

Governor Dean, thanks so much for joining us.

Let's get right to the issue at hand, Iraq right now. There seems to have been a dramatic turn as we speak, with U.S. forces going on the attack against a target in Baghdad. What do you make of what's going on?

HOWARD DEAN (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Well, I think the U.S. has to defend itself against the forces of, likely, al Qaeda or Saddam loyalists.

Of course, there were no al Qaeda in Iraq before we invaded. Now there are. So I think the president has, because of his policies, made Iraq into a far more dangerous place to the United States than it ever was when Saddam Hussein was ruling it.

BLITZER: The administration says there was al Qaeda in Iraq before the invasion, in the form of Ansar al-Islam up in the northern part of the country, and that there were some al Qaeda operatives even in Baghdad.

DEAN: Well, there's not -- first of all, there is not great evidence for that that's been discussed in the press.

Secondly of all, Ansar al-Islam was a group that was harassing Iran. And there was some question about whether the United States was, in some way, tacitly supporting them. So I don't think it's quite proper to call them al Qaeda, in the same sense that al Qaeda existed in Afghanistan and killed 3,000 of our people at the World Trade Center.

BLITZER: If you were president of the United States right now, what would you do to resolve this Iraq situation?

DEAN: We need to bring foreign troops into Iraq, preferably from Arabic-speaking and Muslim countries.

George Bush's father, who was a much better diplomat than the president is, had over 100,000 troops in Iraq the first time we went in, which I supported, incidentally. We need to bring troops from Muslim countries into Iraq to help reconstruct Iraq. That should be an international...

BLITZER: But they don't want to go. The U.S. has offered -- invited them. Even the Turks decided, this is not a good idea.

DEAN: Well, the Turks should not have been asked to go in the first place. The idea of Turks patrolling in Iraq, historically, is an incredibly foolish idea. And I'm incredibly disappointed that someone at the State Department didn't figure that out before we asked them to go.

This president will never get the cooperation of the rest of the world. He has alienated practically everybody that's worth alienating in this country. It's a personal matter. He has some part of his personality which leads him to humiliate people who disagree with on policy matter.

BLITZER: So, how would you get Arabic-speaking and Muslim nations to get involved? What would you do?

DEAN: If I become president, before I'm inaugurated, I will go to Europe and I will go to other capitals around the world where the president has gone out of his way to humiliate and ruin our relationships, and to begin to rekindle those relationships.

These relationships can be fixed. We just need a new president to do it, someone without the baggage of this president. We will have, I think, the opportunity to have other troops in Iraq from other countries. Egypt, Morocco, Pakistan, Indonesia, India, which has a substantial Muslim population, as you know, those are the kinds of countries we need help from.

Unfortunately, we will not be able to stop paying the bill. This president has committed us to $87 billion on our credit card every single year for the foreseeable future, until this is straightened out.

BLITZER: General Wesley Clark says, bring NATO in, let NATO take charge, fire Ambassador Paul Bremer as the chief civilian administrator, and, on the political front, let the United Nations take charge. Is General Clark right?

DEAN: Well, I think the United Nations would be the group under which the troops served, barring American troops, because, of course, American troops have never been commanded by anybody that wasn't American.

But I think having the U.N. play a major role in the reconstruction of Iraq is the right thing to do.

BLITZER: What about NATO?

DEAN: NATO is fine. But, remember, most NATO countries are not Muslim countries, other than Turkey. And I think the Turks do not belong in Iraq. I think that was a wise decision on the part of Turkey. And it's one that we shouldn't have asked them to fulfill. BLITZER: You may have seen this new commercial, this ad that Senator Kerry has put out showing the president landing on the aircraft carrier. But the impression he leaves is that he is someone who knows national security. He served in the military. He fought in Vietnam. He could bring the Democratic Party to victory. And it seems to be a slap at you.

DEAN: I think the principal problem with Senator Kerry's ad is, it implies that he didn't support the war in Iraq. And he did.

