Anybody up for a RATIONAL debate about Dean??

WARNING! THIS IS A LONG POST]


This post is directed to people interested in a rational, fairly non-emotional discussion about the pluses and minuses of Howard Dean being the new DNC chair. I don’t want this to degenerate into expletive-filled name-calling, as a few others DNC Chair posts have. I‘m pretty torn on this issue and would like to have a real “discussion”.

At this point, I’m leaning AGAINST Dean for the position – this will no doubt influence what I write so please feel free to point out my biases and inconsistencies and any factual errors. Also, I think I need to tell you “where I’m coming from” so you have a head-start on detecting my biases -- I’m middle-class, 45, a moderate Democrat, married, mother of two, worked in local government for 20+ years.

Okay, that said, here’s what I love about Howard Dean:

1) He's passionate. He’s connects with people and whips up excitement and strong, positive, hopeful feelings. His fire and intensity reaches people and gets them actively involved in the Party.

2) He’s a champion of “grassroots”, bottoms-up politics. Lordy, we sure need some of that in the Democratic Party!

3) He has a forceful “populist” economic message, one I think the Party needs to adopt. Again, this is my personal opinion, but some of the centrists have gotten too closely tied to Wall Street and the high-tech industry. For example, they haven’t tried to crack down on excessive stock-option awards, excessive dividend gains exclusions, the hedge fund cowboys, etc. And they’ve gone completely off the deep-end on Iraq, buying into the “promoting democracy in the Muslim world by waging war” craziness and forgetting all about practical, hard-nosed geopolitical realities. (By the way, I’m not one who “demonizes” the DLC -- I actually tend to agree with many DLC viewpoints. I see this as more of a problem with politics and politicians -- I've got a very cynical outlook on politics after working in local government for so long....)

Now here’s why I would LOVE for Dr. Dean to continue to be a major force in the Democratic Party but I'm leaning against “supporting him” for DNC Chair (HA!! Like the DNC bigshots care what I think anyway):

1) I think he’s politically tone-deaf at times, tending to say “out there” things in the heat of battle. For example, I think one of the reasons he lost Iowa was that he said, just a few days before the primary, that he wouldn't "pronounce Osama Bin Laden guilty before a trial". Was this statement noble, in accord with Constitutional principles, etc., etc.? YES!! Was it stupid to say it out loud where all the reporters could hear you (especially when the country was caught-up in delusional war-fever induced by Bush's flag-waving?) YES. Oh Lord, YES!! Karl would've creamed him with that remark, arguing that Dean would be "soft" on OBL and terrorism. And Karl still will, which is what I'm worried about.

2) I don’t see Dean as the political wunderkind some people do. Yes, he and Joe Trippi revolutionized politics with their use of the Internet but the two men weren't on speaking terms by Iowa and the campaign imploded due to, among other things, lack of an effective field organization on the ground in Iowa (too many outsiders involved, not enough Iowans). What is so great about having the guy who came in third in Iowa run the Party's political apparatus? I'm just not getting it.

3) Related to point #2 above, I’ve seen a lot of posts about the DLC “ganging-up” on Dean to destroy his chances during the Primaries. I don’t think the record supports that charge. First of all, the Democratic Primary process is a highly competitive event as we currently run it – I don’t see how Dean could complain about other candidates taking shots at him when he was taking shots at them (CNN.com has a daily press report file that goes all the way back to the primary season – it looks to me in reviewing the history that Dr, Dean started much of the attacking.) Also, my personal opinion is that Dr. Dean played a bit “unfair” during the Primaries, attacking other Democratic candidates in harsh, unfair ways (for example, he unfairly, in my opinion, attacked candidates who’d voted in favor of the initial Iraq resolution, even those like Senator Kerry, who’d done so while explicitly stating that invasion was a last resort after all other means had been exhausted to force Saddam to comply with UN resolutions). Since I think our circus-like Primary process is something that hurts us and needs to be fixed, I don’t like the idea of putting someone in charge of fixing it who I think exploited its weaknesses. (Yep, I know, them’s fighting words, but that what I think.)

4) Idealistic young people in orange hats jumping up and down make an old fogie like me nervous. I was once a wide-eyed, idealistic young person myself, but then I got old. I know a few things now that I didn't know back when I could still wear short skirts. The Party can’t pin its hopes on young people: They aren’t a large enough voting block and half of them turn Republican by the time they’re 30! We have to appeal to the 45% of American voters who identify themselves as moderate, as well as the 21% who identify themselves as “liberal”. We can win if we do that – only 34% of voters identify themselves as “conservative”!. I don’t think it helps us to have as our “public face” the person most closely associated with the ‘youngsters”. (Oh God, I can’t believe I just said that. Soon I’ll be buying Depends.)

Okay, so that is MY PERSONAL PERSPECTIVE on the “Dean as DNC Chair” issue. Although I agree with many of Dr. Dean’s positions, I think it’s impossible to separate the person and the issues, and I’m thinking that Dr. Dean might do more harm than good as DNC Chair. I’m not dead-set against him since I REALLY DO want to turn up the heat on Washington insiders, but I’m worried about his particular history and his personality style – it doesn’t seem suited for what the job really entails.

If Dean doesn’t get the nod, however, his supporters will see it as a conspiratorial-type decision by Party bigshots and that will be bad for the Party. I think some bigshot Democrats have reasons for not wanting him as DNC Chair that don’t have to do with squashing his populist message: This doesn’t seem to me to be one of those stark “black and white” issues –I think it’s one of those annoying gray ones that makes politics so difficult. Still, I don't want people defecting from the Party or, worse yet, the populist agenda falling by the wayside because "Deaniacs" leave the Party.

I’d really like to have a good “debate” so please tell me your thoughts on the subject.

The DLC sent out release after release sputtering about Dean, the antiwar protestors and activists. This wasn't an attack from a fellow candidate but an organization weilding power within the party.
What is so wrong with Dean attacking Kerry's position? Thankfully, someone was willing to address the crime--and that is what it was, is. Kerry was wrong then and he is wrong now. If kerry couldn't see through the fraud, and I could, what does that say about Kerry's ability to lead? What does it say if, alternatively, Kerry sought to uphold the lie, even if he knew it was a fraud?

I am an older fogey than you and I do think the campaign made mistakes in not addressing a broader spectrum of voters. Yes.

Also, defining oneself is arbitrary considering the bias put on words and meanings--Moderate, Radical, etc, but when measured by the issues--health care, education, labor, economic justice, you can be assured that the vast majority don't identify with Republicans who represent corporate interests and the slim margin of the wealthiest Americans. That needs to be stressed--loudly. Is it class warfare? Damn straight, but the war is being waged against us.

Thank you so much for your reply! You raised great points and didn't yell at me -- I really aprreciate it! You're right DLC and Dean got into it during primary -- there was a post on that here on DU the other day. Sounded very vitriolic. DLC has degenerated to the point of being counter-productive, unfortunately. I agreed with much that they said when they started out, but no more.

On you're second point, I thought it was unfair to attack sitting Senators because they were in such a tough spot re: Iraq vote. Bush had shot his mouth off, publicly drawing a line in the sand for Saddamm. To vote against the resolution undercut Bush's "tough" stance (even though it was a stupid tough stance). I think Dem Senators were hoping Saddam would back down given that Bush had just squashed the Taliban in Afghanistan. Even though what Bush did was stupid, all the Democratic Senators voting the resolution would've further emboldened Saddam I think. It was a crazy, messed-up time and situation and that's why I think Dean should've moderated his rhetoric.

And as for class warfare: Bring on the battle! We're getting ripped off! Dems who voted for Bush's tax cut should be ashamed of themselves. This cowardly "no class warfare" stuff my the DLC drives me nuts!

We already had inspectors in Iraq. Remember. We made them leave.

Kerry urged action to hold Saddam's feet to the fire back in 1998, when Saddamm threw out UNSCOM inspectors. In the years after Saddam threw them out, worldwide attention was focused more on the effect of UN sanctions on the Iraqi people than on how to get Saddam to comply with the sanctions themselves. After 9/11, all of a sudden the compliance issue was back on the front burner. Yes, Saddam allowed inspectors back in under pressure but he was twiddling around, not being as forthcoming as he could.

