My problem with Howard Dean

Howard Dean is smart and has much going for him. However, I have one problem with him. I feel that when one runs for office,(especially president of the united states) a candidate should not break down their arguments into one or two easily repeated sentences. Let me give one example. Howard Dean said the U.S. in not safer with the capture of Saddam Hussein. I agree with that, but the problem is he should have given a more thoughtful argument for that belief. He should have said -- The President of the United States has to choose with caution the wars America will face and the resources we are expending in Iraq could be better put to use against more immediate threats facing us etc etc.

In other words, the secret to being an effective candidate, is making statements that are not easily repeated and thus open to redicule. I don't know if Howard Dean is capable of this.

This is just my opinion, I know others will disagree.

All the candidates have this problem. If you want the average American voter to get your message, you can't give a detailed explanation and expect them to hear it. You have to come up with 5-seconds' worth that will hopefully be shown on the news. It's a problem with no ready solution.

Don't just go by the media sound bite aired at 6:00. In the last two speeches I watched, he gave the nuanced view you requested. He spoke of the evidence to support the claim, and how that war distracted us from the appropriate goal of destroying al-Queda.

I haven't really seen it demonstrated yet, but I wonder how deep Dean can go with some of his answers and not get tongue-tied. He's smart, but I think he gets caught off guard and sometimes lets his mouth get ahead of his brain. Then folks are actually worrying about the "gaffe" in the answer rather than seeing the substance.

I rarely see howard dean speak on TV. And the same problem for all candidates.

I have seen Dean one on a show and he was a fast verbose talker who made some good points.

I feel I know where Dennis stands on the issues, but most of the other candidates.... I just don't know where they are coming from, for sure. Like with Dennis, there is a root concept or set of values or direction that carrys forth into everything. It is predictable.

Dean seem to me like a politician - he'll take the side of the issue that he can use most effectively.

How can you strongly counter Bush, an anti-populist, without being a populist?

I am a uniter. Tea is in the harbour. They get that.
"I would have probably voted for a resolution provided it was narrower in language and didn't get W a blank check might be thoughttful, but get you booed both on FR and on DU, and especially in the press. What are you anyway? some intellectual elite or sumpthin'? Please don't intrerrupt our study of Drudge. Sheesh!:eyes:

Bill Clinton said once that if it doesn't fit on a bumper sticker it ain't gonna fly, and I think he was absolutely right when he said that. In general it seems like people like things dumbed way, way, waaaay down for them or they're just not interested. This is why people can vote for a Viennese bodybuilder who promises to "clean house" and "pump up Sacramento" while someone who actually knows what the fuck they're talking about gets dismissed as wishy-washy egghead.

DISCLAIMER: That is not to say that I think that's a good situation, it's just what I've observed.

effectively. *Talking points*

It's one of the things that appeals to me about Dean.

He should be able to expound with subtlety, but being simple and direct is the way to win the public relations game.

Clark learned, with some bitter effort, to not be so subtle in public, and be more sound-byte-ish. He's gotten pretty good at it.

This is necessary, and Dean does this very well. Like it or not, we sound like wimps unless we call out the chimp in simple language.

...Doesn't it make sense that Dean (or any candidate, for that matter) should be able to make his point in that amount of time. The particular soundbite in question (Saddam's capture) was selected by the corporate media so they could spin it as Dean opposing the so called "war on terror". While in reality, what Dean was actually saying (and Clark has said this as well) is that the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with the "war on terror", as Saddam Hussein presented no threat to America, had no connection with 9-11, and furthermore, as evidenced by both attacks on the troops in Iraq and orange terra alerts at home, we clearly are NOT any safer with Saddam in custody.

Now of course, anybody watching to the entire speech (most of them end up on C-SPAN), or reading the Dean For America website would know the details of Dean's position. Unfortunately, you aren't gonna get it from 20 seconds on FAUX, CNN, or MSRNC.

Candidates have to keep that kinda of talk to the discussions and debates. These quick statements are required to grab the middle. If you listen to him talk in detail you can tell he an intelligent man. His stances are what i consider balanced although i don't like all of his opinions. I'm a dean supporter only because i think he unafraid to say what he thinks. For any candidate to win against Bush, i think they have to be willing to stand up hard against the war and call Bush a lier.