"Howard Dean Needs to Grow Up." by Slate's William Saletan

http://slate.msn.com/id/2093303/

Until now, this belligerence has served Dean well. In a nine-candidate field, he has distinguished himself by constantly attacking the "Washington Democrats" who stood with Bush on this or that issue. Each time an opponent counterattacks, Dean's campaign exhorts his followers to send the opponent a message by sending Dean money. "It's a polite way of saying where you can take it," Dean explained Friday.

But after a while, telling people where they can take it becomes a problem. The list of constituencies to whom you've given the finger grows. "Them" starts to outnumber "us." Clinton warned of such self-destruction when he accepted the Democratic presidential nomination in 1992: "For too long, politicians have told the most of us that are doing all right that what's really wrong with America is the rest of us: them. … We've nearly them'd ourselves to death. Them, and them, and them. But this is America. There is no them; there is only us."

Dean doesn't see it that way. He isn't trying to make enemies; he's just having fun. He recognizes malice and pettiness only when he's the target. Last week, he complained that the Democratic primary campaign needed a "character transplant" because his rivals were lying about him. He told the New York Times that their attacks made them "look smaller."


<>That's what Dean needs to learn. Being big means rising above the mischievous glee of mocking your adversary. It means not hitting back when you don't need to. It means focusing on those you can help, not those you can punish. It means representing the whole party and eventually the whole country. If Dean can't absorb that lesson, his party will indeed need a character transplant. And the character that will have to come out is his.

the leopard to change its spots

Dean is who he is

some people like it, some people dont
i'm in the 'dont' group, so i guess he can give me the finger anytime he wants.

I love how Dean gets held to standards that no one hold Baby Bush to.

All that whining and carping, you'd think he and Dean were brothers sharing the same room.

as he should be.

I won't be voting for Bush. If Howard Dean gets the Democratic nomination I WILL be voting for him - I expect my candidate to be better than Bush.

n/t

isn't trying to unseat an incumbent president.

so I'm not too concerned about this article. He has yet to define himself as a player - a contributor to our party - most of the other candidates would support whomever won the nomination. He has clearly stated that he does not know if his "kids" would support another candidate. True or false?

Oh, that's right. The other 8 can't even do that for another Democrat.

:puke:

to know why you don't think he'll win. Second, Dean HAS said that he will support whoever will win the nomination. Third, if any other candidate promised that all their supporters will support the eventual nominee, then they'd be full of shit.

to the "undecided" or Mr and Mrs America.

Please explain your statement "if any other candidate promised that all their supporters will support the eventual nominee, then they'd be full of shit."

is a completely unsupportable assertion. Most polling evidence that exists completely contradicts that. In particular, in polls in NH and IA that poll independants Dean leads by far.

I mean that if Clark or Kerry or Lieberman or Kucinich or anyone else promised that all of their supporters would support the eventual nominee, then they'd be lying. Of course there are going to be lots of people unhappy no matter who the nominee ends up being. Why shouldn't Dean be realistic about the fact that his supporters are not, as a whole, just going to transfer over to the nominee?

The radicals are the insiders. Neoliberals and neoconservatives = the same economic point of view.

They demand we turn our back on the American system (privacy rights, voting rights, fostering competition) and instead we must PLAY THEIR GAME, or endure their empty ridicule.

not to answer the question, or at least not in such a juvenile, inflammatory manner.
unless dean is really stupid, he knew what he was doing when he did it. the thing to be pondered is the why...

with politicians, the why is usually more important than the what...

Why not? We don't want a candidate that can answer questions honestly and candidly? That's the reason I've liked Dean from the beginning. He doesn't always give bullshit politician answers.

He's especially good when he's doing town-hall style events. That's where he really shines. Seeing him actually answer people's questions instead of pulling a line from his stump speech that's tangentially related to the question.

n/t

"angry outsider" thing. He's screwed because that will win him the Dem nom but will NOT win the general.

big is that group really? The thing that's dangerous is that many of those people will eventually turn on him too. Once he becomes "establishment" he will be "one of those people" also.