Granted, the Bush neocon morons made a complete mess of everything from start to finish in how they "handled" Iraq. I don't, however, "blame" the Dem senators who voted for the IWR. Knowing what we know now, clearly the Bushies couldn't be trusted to wisely use the power the IWR gave them: They rushed to war, as they apparently wanted to do along. Back then, however, I can see why Dems wanted to take a "tough" stance vis-a-vis Saddam. Kerry and others had been deeply concerned since 1998 about what Saddam was doing and this was a way to hold his feet to the fire.

What I take issue with is black-and-white anti-war rhetoric that doesn't take into account Saddam's past flouting of UN resolutions. It's completely legitimate to criticize the "pro-IWR" side, but do so while acknowledging that Saddam did things that rightly brought about suspicion about what he was up to -- at least acknowledge that isssues like Iraq are complicated and messy.

Granted, Kerry was completely inarticulate in explaining his Iraq position during the campaign. I found this Slate article which tries to piece it together from his public statements (it's sad reading it because his inability to be halfway articulate is why, in my opinion, he lost to that menace Bush)

http://slate.msn.com/id/2105096/

What I "take issue with" is that ANYONE believed the crap that the administration was spewing. The UN, and ANYONE who was watching knew that our "intel" was crap.
Saddam kicked out the previous batch of inspectors because some of them were spies that were passing on info as to Saddam's whereabouts, and several attempts on his life were made from that info.
Pure crap.

of video and transcripts.

This is the recent DU post I mentioned in my previous reply:

It was titled something like: "Beginnings of the Battle in Early 2003 - the DLC and Dean":
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1484646&mesg_id=1484646

The OP and several people who responded provided numerous links to both DLC and Dean statements. It sounded like there was a on-going war of words between From and Reed of the DLC and the Dean camp, it appears to me it was a war of words (which it looks like Dean won pretty handily). Clearly, the DLC did everything they could using their bullypulpit (Blueprint magazine) to "stop" Dean from winning the nomination. It doesn't sound like they were terribly effective, however. I got the impression from reading some of these old statements that DLC's main concern was whether Dean could win in the general election. How much power the DLC wields is the operative question. I don't think it's as much as some make it sound. Please correct me if you think I'm wrong, however!

a bunch of people engaging in dirty tricks against Dean.

Before I go into all that, I really have to say that from reading your OP and several responses so far, I am really not comfortable even dialoging with you about any of this. While you are asking questions, you still seem to have a bunch of very wrong-headed ideas, and also seem quite attached to them. So what's the point of any of us trying to persuade you otherwise? I hope it's not a waste of my time; I fear it is.

There was a Stop Dean Movement fanned by the DLC and implemented by a number of DLC-ers. Bill and Hillary Clinton were one of the first wave -- promoting Wes Clark's candidacy before he even declared. I objected to that then, I object to it and all that came after it now. If they don't want The People choosing our candidate, they they need to just cut us out of the loop instead of sneak around PRETENDING we actually have a voice.

What came after, esp. when Clark's candidacy floppped and frittered, were things like the Dean/Osama Bin Laden ad which was paid for by Kerry friends, Gephardt contacts in the Unions, etc. It was so embarrassing that at least 2 of the unions who contributed regretted their involvement publicly, after the fact.

But that wasn't all by a long shot. At the same time the Osama ad was running, Kerry started calling himself "the electeable" candidate, and Dean, of course, was UNelectable (a lie on the face of it, but a lie that seemed to work). Mrs. Vilsack came out and endorsed Kerry and the Vilsack machine was put into gear, along with the Gephardt machine, of course. Longtime Gephardt "friend," consultant and dirty trickster Joyce Abouzzi revealed that Gephardt had been promised "a prominent role in the administration, possibly VP slot" and you can bet Vilsack was promised a place on the short list for his participation as well.

So all the little newspapers in Iowa are writing editorials (thank you, Gov. Vilsack) questioning Dean's "electability" and touting Kerry's, the Osama ad is running, and the backroom deals begin. Gep will throw his caucus support to Kerry (that VP slot, remember), while Kucinich will throw his to Edwards. (This is a "deal" I'll never understand, but I can't help but think that Kucinich's visceral hatred/jealousy of Dean combined with coming under the spell of that experienced trial lawyer did the trick. Who knows?)

The VIlscak machine was put in place to run the caucuses -- and admittedly the Dean people were VERY poorly trained, inexperienced, and just not up to the job. They got steamrolled, big time. Some of the stories of what went on in those caucuses curled my hair. Meanwhile, Dean's A list had been stolen by the Kerry people (or Gephardt, or both), Dean's supporters were getting ultra-annoying robocalls in the middle of the night, they were being told the wrong locations for caucus locations, and there were a bunch of other dirty tricks I'm not even remembering off-hand.

You seem the cynical type, having worked 20 years in govt and all -- maybe all this is a-okay to you. It's not to me. I don't care who wins what, as long as it's been a fair fight and fair election. Or put a bettter way, let me borrow Jesse Jackson's line: "We can live with winning and losing. We cannot live with fraud and stealing." I'd have liked to have known how well Dean could have done on his own -- and we'll never know that, will we?

So, given the facts as I see them, your dismissal of him for having "lost" Iowa kinda grates.

--and you still think that the marginalization of Kucinich by Dean (who claimed to be the only antiwar candidate in a field where there was a candidate who had not voted against the war, but also organized and boosted congressional opposition to it) was acceptable? The difference between what the media did to Kucinich and what they did to Dean and Kerry was that they started in on Dean and Kerry much later in the game.

The reason for the deal with Edwards was very simple--both were lagging in the polls at the time, and it makes far more sense to do delegate swapping with other candidates who might have trouble making threshhold than to make deals with the candidates who are in the lead.

Yes, you're exactly right: I'm the cynical type and that colors my opinions. And you're not! That's exactly why you and I look at the same set of facts and come up with a different set of conclusions. Also, I do have my biases, and so do you, so that colors our interpretations. That was my point in asking everybody to comment on what I wrote. I am indeed "persuadable" but I need some facts (and so do others coming to the DU if they're here trying to figure things out). Sometimes I read down 50 or so comments on a DU post and come away with a fantastic understanding of an issue. Other times everybody's so busy having a shouting match I learn zip. The latter was the case yesterday when I read a post about Dean and the issue of the DNC chairmanship -- that's why I posted this today. The great thing is, I got terrific responses: Like you, some people were really irritated by my opinions but, like you, most responded back with thoughtful, fact-filled counter-arguments. If you read down this post now, you actually get a good overview of both sides of the debate.

Okay, as to the issues you raised: First, some of what you see as "dirty tricks" I see as a routine political campaigning. The primary process is a competitive race as the system is designed now and I see nothing wrong with candidates raising the issue of "electability" (stealing someobody's phone list is completely unethical, needless to say). Similarly, I saw nothing wrong with the commercials people ran against Dean (I replied to another poster about this in more detail so I won't repeat the whole thing here (it's post #46, about ten up from the bottom). to look at it from the other side, Kerry and the rest were probably "upset" that Dean claimed to be from the "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party", implying they weren't true Democrats.

Now about Vilsack stacking the deck, that's a new one on me. That's the kind of information I was looking for. (If anybody reads this and knows more about Vilsack's role in the primary, please shoot in a post.)

I see your point about wanting to know how Dean would've done "on his own". That's simply not how politics works, however (yes, cynical, but true). It's a rough, bruising fistfight and the "strongest" guy wins. To date, I've seen nothing that convinces me that Dean lost ONLY because all the other Democrats ganged up on him. I think he and his campaign made mistakes and that influences my opinion about whether he's the right person for the DNC Chairmanship. (Not as much as it did earlier today, however, because several people wrote very convincing replies saying Dean learned a ton from the experience and would be able to bring that to the table).

I previously worked on Dean's campaign. I was one of those who thought electability was everything and I thought he was electable. After working on his campaign, seeing the tactics that were being used in my county (which may or may not be typical) and after finding that I could not support his positions of the environment, the death penalty and free trade, I switched to a candidate I believed in because I wanted to like myself when the campaign ended. I am an anti-DLC liberal so they, in no way, influenced my opinion of Dean. Most of the people I liked on the Dean campaign also left and went to other more candidates for similar reasons. The ones I didn't care so much for tended to stay.