We wouldn't be in Iraq today if it hadn't been for people like Senator Kerry and Senator Edwards, Senator Lieberman, and Richard Gephardt, because they all supported the president, when they should have been asking the tough questions last October.

BLITZER: So you're blaming them for the predicament the U.S. is in right now?

DEAN: If the Democrats had stood up to the president and said, this is not wise. Let's take our steps very carefully. Let's bring in other countries.

But they didn't do that. They gave the president a blank check. And Senator Kerry was one of those who gave the president a blank check to go into Iraq. So I find it hard to believe that their foreign policy expertise is so extensive that they would be able to get us out of it.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BLITZER: More on my interview with Howard Dean in just a moment. He's still rethinking his controversial words about the Confederate flag. We'll have that.

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLITZER: Governor Howard Dean has said a couple of times that he's taking buckshot in his rear end from all of the attacks coming from his Democratic opponents. That, of course, hasn't stop the pro- hunting candidate from taking a couple shots himself.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BLITZER: Governor, a lot of pundits say you're the front-runner right now for the Democratic presidential nomination. And there's a debate over who is your main opponent right now. Who do you fear most capturing the Democratic nomination?

DEAN: I'm not worried about that.

If I'm the front-runner, I can tell, because I'm picking the buckshot out of my rear end every single day. I'm running this race to beat George Bush. And I'm sure we're going to have plenty of fireworks among the Democrats on the way to doing that. But the goal is to beat George Bush. He is the most dangerous president in this country's -- in terms of this country's security, we've had in my lifetime. He has hurt the economy more than any other president in my lifetime, with these enormous deficits. We cannot afford four more years of George Bush in this country.

BLITZER: But, before you get to that point, you have to beat the Democratic candidates, the other eight Democratic candidates. Who's your biggest challenger?

DEAN: I don't know. That's up to the voters to find out.

Even the fact that I'm the front-runner, supposedly, not a single vote has been cast here. And the last time I looked, the voters still have the say over who we're going to nominate. So...

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: I was going to say, in Iowa, Gephardt seems to be doing very well. He won in '88. But you have managed to get these union endorsements, these two major unions. How significant is that?

DEAN: I think what people need and people want in the Democratic Party is new leadership.

The people I'm running against, for the most part, have been there for a long, long time. We've seen the Democratic Party decline under Dick Gephardt's leadership and John Kerry and Joe Lieberman and so forth. We need new leadership from outside Washington in order to beat George Bush.

BLITZER: General Clark is new leadership.

DEAN: He is. That's true. And we don't know a lot about him. And I guess we'll learn more as time goes on.

BLITZER: You told me a few months ago that you would seriously consider him as your running mate.

DEAN: I think that's true. He would be, certainly, on anybody's short list. He certainly has the ability to do that.

I think he needs to clear up questions about where he stood on the war. He claims vigorously now that he opposed the war. But the fact is that he had said last -- the previous October, advising a congressional candidate, advised her to support it, wrote favorably about -- that we needed to go in. He needs to square those statements with the American people.

But he's certainly capable and he has an excellent resume. And we'll see how he does in the primaries.

BLITZER: Is he still on your short list as a potential running mate?

DEAN: Well, to say that I have a short list would be a little presumptuous. BLITZER: But is he still someone you would consider?

DEAN: Absolutely. Absolutely. Many of the people who are running today are excellent people. And, as I have said before, if I don't win this nomination, I will very vigorously support the person who does win the nomination.

BLITZER: Besides General Clark, any other of the Democratic candidates on your potential list for running mate?

DEAN: Yes, but we're not going to go through a list, because I don't have a right to make a list like that yet. I have not one single vote yet in the primary. None of us have. And the voters get to choose who is going to be the nominee, not me.

BLITZER: It would be a little arrogant, is that what you're saying?

DEAN: Yes, it would.

(LAUGHTER)

BLITZER: Well, let's talk about the campaign financing that you're going through.