The "normal" people will stick with him though - he'd better hope he has enough of those around.

Please explain how Kerry can guarantee who his supporters will vote for in the GE.

Apparently Kerry doesn't appeal to much of anybody including radicals.

Yep, I've only voted for such "radical" candidates as Bill Clinton (twice), Al Gore, and Michael Dukakis.

Next time, try to know what it is you're talking about before you say something. Thanks.

Neoliberal "accomplishments" are beginning to far outweigh their real contributions.

Enough.

:wtf:

i.e. "Republican Lite"

Neoliberals are usually socially liberal. But they are economically conservative and aim to strike compromises between centrist and hard-right policies (the result is always on the Right). They sometimes espouse left-leaning economic positions; when this happens, watch what they DO, which will be conservative if it involves lots of money.

Neoliberals are beholden to corporate interests to ensure they can continue to run well-funded election campaigns. Grassroots movements which run counter to coporate supremacy are anathema.

NAFTA, Welfare Reform, Media Deregulation and Utility Privatization are all quintessential examples of NEOLIBERALISM and this is the term used word-wide to describe the phenomenon.

Argentina and Brazil are examples (in their own ways) of how neoliberals frequently engage in economic war (via the IMF, World Bank and WTO).

How can he guantee what another free american citizen will do? He said he will support the eventual winner if it is not him and he will ask his supporters to do the same. What more would you like?

stating that he'll support the democratic nominee, and I doubt it would be good enough for some people.

They're spoiled children. (I'm not talking all Dean supporters but the ones who are THAT fickle).

Or.... Are they the only ones allowed to demand compliance from Democrats?

x

just watching him on CSpan the other day with that more than disgusting Jonah Goldberg, it was hard to tell them apart. He is DLC all the way, and then some.

So are plenty of democrats (like Al Gore who endoresed Dean) ... as was Howard Dean

...and this is the cause for much alarm in the beltway.

Adn they had the sense to ashcan the orgainzation when it was taken over by the neocon lovers. Too bad other candidates didn't do the same.

"SALETAN ON DEAN: "NOT SINCE CLINTON HAVE DEMOCRATS SEEN A TALENT LIKE THIS"
William Saletan at Slate is dutifully impressed by Howard Dean's appearance in Iowa this weekend. (Click here to view the video from Cspan.) Saletan writes:

Dean is far and away the most interesting player in the race. Not since Clinton have Democrats seen a talent like this. Here's Dean on the federal budget:

When Ronald Reagan came into office, he cut taxes, we had big deficits, and we lost 2 million jobs. When Bill Clinton came into office, he raised taxes without a single Republican vote; we balanced the budget; we gained 6 and a half million jobs. George Bush has already lost 2 and a half million. I want a balanced budget because that's how you get jobs in this country is to balance the books. No Republican president has balanced the budget in 34 years. …You had better elect a Democrat, because the Republicans cannot handle money. … We're the party of responsibility, and they're not.

When you hear Dean talk like this, you wonder why no one else can make the party's case so simply. If more Democrats spoke this way, maybe they'd control a branch of government."

Smaller in fundraising...
Smaller in the polls...

It is a strategic mistake for Dean to point this out, lest they change their strategy from "Dean sucks!" into something positive, but the guy ain't lying.

Clark is the second largest fundraiser this quarter, and unlike the other guys, he's mostly taken the high road with Dean... coincidence?

"That's what Dean needs to learn. Being big means rising above the mischievous glee of mocking your adversary. It means not hitting back when you don't need to. It means focusing on those you can help, not those you can punish. It means representing the whole party and eventually the whole country. If Dean can't absorb that lesson, his party will indeed need a character transplant. And the character that will have to come out is his."

Rising above...
That sounds like Clark and Kucinich.

Kucinich is a JOKE

He stands for what a REAL Liberal party would stand for if we actually had one in this country...Don't call him a joke though because he's very serious in his beliefs.

He polls lower than Sharpton.