I found Dean's ad campaign offensive. He attacked all the major candidates and the Kucinich campaign had discussions about the lies Dean presented in his ads. This may have been Trippi's fault. But Dean hired him. In my county, a 12 year old girl was the victim of a batter committed by one of Dean's over-zealous supporters. A police report was filed. The tactics the Dean campaign used against the Kucinich people only got worse. At peace rallies and anti-Bush rallies, the two candidates most people said they could NOT support against Bush were Dean and Lieberman. Lieberman was seen as just conservative in his approach. Dean was seen as mean and conservative. For myself, I disagreed with a lot of what Lieberman stood for but he was nice and I respected him for having a different opinion and expressing it.

In short, some people may worry about the DLC people leaving if Dean gets the nomination. I worry about losing the pro-environment, anti-death penalty crowd, anti-NAFTA crowd if Dean becomes Chairman. ANSWER has put together the biggest rallies we've seen. The people involved in ANSWER can't stand Dean. We need their support in the next election.

In short, though I was considering supporting Dean, the people here have convinced me that Dean might bring back all the divisiveness and hate we saw in his campaign. I'm expecting to get flamed for daring to speak about my concerns here in response to your post. I am still undecided but it occurs to me that our best bet might be to chose someone whose primary quality is that he/she is nice to everyone (except the Republicans) yet is open-minded enough to allow us to push our liberal agenda through the DNC.

I don't dispute that he's said some stupid things at times. That said, I don't see him being unable to temper his remarks. Further, I don't see ANY tempering of remarks from ANYONE in the RNC, so I'm not sure it would be such a bad thing to have a maverick as our leader.

Don't get too hung up on "3rd in Iowa". He is a former governor, so it's not like he's never won an election before. And none of the other candidates for RNC are master campaigners either. After all, if they were, they'd be candidates for office, not DNC chair.

DNC Chair is more about being the top Democrat, fundraiser, and pace-setter for our party. He has to be able to reach out to our base more than anyone else. Candidates are the ones who have to reach out to the middle, because more often than not, TRUE moderates vote for candidates, not for party affiliation (so let's also face facts here, more people identify themselves as being moderate than there are in reality. It's one thing to ask a simple question of political spectrum, it's another to ask on every single issue and then judge where the person stands.) Further, if we're building a party base, which is what the DNC Chair is doing, getting and KEEPING young people is the primary task at hand.

Again, most of your reasons for not supporting Dean for DNC Chair sound more like reasons why you wouldn't support him as running for public office. DNC Chair is a much different animal, however, and all of your reasons are actually positives for this position. In fact, everything you said is exactly why I didn't like the idea of nominating Dean as our Presidential candidate. However, I don't think there's a better choice out there for DNC Chair.

Yep, you're right, he has moderated his remarks lately. That's a big plus in his favor. Some earlier ones were doosies but if he's gotten more used to national attention and is better able to avoid "stepping into it" then maybe it's not as big a problem as I was thinking. I've got to think some more about your point about positives for DNC Chair vs. candidate. I love his maverick persona but am still worried about his ability to work with all the various politicians in the Party.

Thanks for your reply and insightful comments. I wanted to raise these issues and hoped I'd get these kind of great replies.

(See, this is the kind of remark that is SO grating, so unnecessary, so wrongheaded that it makes me feel like anyone taking the time to respond is just wasting their time -- you seem receptive, but then you come around with another set of lies and mischaracterizations about Dean. :puke: )

After what was done TO him by Kerry, Gephardt and friends, he still fulfilled his pledge to campaign his heart out for the eventual nominee. I wouldn't have taken time to SPIT on Kerry after what he and his people did to Dean, but Dean cared far more for the good of the country than to let any small thing like intraparty betrayal and internecine dirty tricks stop him. He's a far better person than I'll EVER be.

Further, you should read up a little on how he ran Vermont. He was constantly juggling many different types of people and their agendas and still getting things done. It's called compromise -- something else I wouldn't be any good at but which is essential in politics -- and a few of the stories I read had me in absolute awe of the man.

Let me tell you something else about him. I like this story too. He told it as part of something else he was saying when he was in Atlanta a week ago and I got to see him. When he signed that Civil Unions bill he knew people were hoppin' mad at him. Do you know what he did? This is amazing to me. He drove INTO the storm. He purposely went to the various parts of the state where he knew people were seething, and he met with them -- and just let them beat up on him (figuratively speaking, tho wearing a bullet-proof vest while doing so), yell and get it out of their systems. THEN, he said, once they were finished doing that, they were ready to start talking bout what their REAL concerns for their lives were -- education, healthcare, etc.

You don't think this many understands human beings? You don't think he's capable of working with all the big egos and difficult people in politics? It's such a shame you don't know this guy -- but instead have gotten your ideas and impressions of him from the MSM or GAWD knows where.

image of the very thoughts in my head. The same statements that jump out to you and grate on you are the very same for me! It's uncanny and freaky sometimes. But I'm so very slow and it's good to see the silence of my fingers given voice from another!! :yourock:

Thank you for the info about Dean's track record in Vermont (I think I covered the first two paragraphs of your reply in response to your previous post, so I'm skipping down a bit). I didn't take into account Dean's record as Governor and you're right, I should have. I'd never heard of Dean before he ran for President and most of my impressions of him are from that race. (I knew he was a Governor, of course, but I haven't heard too much about what he'd done there other than that he was a fiscal conservative, pro-gun, and pro-civil union.) The story of how he "drove into the storm" to talk to angry people about his civil union bill is particularly powerful. And exactly the fighting spirit we need.....

>He’s a champion of “grassroots”, bottoms-up politics.<:evilgrin:

We've had a lot of male Dems who were champions of "bottoms-up" politics, but he wasn't one of them.

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

I'm wondering if that's a shot at the Deaniacs or a
shot at the moderators/admins.

It's a potshot nonetheless. Not what she was asking
for in the OP.

:eyes:

what she was asking in the OP either.

How's that?

:D

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

You can't say that out loud (the ignore bit). It's not
allowed. (I know, I know, I want to to sometimes...)

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

I don't want to hijack this lady's thread anymore.

Sorry.

Dean was also the chair of the National Governers' Assotiation. I'd say that's a good qualification to lead a national political group.

don't you think?

Dean was not this "wild man" that everybody now sees, when he was Lt. Governor and then Governor for 11 years. I think since he's stepped up to the 'national' scale, people like Trippie (sp?) convinced him he should be more charismatic. In some ways they were right, but they 'overcoached' him, in my opinion. In a couple of local interviews before the primary season, you could see that he was unsure how to handle the national spotlight and then was thrown into it by the democratic big shots. I think he has a better perspective on the national scene now and would handle himself, and the party, with a more focoused, less flambouyant message. Don't get me wrong, he's still there to shake the shit out of the democratic party. He understands the danger of a corperate state, and he understands that young people are the future of the country. Maybe with him around they won't turn rep. by the time their 30.

You're on the mark about Dr. Dean being a little rough around the edges in how he presented himself to the media early on.

But since Trippi has gone to other pastures and Dr. Dean has fought even more battles, he's become much more polished and has proven he can focus on message like a laser. He's a fast learner, it seems, and will get even better as time goes on.

as illustrated by the TV show where he said Iowa caucuses represented "special interests".
I for one simply never felt he had the right temperment or savvy to make it as prez. His politically unedited utterances as cited in the opener here are a good example.
Now obviously Kerry was a world better in that regard but as evidenced by the "voted for before... against" comment- Kerry was far from perfect.

He was used to the "spotlight". That spotlight wasn't used to being shone on politicians who speak the truth.

Vermonter. I've talked to other Vermonters who came down to New York during the primaries and really wanted him to win.

I don't think think Dean can be labeled..he's like liquid mercury..it would be so shallow and boring without him.

That's not to say that there aren't other Dems who are worthy..it's just Dean fills a very special spot.

I remember the first time I saw Dean on the campaign trail in Nov/Dec '03 (C-Span)- IIRC, he was doing a thing at Parris Island, and I remember thinking how much I liked what he had to say, but that he needed to pull the stick out just a little - he came across as very uptight. Not the CW regarding Dean, by a long shot.

I am in my mid-30s and there's nothing about enthusiastic, passionate young people that bothers me, scares me or otherwise freaks me out. I think it's great.

And I think you are wrong in your assessment of young people re: they turn repuke, they aren't a big enough voting bloc, etc. Why is appealing to middle aged adults AND young adults mutually exclusive to you? You don't think BOTH can be done?

I have a "cold" (almost disgustingly) pragmatic view of political positioning. To me selling candidates is like selling Coke or Pepsi. When older voters see tons of "youngsters" it makes the candidate less credible I think. I remember seeing plenty of older folks surrounding Dean on the campaign platform but his campaign got tagged with the "orange hat" label (the media played it up, too, because they love visual stuff like that).