A lot of people are suggesting, including Congressman Gephardt -- I interviewed him over the weekend -- that this is a big mistake, for you to abandon this campaign finance reform and just go out and raise as much money as you can.

DEAN: Well, we're raising the money in small donations. We raised three times as much as every other Democrat in the race last time. But we did it by getting 200,000 people to give us an average of $77 apiece.

BLITZER: But what's the message it sends to McCain-Feingold that you're going to basically abandon the procedures that all the other Democrats have accepted in recent years?

DEAN: The message it sends, that, if the president of the United States raises $200 million from every corporate magnate in America, you can't beat him if you're limited to spending $45 million. We're trying to get two million people to give us $100 each to send George Bush back to Crawford, Texas. And I think we're going to do that.

BLITZER: Arguably, your biggest campaign supporter, fund-raising supporter, right now is George Soros, who is devoting $15.5 million of his own money to beat George Bush, to get him out of the White House. In effect, he becomes your biggest supporter.

DEAN: Well, not really.

I have nothing to do -- he wrote us a $2,000 check, but he can't give us $15 million. He's going to do what he wants to do, just as there are many people on the president's side who will do what they want to do. BLITZER: But do you feel comfortable with him doing this, because it seems to be skirting the ban on so-called soft money, which was supposed to be eliminated from the political process?

DEAN: If I could do anything I wanted and have campaign finance reform, here's what I would do. I would have small donations allowed, $100 or less. I would have public financing of everybody's campaign. And I would limit people's spending, so nobody could go outside the public financing system.

And I would have instant run-off voting, so, when you had more candidates than just two, the person with the most votes would win. Now, that's what I would like to do. I believe in campaign finance reform. But I don't believe in campaign finance reform that gives a significant advantage to the Republican Party. And that's what we have now.

BLITZER: Is the issue of the Confederate flag, is that behind you now? Any final thoughts on that?

DEAN: Well, it is and it isn't.

Having to do it all over again, I wouldn't use the Confederate flag, because it is such a divisive symbol. But the key underlying issues are not dead. They are an essential part of my campaign. We need to bring Southern whites into the Democratic Party or we're not going to win elections in the South anymore. And we're not going to abandon the South. And I'm certainly not going to abandon the South.

Secondly, we need to have a discussion about race in this country. In "The Wall Street Journal" three or four weeks ago, there was a study that showed, if you're white with a criminal conviction, you have a better chance of getting a job interview than if you're African-American with a clean record. As long as that kind of thing goes on in America, we need to openly have a dialogue about race.

BLITZER: Governor Dean, thanks for joining us.

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

although my own impression is that the campaign draws people far more than his policies, which to my eye look slightly to the right of Clinton and don't challenge the status quo much, if at all. However, I admire the campaign; I think that people are understandably desperate for hope and energy; if the campaign somehow generates that, of course people will be drawn to it. It is a flaw of the other candidates that they havn't managed to create the same kind of energy.

Compare him to Goldwater, Dukakis, whoever, but Dean's energy and enthusiasm, and the energy and enthusiasm of his supporters, is the only reason I think we have a shot at this election.

Dean has good policy positions, and so do Kerry, Edwards, Kucinich, and all of them. On policy alone, they should all be able to beat Bush. But policy alone isn't enough to beat this faux president. We need someone who can fire up the masses and bring the disenchanted back to the polls.

I'm not saying that Dean is our only hope, but I just don't think that we can get it done without that extra spark. If Dean loses, it will be in spite of his energy, not because of it.

of his intemperate tongue!

If Dean is the nominee, Karl Rove will run a tape of his appearance at the Tallahassee Leon County Civic Center where he decried that "Southerners must stop basing their vote on race, guns, God and gays."

Congressmen running from the South will be distancing themselves from Dean. The statement above is Dean's death knell in the South. No one will hear Dean's explanation of what he really meant, only the incredibly inartful and insulting way he said it.

It's really annoying all this Dean is (fill in historical candidate here.).