Kucinich is much less a joke than Dean....but thats only MY opinion...
just like your calling Dennis a joke is YOUR opinion.

Peace
DR

remember the lousy media coverage of Gore? Slate was part of it though not as big an offender as others.

Nope. Sorry.

Warranted attacks: People that took away constitutional rights(record), funneled our resources into chasing false threats(record), pushed corporate freedoms above all others(record).

Unwarranted attacks: That guy attacks people! His policies are ruinous (ignores Dean's record)! He can't win without foreign policy experience (ignores Clinton, Reagan, etc.)

Also notice Dean, if at all, focuses on on the most right-leaning candidates and a slice of the party aparatus called the DLC.

Decline of the Wes
Clark's hypocritical obstructionism on Iraq.

I never believed Bush's claim that overthrowing Saddam Hussein was essential to the war on terror. I'm angry that Bush continues to invoke that bogus rationale for the invasion. But the assassinations and indiscriminate bombings we're witnessing in post-Saddam Iraq really are part of the war on terror. We can't crumple under this pressure any more than we could have crumpled four years ago in the showdown with Milosevic. Bush is right, just as Clark was right: War is a contest of wills.

That's why it's so troubling today to see Clark join in the same self-fulfilling wave of determined pessimism and obstruction he battled four years ago. "This president didn't know how he wanted to end. He doesn't know what he's doing today," Clark charged in Sunday's Democratic presidential debate. "I would not have voted $87 billion. … The best form of welfare for the troops is a winning strategy. And I think we ought to call on our commander in chief to produce it. And I think he ought to produce it before he gets one additional penny for that war."

I don't know whether we'll win the postwar if Congress approves the money Bush asked for. But I know we'll lose it if Congress doesn't. That's what happens when a nation at war starts to think like the Wes Clark of 2003. Just ask the Wes Clark of 1999.


http://slate.msn.com/id/2090437/

And here:

Hughpocrisy
Clark does unto others what was done unto him.

Two months ago, I defended Wesley Clark against a coy smear by Gen. Hugh Shelton, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Shelton had told an audience that Clark was forced to step down as commander of U.S. forces in Europe because of "integrity and character issues." Shelton declined subsequent opportunities to elaborate. This was vicious and unfair, I argued, because "until Shelton clarifies the charge, Clark can't rebut it."

Clark seems to have learned a lesson from that smear tactic. He's learned how to copy it.

http://politics.slate.msn.com/id/2091467/

----------------------

The web is full of Clark supporters decrying Saletan's "opinions" on Clark. And Saletan will be back for Clark again - just like before - only then y'all won't be cheering him on.

Harsh, Saletan!

He nailed Kerry, too:

Military Malpractice
John Kerry's hypocritical attack on Howard Dean

http://slate.msn.com/id/2082229/

Seems like a cranky sort of guy :silly:

Or Congress or even the Republicans. I'm tired of all of this division. We need a healer. I'm hoping that this is all just an act.

ho hum

It's a pretty bad day when Joe Lieberman basically calls you a wuss and he's right about it.

You're like a bunch of fucking childern...Accept the fact that the Real liberals are speaking with their wallets and these DLC cronies are over....Accept it or joing the GOP but stop attacking Dean and Clark. There is an obvious revolution happening as the real liberals want to WIN instead of lose like the Washington insiders who pony up to the GOP....We are over it...you need to get over it and focus on Bush instead of Dean and Clark...

n/t

He might be able to fool some of the Democrats for a while but by November, the truth will have spread and no-one will support him.

You made the accusation, so prove it? Why should Dean have to answer for a misguided supporter when geniuses refuse to do their homework?

And typical of what was done to Al Gore in 2000.

When will Saletan be dissecting Shrub's tendency toward viciousness directed at his political rivals?

Not holding my breath...

This is the same guy who predicted a landslide Gore victory in 2000. He said it was certain due to some weird political/economic analysis he came up with. :eyes:

There have been childish antics from all of the candidates. Singling out Dean is preposterous.

Seems like the media is waking up.