Because I'm a decade older than you I think I have a different perspective. I think there's still a backlash in this country about Vietnam among older voters. The protesters back then started off right (the war WAS wrong), but then the whole thing got crazy -- soldiers were vilified, the miltary as a whole was pictured as warmongers, and then you had the whole counterculture movement with drugs, etc., etc. That's how, in my opinion, we ended up with Nixon. The Democrats as a whole still get "tainted" because of the counter-reaction against the 60's and 70's.

Make any sense to you?? (Also, that's why I think Shrum making Vietnam the centerpiece of the campaign was beyond dumb.)

but I still don't feel the same.

:shrug:

You are exactly right, in my opinion. They lost focus, and began to narrow their base by associating protests against Vietnam with drug culture, radical paramilitary organizations, and a dozen other causes that repelled the support of more moderate individuals. I believe that is why Kerry ultimately left VVAW.

There was nothing necessarily wrong with the counterculture itself, but when it became an integral fixture of the image of the anti-war movement, it bore social and political ramifications from which we have yet to recover.

We have the benefit of hindsight now, so I would hope that our generation will not make the same mistake in the events to come. I remain deeply disappointed in the majority of baby-boomers who apparently voted for Chimp. They have short memories.

That's why I think we Dems have to take care in how we "present" ourselves. The Republicans succesfully portray us as weak on defense, "liberal", and try to pin all the other "counterculture" stuff on us. Democrats aren't responsible for what's on TV (or Janet Jackson's booby) but they roll it all up into a ball and sell patriotism and moral values to voters, including the baby-boomers. I don't think the national Democrats truly understand how crowds of "young people" and "Hollywood types" play to older voters. We lose votes when we don't have to simply because we don't know how to "package" ourselves. Dean's persona as a hero to the young folk is a negative in my mind, but as others have pointed out, he's a smart guy and may do a much better job on the packaging angle. (Yep, sadly I think politics is like selling laundry detergent.)

Except for #1. I WANT someone who says what has to be said without viewing a poll or worrying about the rove. The other side rarely backs away from a position even when proven wrong (witness Iraq).

I don't know if Dean is the strong, consistent voice needed by the Democratic party but whoever is chosen should be bold and assertive.

We're waiting....

One of the greatest myths about Dean's primary campaign was that it consisted mainly of young people. The truth is that it contained just a little over the amount that the rest of the campaigns had.

This thread pretends to ask for a "RATIONAL" debate (the use of all caps in a title violate DU posting rules, but hey, what the heck) and then wastes no time whatsoever spreading the lie that Dean's campaign was mostly one of very young (which is to insinuate naive) people. When this has been disproven over and over again and yet here it still pops up again dripping with condescension, I can only laugh.

This sort of damning with faint praise by those who dislike Dean is common and is always a dead give-away, isn't it?

My impression, based on media coverage back then, was that Dean had a huge youth following. It was not my intention to "spread lies". I don't recall seeing a MSM story "disputing" this (or even raising it is an issue). If it's been previously discussed here on DU I probably missed it (signed-on to DU for first time during Christmas vacation). Another DU poster also raised this point and said Dean really didn't have that many more youth supporters than others (I questioned this: Can't imagine that Lieberman or Graham drew lots of younger people, but maybe I'm wrong). Are we okay now?? I'm not one of those you-know-what's, honest. This is exactly the kind of feedback I was trying to get. New information that will help me sort the issue out.

do we need fresh ideas and energies in the triple jowled world of the beltway? i say yes. do we need more packaged politicians selling us the corporate agenda with all their pretty lies? i say no.

Well, Dean must've had a lot more young folks than Lieberman and Graham, didn't he??? (Did Kucinich draw many young people???) Maybe this perception became so prevalent because of media reports about young people flocking to Iowa to help with the turnout. I remember seeing TV footage of college-age Dean volunteers ringing doorbells in Iowa. A previous reply mentioned this, too (their question was: what's wrong with lots of young people flocking to a candidate??). As part of the reply I said the media probably played this up if for no other reason than they love visuals. The orange hats and busses were good "visuals" for them to focus on.

attended, heard about or SAW included people all across the age spectrum. LOTS of people in their 30s, 40s, 50s (like me), 60s, 70s. I never, ever saw a preponderance of young people. Never.

The only thing I have ever been able to figure out about the "youth" thing is that Dean's campaign headquartes may have been staffed by primarily really young people. I just don't know.

I can tell you this, now that I've seen you admit the source of all your biases -- whatever you know about Dean from the MSM, is a lie, a mischaracterization, misunderstanding, or is inaccurate in some other way.

Yes, I've got biases. I made them clear up front in my original post. Don't you have any?? Biases shouldn't be seen as a negative, in my view. Everybody's got some: The question is whether you are open-minded enough to take in and process new information that sways your opinions, or at least understand what someone who holds contrary opinions in saying. The world is not black and white -- there are shades of gray unfortunately.

I have to object to your last statement. To say that "whatever you know about Dean from the MSM.... is a lie, a mischaracterization, misunderstanding, or is inaccurate in some other way" is way overboard. One of the four points in my original post rested entirely on a direct quote from Dr. Dean. The second related to how well he ran his campaign. Many pro-Dean people freely admit they made some mistakes -- to raise it as an issue is not tantamount to me having swallowed the MSM line hook, line and sinker. My third point related to the internecine warfare that goes on during the primary process (Democrats attacking Democrats to win the nomination) -- this is something that occurs and is not the figment of the MSM's imagination. I stand by what I said in my original post -- I think I raised legitimate issues and that discussing them would result in a better understanding of Dr. Dean's pluses and minuses as DNC Chair. To call the issues I raised "lies, mischaracterizations, etc." simply because I agreed with a responder that the media latched onto the "young orange-hatted kids" is a mischaracterization itself in my opinion!

I disagree with many of your points.

Maybe I'm wromg,but I seem to remember that after Iowa some statistics about Iowa came out: a little over 50% of Iowans DID not have access to the internet or were hooked up to cable

I wish I could provide a link for that info but I can't right now. However,if it is true - then those people that lacked those 2 resources just didn't get Dean. I got 95% of all my info about Dean from c-span and the Internet

Dean is going to require those of us involved at the local level to work even harder. REAL REACHOUT. Knocking on doors,precinct captains plus all the internet stuff. There will be more sharing of lists. Information is power. Someone has those lists now and probably doesn't want to give them up. We have to. Get the donor lists and share them with local democratic town committees and approach people on a local level NOW and say this race for school commmittee is important too. Your involvement can't be once every 4 years.

That is what it is going to take;less consultants

After Nov election, he said Party needs to do grassroots networking right down at the community level. Said Republicans did better job than us (Dems hired tons of ousiders to come into communities).

I couldn't agree more with your point about "less consultants". And for the ones directing the campaigns at the top levels, we need a whole new crew. The ones we've been using for deacdes (Shrum, etc.) are too inbred and WIMPY!!

I am still up in the air and willing to be persuaded on the best candidate for running the DNC. I do think the poster above was correct in pointing out that Dean was attacked by just about everybody and he was target numero uno for the press. If it wasn't the scream, they would have ginned up some other reason.

Amy Sullivan at Alternet (http://www.alternet.org/story/20961/) expresses some of my feelings in regard to several of the "consultants" and other Democratic Party officials that have been part of the last three national elections. Why are we allowing "consultants" to run our party rather than "consult" as they are tasked? Why are we allowing KNOWN losers to have so much sway on the process of charting our future course?

Isn't it obvious that the folks at the RNC don't wring their hands in worry when it comes time to get in the mud and fight? Rove & Co. have been brilliant in implementing their constant, steady, measured and varied attacks on the Democrats. Our current crop of Democratic leaders and office holders have gotten their asses handed to them in almost every skirmish and they have acted like scared children when reacting to some of the most outrageous actions and policies of the Bush Administration. In many cases, instead of relying on the historical principles and values of our party to guide them in their responses to the Bush Administration, they have allowed themselves to be sold, by ROVE primarily, that opposition would spell their political death. Isn't about time that Democrats stop taking Rove's advice about opposing ShrubCo. Enterprises?

Regardless of the choice, it is of vital importance that the next leader of the Democratic Party declare all out war on the issue of fair, transparent and verifiable elections and focus everydau on building a counter to the 'right-wing', corporate media infrastructure. Without addressing those two issues, why bother?