Does Howard Dean get to be Howard Dean only after he's elected President?

Sheesh...

and Truman upset the Republicans in 1948 after being forecasted to lose to Dewey. Dean will pull off 2 upsets -- the Dem nomination and the General Election.

Dean has Truman's spunk, an aggressive work schedule, enthusiasm for America's democratic ideals, and the abilities to turn a small investment into a large fortune ($157,000 startup campaign fund turned into a $25 million war chest) and to turn negative situations into positive ones (taking Vermont's $70 million deficit and working to turn it into a surplus). During his last re-election bid, Dean was able to overcome low popular opinion polls due to the Civil Union fallout and defeat a very well funded Rightwing opponent, who got funds from out-of-state Repukes, by FIGHTING back and forcing his Rightwing opponent to make costly mistakes and gaffes at the wrong time during the campaign.

Dean is no Goldwater. He's Harry Truman reincarnate and he's going to give the Repukes and the Vichy Dems hell by exposing to voters the unsavory truth about the Repukes policies and programs.

Regressive taxation, privitization, and doing what Wall St likes was not Truman's bag.

And don't deceive yourself that HST wasn't concerned with keeping the markets happy.

FDR and HST were deeply concerned with big business getting bigger than the government, and they were concerned with progressive taxation and making sure that the middle class got wealthy in decent proportion to the increasing wealth of the wealthy.

Show me quotations, please.

http://search.netscape.com/ns/search?query=fdr+government+corporations+fascism&fromPage=nsBrowserRoll

There are plenty.

This is exactly what FDR was fighting. What Bush is trying to do today is undo everything FDR did. We're slipping back to 1931. These privitization/fascism battles were fought once before and Democrats won.

Just like Republicans undid Democratic elections in FL and CA, they're trying to undo the New Deal. They're trying for a second bite at the apple.

Sadly, Dean is not the man to take up the flag and fight the battle FDR fought, and Truman defended, because Dean doesn't like the sorts of tax policies FDR and Truman used, he likes deregulation, he likes to guarantee Wall St profits, etc. etc.

Clinton, LBJ, JFK and Truman were all on exactly the same wavelength as FDR (don't know about Carter though). Dean is on some other wavelength, closer to libertarianism.

"Vichy Dems" Beautiful!

Dean said lets nuke um. ( sarcasm) Goldwater wanted to nuke um. For gods sale give it a break.

This is a quote from Dionne in his article followed by bio. info - Dionne would be as qualified as any prognosticator to be accurate - and he says right now the betting is on Dean to prove he can inspire a movement and still win the election:

"Dean's challenge is to prove he can inspire a movement and still win the election. His opponents are desperate to show that the price of the energy Dean unleashes is four more years of George W. Bush. Right now the betting is on Dean. Like Goldwater, Dean has the energy on his side."


Here is some more info on Dionne:

"Dionne began his op-ed column for the Post in 1993, and it was syndicated, twice weekly, in 1996. He has been a frequent commentator on politics for National Public Radio, CNN and NBC's "Meet the Press." His second book, "They Only Look Dead: Why Progressives Will Dominate The Next Political Era" (Simon & Schuster), was published in February 1996. The New York Times Book Review called it "a luminously intelligent and quietly passionate polemic that deserves to alter the terms of American political debate." The Sunday Independent of London in December 1996 listed Dionne as one of the 40 most influential thinkers of our time.

In 1996, in selecting Dionne as recipient of its annual Carey McWilliams Award to honor a major journalistic contribution to the understanding of politics, the American Political Science Association said: "We honor Mr. Dionne as one of Washington's finest journalistic thinkers and for his insightful daily contributions to the political discourse of our nation. ... His tireless efforts uplift the public ... in a time that cries for reasoned debate, not more negative ads, rumor or simplistic sound bites." In 1997, he was named among the 25 most influential Washington journalists by the National Journal and among the capital city's top 50 journalists by Washingtonian magazine."

an insurgent campaign