I saw that too and it made me livid. No wonder we keep losing elections! That article made me lean more towards Dean -- somebody needs to shake up these complacent losers. You're right, they do act like scared children, don't they? BTW, did you see Sullivan's previous article on Bob Novak? It exposed him big-time. She's new at Washington Monthly. I sent a letter to the editor thanking them for having the guts to print her "consultants" article. I may subcribe too!

what happened on the ground in Iowa really isn't relevant anymore. That race is long over.

I also think Dean learned a lot about shooting from the hip - but there will still be times when we WANT someone who shoots from the hip - it just has to be done well.

I think it's a good position for Dean.

1) I think he’s politically tone-deaf at times....

Even Dean has confessed to not understanding, during his first run for national office, just how vulnerable he was to the media. However, what gives me admiration for Dean, is his ability to objectively look at his own mistakes, analyze them, and move forward with a consciousness towards not repeating them. In other words, he has the ability and courage to admit and quickly learn from his mistakes.

2) I don’t see Dean as the political wunderkind some people do.
Imagine the Democrats in this past presidential race thusly if Howard Dean had not come along: Across-the-board poorly funded throughout the campaign, unable to compete with Bush's $200 million chest; Party fractured into the usual rag-tag assortment of progressive movements, each elbowing the other; anemic emails asking for money sent once in a while from the DNC/DLC to specialized Democratic groups -- instead of a massive barrage of focused messages and requests to a fired up national grassroots -- no Meetups connecting activists with one another, no passionate electorate for John Kerry to inherit -- who then worked themselves beyond blood, sweat and tears for his campaign -- even though he was not some's first choice -- and here's where I really give Dean his props --

There come moments in time when one individual stands at a crossroads and has the power to set the world's course in one direction or another -- after his stunning losses in the primary, Howard Dean had the option to become bitter, to split off from the party with his supporters, who most likely would have followed him willingly, and to generally de-rail the remainder of the Democratic effort in the presidential campaign.

Howard Dean did not do that. Instead, in my view, he put the good of the Democratic Party and this country above all and immediately embraced John Kerry as our presidential nominee. This clear and unambiguous signal, for which he was even widely denounced by some of his own supporters, nevertheless was invaluable in rallying "Deaniacs" to Kerry's cause. No small accomplishment.

3) Related to point #2 above, I’ve seen a lot of posts about the DLC “ganging-up” on Dean to destroy his chances during the Primaries. No love here from me for the DLC, who have never acknowledged Gov. Dean's contribution to the Democratic Party (as far as I know) and who, after Kerry won the primaries, crowed that it was Kerry who had saved the Party. Uh...no. But, anyway, a little harshness from Howard works for me as an anti-dote to the extremely carefully worded statements from the rest of the Democratic Party that sometimes make me feel as though I'm about to go into a sugar coma.

4) Idealistic young people in orange hats jumping up and down make an old fogie like me nervous.
A young Jewish couple. A middle-aged WASP college professor and her husband. Three Buddhists, ranging in age from 25 to 48. Two African-American women in their mid-30's. This was the gathering at one of the first Dean "parties" I attended. The perception is that Dean appeals only to young people -- not true! Yet, the fact he DOES appeal to young people is also an extreme PLUS! Where do we expect our future leaders and activists to come from! If half of them are going to join the Repubs anyway, doesn't it make sense to educate them and keep them fired up about progressive values now? Then maybe we'll keep a few of them around! :) It was wonderful to see so many young, young people so fired up about politics at Dean's rallies. And speaking of appealing to moderates, it was amazing to see so many Republicans for Dean at these rallies, too!

Lastly, Dean is not even Chair yet, and he has already proven his strategy and vision will put Democratic behinds in won-the-race seats -- to quote from Tom McMahon's email, DFA was instrumental in getting elected this year a "Governor in Montana, a Mayor in Utah, and an African-American woman to the bench in Alabama -- along with dozens of other fiscally responsible, socially progressive candidates at every level of office."

This is exactly what needs to be happening in the Democratic Party now -- not just theory -- action.

Okay, that's the view from the peanut gallery. :)

Thanks.

This is exactly the kind of really great responses I was hoping for. Your points #1 and 2 really hit home.

(By the way, I was unaware that some of Dean's supporters "denounced" him for supporting Kerry. What did they want him to do???)

Hi Moggie,

In following the Dean For America message boards immediately after the primaries, it was very clear not only were there many passionate Democrats supporting Howard, but also many supporters who had "crossed over" to Dean from other political factions which were not necessarily within the Democratic Party.

Their anger at Dean declining to split off into his own party, or at the very least, support Ralph Nader's candidacy, was very evident. There were also those within the Party who were in fervent opposition to Kerry as the nominee and were not in favor of Dean throwing his support behind him.

As you know, Gov. Dean remained steadfast in being from the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party and proceeded to focus on transitioning Dean for America to Democracy for America... then, within a matter of nine months or so, delivered a slate of winning Democratic candidates.

Now, whether it turns out to be a quixotic quest to dislodge the DNC powers-that-be from their addiction to mediocrity remains to be seen. :)

Golly gee. Dean is already DOING what the DNC ought to have been doing -- buidling grassroots, recruting (encouraging) and funding candidates, etc.

:yourock:

I support him for DNC chair. I think he's a moderate/centrist in liberal's clothing adn an insider who ortrayed himself as an outsider. I believe he misrepresented himself (or let himself be) in the primaries to win votes.

But I'd like to see him as DNC chair because he is passionate and not afraid to voice his opinion, has a great ability to raise money, seesthe future of the internet and how it can help dems, and brings a lot of new blood into the existing power structure.

And you are right, he is not an outsider and is a certainly a moderate/centrist. I did support him in the primaries and I know you didn't which is why I thank you for your support now, youngred.

While Dean is far more conservative than this old leftie would like him to be, I must agree with you that "he is passionate and not afraid to voice his opinion, has a great ability to raise money, sees the future of the internet and how it can help dems, and brings a lot of new blood into the existing power structure."

I think he is tailor made for the job right now...and anything that pisses off the DLC (even though he had long-standing ties with them) is quite good in this lefties book

* far more conservative than this old leftie would like him to be

BUT

the Dean machine :shrug: My hat is OFF to it. If that isn't the voice of the people, I don't know what is.

My heart and head will ALWAYS say someone like Kucinich but if Dean is the Centrist where I meet my old friends halfway, then so be it- I'll go Dean and NOT ONE STEP FURTHER TO THE RIGHT.

My vote for Kerry is the one vote of my life that I regret- from now on, I'm allergic to ham, allergic to sandwiches and especially allergic to the combination of the two- I don't care how much gold is on the epaulettes or how much the DLC tells me I should just roll over and be impressed. No more.

Dean is the middle field where I will gladly meet other progressives half-way- anyday.

I amy not agree with all of his policies but damn it, we all must compromise right? I hope the damn DLC and their Lieberman step-child the NDOL hear this message loud and clear. And I hope to hell that Dean runs in 2008 because he's an acceptable half-way point.

You go Dean. Don't you ever shut up. You keep listening to the people supporting you no matter how much the ensconced establishment hates it :thumbsup:

and that's a good thing.

I'm more concerned about that than where he is on the center/left spectrum.

;-) but not for President

a progressive has very specific ideas and ideals, few of which he embraces.

He is enthusiastic, energetic, not afraid to challenge republicans, forward looking in the game of politics but none of those makes him progressive politically

Not afraid to challenge republicans, neither afraid to challenge the democratic party. Has Definite, specific ideals for the direction of the party.

perhaps you are confusing YOUR PERSONAL idea of what ideals a progressive should hold.

Progressive: N.

A person who actively favors or strives for progress toward better conditions, as in society or government.

Dictionary.com

Dean never once claimed he was a liberal. The liberal label was given to him by the media, who needed to demonize him, and misguided liberals who assumed that since he was against the Iraq war, that he was a liberal. The notion that he misrepresented himself is false. His positions on the issues were out there for anyone who bothered to look. It is not his fault that he was unable to shake off the incorrect labels that the media, and the Democratic Leadership, intentionally thrust upon him.

:eyes:

You are correct he is not a liberal and his positions bear that out. But he did nothing to stop that image from being portrayed and he and Trippi deliberately played to it.

You cite many falacies but attack my post on one, and one in which I am correct. The mere fact that so many still believe him to be liberal, people who study his positions and defend his progressivism and liberality to the death (despite available evidence) show that he has not done anything and indeed has encouraged the idea that he is that which he is not.

And quit the everyone was out to get Dean mantra, he was a media darling, only the DLC and other candidates and their supporters were against Dean, and because they were in a competition. There was no grand conspiracy to get Howard

he's no more populist then Kerry. He spouted off a single word here and there which many thought signalled his populism. But if you looked at his actual plans... they weren't much diff then Kerry's, Edwards etc.

One Pro you didn't mention is that if he becomes Chair we don't have to witness the spectacle of him running in 08. :)

One Minus is that he is percieved as a 'rockstar' by many here on DU.
Being that high profile isn't necessarily a plus for Chair of any Organization.

I question Dean's diplomatic skills.

But he is certainly compentent and is working through DFA to change things in a positive way so he certainly seems to have a lot to contribute in some capacity.

Maybe he could be Chair & Rosenberg Vice Chair... or vice versa.

His middle class payroll tax would have destroyed much of the middle class. It would have also made it difficult for middle class people to donate to candidates. Kucinich asked him to make a commitment to reinstate the Estate Tax. Dean would not do this.

His approach to medical malpractice is too close to Bush's and will only hurt patients and result in loss of life. He supported Yucca Mountain which the Democrats need to unite to stop. Children in California are talking of going to Nevada and personally stopping it -lying down in the roads to block all transport if necessary. Most children aren't that involved but California children are afraid of drinking poisonous water. They are the next generation and they don't want it. I think that there are a number of groups who will need re-assurances from Dean that he will change his positions.

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

He was quite forthright about the intent of his group -- their purpose was to defeat Dean and the contributors to the 527 were mostly people who supported Kerry or Gephardt. However, the article you linked makes it sound like it was some kind of smear campaign (thanks for the link, by the way, so I could see what it was you were referring to). It wasn't. The ads pointed out that Dean was seen as a progressive but that he held beliefs not commonly associated with progressivism (one commercial was about his 100% NRA rating, one was about his Medicaid record, and I can't remember the third one). And I dispute the claim that the Osama commercial was unfair or "despicable", as the article implied, especially in light of Dean's OBL remark quoted in my original post. I still think Karl would've made mincemeat of Dean in the general election.

Thanks for the link again. I was afraid people were going to trash me in general -- I appreciate your taking issue with a particular point I raised and for taking the time to provide back-up for your argument.

It was despicable when the GOP did it to Cleland, and it was still despicable when the other Democrats did it to Dean in the primaries.

DUers don't see it as despicable at all.

:shrug:

Especially since you raised the Cleland issue and compared it to the anti-Dean Osama ads by Democrats -- made me think twice (3X, 4X, 5X....) about it since Cleland race was so ugly. Even so, though, I still don't think Osama ads against Dean were despicable, and not even "below the belt". The primary race (as it's set up now) is a contest to see who gets to be the nominee after a competitive battle among Democrats. I think it was appropriate for other Dems to raise the Osama issue, especially in that it was a proxy for national security issues which were no doubt going to be the big kahuna during the general election (too bad Shrum didn't realize this!!!!!). Whoever was the candidate in the general election was going to have to battle Bush over national security: Bush folks would have raised the exact same issue against Dean that Dems did. My opinion is that Dean would've been weak in defending himself against Bush attacks because of, among other reasons, his OBL "guilty until proven innocent" quote in the original post. The competitive nature of the primary race seems to be dismissed by many Dean supporters when they make arguments that Dean was unfairly attacked. In my view, Dean "attacked" other Dems, they attacked him back, and this is how campaigns are fought. I don't see how Dean implicitly saying Kerry, etc. weren't real Democrats (e.g, "I'm from the Democratic wing of the Dem party") differs from other Democrats challenging Dean's national security credentials.

I wish there was some of way of picking the Dem candidate other than engaging in a hard-fought primary race but can't think of any way that wouldn't be undemocratic! I don't think I want to go back to smoke-filled rooms.

P.S. Issues related to this came up throughout this thread -- I talked about my cynical view of campaigns at greater length in response in case you have any interest in more of my thoughts on the subject (I think I hear you gagging....) Anyway, I got great responses back to the post -- very insightful overall and a lot of good points were raised that I hadn't thought about before. Thanks for your input to the thread.........

Even if Dean "attacked" other Democrats, showing him pictured next to Osama was OK? It wasn't that his national security creds were questioned, it was HOW IT WAS DONE.

Was it alright for Cheney to say we were going to be attacked again if Kerry was elected?

Because the Cleland ads were outrageous disugusting lies while I think the "soft on terror" charge against Dean was a valid point & a legitimate issue to raise in my opinion (because of things like Dean's OBL statement as mentioned before, which I thought was a legitimate consideration for primary voters to think about). That &^%$*# Cheney's remark was way out of bounds: No truth to that one at all and therefore wholly illegitimate.

That's what I really think......

Have you ever seen it?

God, I'm glad I never have to meet you in person.... I would feel like a heel .....probably couldn't have admitted this to your face.

But I disagree that 'Deaniacs' (I'm not one) would consider it a 'conspiracy' if Dean didn't get the chair. It would however be more than a coincidence.

The DLC and their New Democrat subsidiary have been extremely vocal over the years about their hatred of populism and liberalism in general. This isn't a theory at all...but can be found throughout their literature on the web.

The DLC showed their true colors when they smeared Gore for wanting to make corporations accountable and his populist campaigning against Bush's war(s). They followed the same pattern when Dean showed up his populist message...that endangered the New Democratic sway on the party.

It might be more 'black and white' than you think. But we're all left to speculate because the party operatives, pundits and leaders are less than forthright about where they really want to take the party.

I thought I "supported" the DLC until I started reading information here on DU. (Also, Peter Bienart's piece in the New Republic, which seemed to be calling on Democrats to rise up in support of a war against the militant Muslim world, was the single stupidest thing I've ever read).

Don't scream at me, I like the guy and I think he should get the job. It's the way I felt about his presidential run. We'd either win in a landslide or crash and burn. One thing I felt sure about, he'd go down swinging and that's not the worst thing in the world.

The Democratic Party has gotten too timid. Howard Dean is not timid. That scares Democrats. What should scare Democrats is doing the same damn thing over and over again and losing over and over again.

I watched the DNC candidates on C-Span and the only thing I could think is "Where do they find these people" Try to imagine Tim Roemer or Donnie Fowler debating Ken Mellman on Meet the Press. Rosenberg, OK, maybe--at least he has a sense of humor. Now imagine Howard Dean debating Mellman. I could not only imagine Dean debating Mellman I could imagine Howard Dean holding Ken Melman in a headlock with a piece of the Republican Chair's right ear in his teeth.

As far as bringing the party together, Howard Dean is a centrist at heart who has a following on the left. This is no small feat. It gives him street credibility with activist groups while allowing him to focus on the big picture. Dean can reframe the debate on social issues to a greater extent than a conservative politician such as Roemer because he has built up a certain amount of trust with liberals. Fundraising, Dean taught the old donkey new tricks in that department. Dean also has a good handle on election reform. I haven't heard anything on that matter from anyone else and frankly, if that little problem isn't taken care of, no Democrat is going to win in 2008. He's not afraid to risk cries of class warfare from the Republicans in pushing a populist agenda that is the only thing I can see that could bring working class white men back into the party.

Howard Dean isn't perfect. The perfect DNC chair would combine boldness with a diplomatic personality and a keen strategists mind--not to mention a salesman's talent for charming donors out of the cash and voters into the booths. The perfect DNC chair is not running. The perfect DNC chair does not exist. Well, maybe if Bill Clinton...Nah, not gonna happen.

Of the guys that are running, Dean's hands down the most exciting--and a little excitement, imho, not a bad thing.

It would definitely be fun to watch Howard Dean make mincement out of Mellman on TV, that's for sure. I still worry though (I'm a worrier). I still think Rove and Co is going to use Dean getting the nod to paint Dems as "heading even further left". Dean would have to do a great job of counteracting that, making sure he flashes his true centrist colors. The way the media works these days, it will be an uphill battle, even for the extremely articulate Dean. And they've got his Osama statement to pull out of the vault (worry,worry, wringing hands).

Well, like you say, the perfect DNC chair does not exist. (Good point to remember about all Democrats in all positions!) He would definitely be better than the other milquetoasts (with the exception of Rosenberg, who I've taken a liking to, except for his hawkish-sounding Iraq statements).

Beautiful post, well done, cowgirl.

:thumbsup:

It seems that there are a lot of people here who employ the same kind of false claim against people who disagree with them, that republicans like to employ. If someone disagrees with you, they are emotional. Evidence suggests that this time the "emotion" is all on your part. You started this non-emotional debate making all kinds of claims about who DFAers are, how they feel and how they will act in the future.



here’s what I love about Howard Dean:
(love? isn't that a bit emotional?)


Lordy, we sure need some of that in the Democratic Party!
(again...awfully emotional)

economic message, one I think Party needs to adopt. Again, this is my personal opinion
(what you think? Your opinion? Where are your facts? I believe facts are needed for a non emotional "debate")

I think he’s politically tone-deaf at times, tending to say “out there” things in the heat of battle. For example, I think...
(now we are talking about the primaries and what you think about them?)


YES. Oh Lord, YES!! Karl would've creamed him with that remark,
(in fact you don't know anything of the sort. That is your opinion and a rather emotional one with the capital letters)


What is so great about having the guy who came in third in Iowa run the Party's political apparatus? I'm just not getting it.
{so are you thinking perhaps Kerry should run for the position?)


Related to point #2 above, I’ve seen a lot of posts about the DLC “ganging-up” on Dean to destroy his chances during the Primaries. I don’t think the record supports that charge.

(the record does support the charge. Your feelings about Dean and the other candidates are getting in the way of you accepting that something happened that makes the party look bad. All the people involved admit it happened. Why are your "emotions" more valid than their honesty?)


Idealistic young people in orange hats jumping up and down make an old fogie like me nervous.
(I believe feeling nervous is a bit emotional. BTW, I am 3 years older than you and I think they were terrific. It's nice to see kids care about something again. God, knows they have enough to be cynical about)

If Dean doesn’t get the nod, however, his supporters will see it as a conspiratorial-type decision by Party bigshots and that will be bad for the Party.
(What are you, a coincidence theorist? Do you deny that party big shots get together and conspire? That's not rational or believable.)

I did indeed make many emotion-driven statements in there, didn't I? What I meant was, I wanted to try to avoid the type of emotion yesterday's post on the subject got, which was, in a word, ugly!! Yesterday's OP started out in a pretty rude tone, the first reply he got was "F*** You", and it went downhill from there. By the time I wrote a few paragraphs in reply, the moderators had locked the post!! Whereas many people seem to have strong positions either pro or anti Dean (mainly based on whether they are pro or anti DLC it seems) I'm truly undecided and wanted to see if we could have a fairly calm discussion (there's usually some truth to both sides of an argument and I wanted to see if we could flesh the positions out better before we all have a sword fight at dawn).

As to your other points, also all good, I replied to other people who raised similar points earlier in the thread. The only one that didn't come up as directly as you phrased it was that last point, about party big shots getting together and consiring against Dean. (By the way, I love that "coincidence theorist" thing: What a great phrase, and yes, I think I may be one.) Do I think the DLC, other candidates, and many top Party leaders wanted Dean not to get the nomination?? Yes! At the time of the primaries, neither did I. I thought -- and still think -- that Dean would've done badly against Bush (in light of his OBL statement for one thing, and other reasons). That's my opinion, others have other opinions, and that's the way it should be. I think that some Dean supporters go overboard in their characterization of what happened, however, seeing an huge, highly coordinated "evil plot" to deprive Dean of the nomination, for nefarious reasons. Maybe there were some true "evildoers" out there, but I think most of the "plotters" had "above board" reasons: They truly thought Dean couldn't win in November and wanted what they considered a more "electable" candidate. This would all just be an academic exercise at this point if some Dean supporters didn't go a step further and argue that the ONLY reason Dean didn't win was because of an internal Democratic Party plot against him. That's where I can't agree with them. I think Dean made mistakes in his campaign and did himself in. The "Party establishment killed Dean's candidacy" argument seems over-the-top since clearly not all top Dems were against him (Gore, Harken, & other endorsements) and I I saw with my own eyes the campaign coverage and truly believe there were much more important factors that caused him to lose.

As usual, I've gotten long-winded -- please reply back if you have any interest in continuing this discussion (and thanks for your thoughts)

already assumed to be irrational.

In other words, by starting a thread with rational in all caps is like beginning a conversation with "I don't mean to be rude, but"...

It is clear that folks like to get their knickers in a twist over things and for some reason, Dean is a lightning rod on the DU.

Unfortunately, in my experience of the last two years, much of the antagonism has been of the "Let's talk, you Dean people, but we need to talk reasonably, etc." As if Dean supporters have a monopoly on over the top antics and need to be spoken down to. It tends to push buttons and further the problems in discourse.

I don't know if it comes from people agreeing with the MSM cacricature of Dean as some foaming at the mouth freak and then transfering it to his supporters or what.

From what I have seen, the majority of posts denigrating a candidate PRIOR to the election were denigrating Dean. (Yes, please say I'm playing the victim...;) -- we want to make sure the script stays the same--:)) A statistical study would be in order to prove or disprove this.

In the end-- as many of the responses in this thread have shown--there are numerous problems that people have with separating popular myth and accurate depictions. This will always hold true with all politicians--I'm just still trying to figure out why people who don't support Dean find the need to needle him and/or his supporters in such a manner (i.e. can we have a RATIONAL debate)

Just my two cents-- everyone can wake up now and go back to the debate...nothing to see here. :)

When Dean was ahead for so long it made people mad. When we were happy about it that translated to them in their frustration, to us being rude or arrogant. Then they attacked and we defended just as vigorously.... in the end because Dean was ahead for so long it became everybody else against Dean supporters and it was pretty brutal.
The OP here is patronizing and frankly full of supposition, rumor, and amature psychoanalysis. Then of course there is the non facts, like His supporters being young when 2/3s of us were over 35 and many much older.

There is nothing there to debate. How can you debate someones personal feelings based on nonfacts?

There's no "there" there.

we sure don't hit the "youngun" demographic...

You hit the nail on the head. Nothing like having a targets tattooed all over your body.

It was always the pseudo analysis (i.e. condescension) that ticked me off. After a while, I tuned the whole thing out.

...statements, I think the general public applauds them. I think a tin ear is useful, what looks weaker is caving, and backing OFF from the HONEST statement.

pad for '08 is a pretty transparent strategy. Considering that he'd lose to Jeb in every state but Vermont AND make sure anybody who beat him in the primaries also lost, I think he's terrible choice.

I have yet to see evidence of a "progressive" Dean agenda, apart from his dishonest talk about the IWR, which he did not vote on.

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

Personally, I like a LOT more than I did during the primary season. I do go to DFA meetings and enjoy the dialog and plans for the future.

I've always felt that grassroots politics is much better than waiting for the official Cavalry to arrive. Yes, the net is a great tool but it all gets down to talking to people face-to-face in the street, on the doorstep and in the meeting hall.

Like some here that are very solid Dean supporters, I feel that if he gets the DNC chair that he would do a good job and actually be a lot more moderate than some may think he is. I also feel that the position would take away a lot of the efforts that he is bestowing with DFA.

Frankly, I don't think a lot of people understand how actually "unglamourous" the DNC chair job is...it's mostly about fundraising and getting along with the full spectrum of Democrats. There is very little political policy-making that doesn't have to go through various committee approvals...it's about raising money to run campaigns mostly and travelling a lot to meet with a wide variety of constituents at rubber chicken dinners at Holiday Inns.

If people who want Dean to be DNC chair in order to shake up the "establishment" and be some hybrid of podium-banging politician and fundraiser with unwavering agendas, they will be sorely disappointed.

Sometimes I think some Dean supporters want Dean to be DNC chair so they can finally say he "won" a race since they were disappointed by the primary results. Additionally, those that feel they would leave the Democratic party if Dean doesn't get the DNC chair make me cringe that a slightly left-leaning moderate would have such control in their decision.

Sometimes I think some Dean supporters want Dean to be DNC chair so they can finally say he "won" a race since they were disappointed by the primary results.

Since Dr. Dean won a the maximum number of terms as Governor and served as Chair of the National Governors' Association, the Democratic Governors' Association, and the New England Governors' Conference, I doubt any of us are rooting for the DNC position just because we want a "win."

Edited to add: We want him to get this post, a) because he wants it, and b) because we believe he can do a lot of good things for the Democratic Party. (Personally, I'd rather see him run in 08, but that's just me.)

I knew he ran and won races before as well as was chair of other organizations.

A question for you...do you think he wants to run in '08?

So I don't understand why you say we want "a win". We've had plenty of wins.

If he wanted to run in '08, he wouldn't be campaigning for the DNC position.

I do agree he probably doesn't want to run in 2008 either...that is if he gets the DNC chair (which I would wholly support)...

looking for a "win" just for "win's" sake.

Right now, Dean's focused on helping to regain some of the Democratic Party's power in 2006. After that. (barring a DNC position), he can decide what he wants to do next.

a "rational debate about dean." it looks as tho your thread has succeeded somewhat - congrats!

i've not put too much thought effort into the next dnc chair, because the party powers-that-be seem to be angling for "more of the same." that approach may gain some voters, but will also lose some voters, and thus maintain the status quo... *sigh* ...

my choice varied throughout the primary season, but i was never a dean supporter. today, as during the primaries, i feel that any of our 9 primary candidates would be preferable to bush in the whitehouse.

dean was never my first choice. having said that, i actually do think he would be the best possible choice for the dnc. his campaign during the primaries proves that he has the skills needed to energize and revitalize the party, to be innovative, to connect on a real level with people, to restore a semblance of belief in "the process," and to take the democratic party forward without being radical. (i saw and see nothing "radical" in howard dean - unless that strange thing about speaking truth as he sees it, or being against the horrifying war in iraq is "radical.") his experience as governor will have prepared him for the political aspects of the job. his run for the dem nomination has no doubt been an invaluable learning experience.

moggie, your reasons of objection against the good doctor are very thought about. since he was never my primary primary choice, and i never really expected him to break out of the pack, i haven't put the thought into it that you apparently have. and since, as admitted, i think the dnc is all about status quo (repub-lite), our musings on DU are moot - but i did want to say that i think dean would be the best possible choice for dnc chair. i've paid enough attention to know that he is a decent man with decent intentions, and enough political clout to burst onto the national stage (without compromising much) in a startling flash. i do like that about him!

Dean's from Wall Street. Check it out for yourself.

Dean is a 3rd generation Wall Streeter who walked away from it all to go to medical school, move to Vermont, and be a General Practicioner. So bear that in mind when he talks about Medicare.

He was also considered a Wall Street insider because of his background. One of the places where is is not that good is in the heath care field. He had the worst plan for health care of any of the candidates. Kucinich and Sharpton had the best.

As I posted here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1493847&mesg_id=1493847

Yesterday Ted Kennedy asked that other prominent Dems step up and be real liberals and push for Medicare for all and low cost college for all.

Looks like Dean is keeping a low profile on all this "liberal" stuff. Waht a surprise! I never would have guessed. I thought he was a real liberal and populist. Huh! Fooled me!

Simply stated, this is the most thoughtful and intelligent post on the DNC chairs race to date. Outstanding!

Not everyone seems to agree with you (!!!). However, the vast majority of the replies I received were very thoughtful and intelligent. I've even had to amend some of my thinking based on the new input (drats!! I hate when that happens!! it's much easier to stubbornly cling to one's assumptions and beliefs)

Here's the deal:

You identified the key issues the party has been and continues to be woefully lacking, but that Dean brings to the party. His passion and his straight forward populist convictions, which he clearly articulates and is not afraid to pronounce.

Disclosure:

I was not a Deaniac,like many progressives in the Bay Area, i was a Kucinich supporter, I didn't even hear about him until the primary debates where he caught my attention. Just before the Iowa meltdown, i was actually warming up to him, but I liked Clark, Edwards and I was trying hard to like Kerry. I began cheering on for Dean in the beginning, but of course as an observer, i began to buy into the Kerry campaign - when Kerry hijacked Dean's platform as his own.

Yes Dean was hard on Kerry during the primaries, particularly about Kerry's elite background and his position on the Iraq war among other issues. Guess what? It turned out that Dean was right about Kerry all along. And we were all had by the Kerry team who would not, or could not, come out with a clear articulate message and fight the real battle when against the Rove machine on the Swifties despite being fully forewarned about them in the past.

Dean wants to bring the party back to it's base, and he doesn't mince words about it. Among other things, he's also a FIGHTER. and all the other candidates are wusses.

Wusses we do not need. We need COURAGEOUS FIGHTERS, people with vision, passion and conviction no more milke-toaste mealy mouths "spokespeople" appearing in the media when it comes down to Democrats are about.

Why is it ok for the Repugs to have hard hitting if ruthless, outspoken spokespersons leading and running their party?

and only mealy mouth wusses for our party?

Also, Steven Rosenthal represents the so called "New Democrat Network"- the Clintonista faction - who we must whole heartily reject for a lot of reasons i have no time into here, but that Clinton did no favors for the Democratic Party,or the American People for that matter, with furthering Reagan's agenda by implementing more anti-trust deregulations, deregulations of the FCC furthering weakening any fairness to broadcasting before Reagan's abolishing the Fairness Act.

Roemer being touted as a moderate is ok, i want to see the party rebuilt from the ground up all the way to the top, and bringing Dean might be just one step with that objective, if he stays true to his convictions and doesn't sell out like the rest.

We sure do need a fighter. If I see one more wimpy-sounding Dem on TV, I'm going to scream. And one thing's for sure -- somebody's gotta bust up that clubby group of insiders running all those lousy political campaigns (one down so far -- Shrum is retiring to go teach at NYU!! Yippee!) About a month ago I was deadset against Dean but I find myself leaning more and more toward him. I still think he's got some major drawbacks, but as another person responded, "There's no such thing as a perfect DNC Chair".

I laughed when I saw what you wrote about Dean attacking Kerry for being an elitest, among other things. The plumber who came to fix my sink the day after the election said he didn't vote for Kerry because he was a "phony". When I asked what he meant he said, "he's a rich guy". (Yeah, like George W worked his way up??) It scares me how people decide who to vote for.....

Skull and Bones, inc.

At this point, however, I would not support him as a presidential candidate.

My experience: I worked with a some Deaniacs at the grassroots level during the Kerry campaign. They are a capable, dedicated bunch -- liberal in their views, but not extreme. Dean spoke out against the war -- has great administrative experience as the governor of Vermont -- and projects a lot of strength.

Our goal: Reorganizing the Democratic Party.

Grassroots organization: The Democratic Party can no longer rely on big unions to organize the telephoning, tabling, etc. for campaigns. It has to begin to identify a base of supporters who will volunteer to do these things. Creating that kind of base is Dean's forte. Right now, Deaniacs are organizing local groups at a very fast pace. They are attracting the best local activists. Like it or not, thanks to his dedication and his organizational genius, Dean is taking control of the worker bees in the party. At a recent meeting of Democrats in my area, for example, a good portion of the people elected to the state central committee professed ties to Dean. Others also had such ties, but did not mention them.

Funding: The old organization, which relied on funds from corporate and wealthy donors is not functioning and will work even less well in the future. Dean (and Move-On) showed the way to raise money from the grassroots. Here, again, Dean is taking control of the base of the party. Like it or not.

The National Committee: Dean inspires and controls a large number of the active party members. He will continue to do so. If he and his people are not integrated into the party, what do you think will happen? The party will split and it will be ugly -- not because Dean is mean or because he wants to split it, but because that is the nature of things. Nobody wants to see that happen.

Dean's Personality: Yes, the press depicted Dean as a hot-head. But, is that image accurate? I doubt it. I just don't believe that the people of the quiet state of Vermont would have elected him over and over if that were true. Dean has great ideas. Dean is willing to take a stand, however unpopular. He attracts the press like honey does bears. Democrats don't have much power, and we're not going to get much media attention unless we create good stories. Dean can do that. Judging from the loyalty of many of his supporters, Dean must be a pretty good guy. As for his staff problems -- hey, it takes two to tango. Hack advisors are the bane of the Democratic Party. It might do us good to have a chair who is willing to go head to head with some of them.

Dean as President. We need a candidate who projects strength, but also compassion and nurturance. If Dean takes on the tough job of party chair, he will probably have to be pretty feisty -- and he will probably ruin his appeal as a presidential candidate. That is his choice to make.

Conclusion: We aren't marrying the guy. We're just hiring him for the moment. Let's see what he can do. It can't get worse. Kerry was a great candidate. The national campaign was poorly organized. Let's give Dean a chance.