Some Democrats Uneasy About Dean as Nominee

Many leading Democrats say they are uneasy about Howard Dean's candidacy for president and are reluctant to cede him the nomination for fear that his combative style and antiwar stance will leave Democrats vulnerable in November.

They acknowledge that Dr. Dean has run a strategically savvy campaign that has made him the candidate to beat. But their worry has been heightened anew, they say, by Dr. Dean's statement this week that the capture of Saddam Hussein "did not make America safer" and by his suggestion that Saudi Arabia warned President Bush about Sept. 11 even though "I did not believe the theory I was putting out."

Senator John B. Breaux of Louisiana, who has long sought to push the Democratic Party to the center, said Dr. Dean's remark about Mr. Hussein's capture was "not the smartest thing to say." Mr. Breaux added, "Most people in my part of the country think the world is indeed safer without a ruthless dictator."

Joe Lockhart, who was President Bill Clinton's spokesman in the White House, suggested that Dr. Dean might lack the discipline for a general election campaign. "It's the unplanned, offhand comments that often seem to play a critical role," Mr. Lockhart said, adding, "You've got to be able to become a master of the game, not someone who just rails against the game."

continues...

Source: Washington Post

Daschle and Gephardt tried the wuss act in 2002, and we got slaughtered.

Calling the Republicans out about their *Bushit* not only works, it is the moral thing to do as well.

Daschle and Gephardt certainly played into Bush's hands too easily, but that hardly makes them Bush-lite. That's an old and hackneyed phrase now, used by not really understood. Knee jerk labeling cheapens debate and waters down some otherwise effective insults.

But I still have it bookmarked...

Failed Midterms
by John Nichols

George W. Bush may have lost the 2000 election, but he won the 2002 election--with a good deal of help from Democrats, who took a dream scenario and turned it into a political nightmare. Only in battles for statehouses did Democrats post gains, and even there the victories were fewer and farther between than had been anticipated.

Bush made himself the critical player in this year's election races. After his political team recruited the candidates, raised the money and ginned up a war vote in order to redefine the fall debate, Bush became the Campaigner in Chief. In visits to fifteen states in the five days before the election, he promised voters permanent tax cuts, conservative judges, a Department of Homeland Security and an ousted Saddam Hussein. And at the close of a relentlessly negative campaign season, Bush offered an oddly optimistic and conciliatory message--shapeshifting into a proponent of prescription drug benefits, a defender of Social Security and, in Minnesota, a friend of the late Senator Paul Wellstone.

Democrats countered with an agenda that was so anemic that candidates were forced to fend for themselves. Some, like Maryland's Christopher Van Hollen, who defeated moderate Republican incumbent Constance Morella by making an issue of the extreme conservative bent of House Republican leaders like Tom DeLay, succeeded in nationalizing local contests. Most did not, however, and the list of narrow defeats in House contests that Democrats should have won in Arizona, Iowa, Georgia, Kentucky, Alabama and South Dakota was depressingly long. The Democratic leadership's fits-and-starts approach to the question of whether the Bush tax cuts should be canceled left the party's candidates woefully unprepared to capitalize on economic developments--rising unemployment rates and declining consumer confidence--that in the past would have been tailor-made for Democrats running in a new Republican President's midterm. "The big story is that the Republicans had more of an economic plan than the Democrats," said Roger Hickey of the Campaign for America's Future.

More about why we got slaughtered: http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20021125&s=nichols

and by the way... was it being "Bush-lite" or Diebold?

Yaa Allah, when did this happen?

The DINOs ought to be scared of Dean and his campaign.

If people in Breaux's area don't like dictators, they ought to remove bush.

that we need an entrenched establishment candidate.

People respond to Dean (and give money and high poll #'s) precisely because of the things he says, the railing he does, and his refusal to run every possible statement by a focus group.

Thank you.

...he simply lashes back. As long as he rarely waxes apologetic for his comments, and lashes right back - he'll be ok. Not saying he'll 'win' or not, as I intend to support whatever Demo wins and don't care much, but at least Dean has moxy and doesn't back down easily. Dems need that 'junkyard dog' attitude right now. If there is something that appeals to an angry Left, that might be it.

and the media just ignores it for now...

Man, there will be a rude awakening if Dean gets the nomination...

"as long as he simply lashes back"...

When he is outright lying and confronted with it... let Dean just keep on "lashing out".
...............................................................

Watching Howard Dean's oddly pugnacious interview with George Stephanopoulos on ABC's "This Week" yesterday... snip... the issue over which Dean was snippiest--NAFTA--his position was absurdly indefensible. After Stephanopoulos began a question by saying that Dean had been a "strong supporter of NAFTA," the former governor testily cut him off: "Where do you get the 'I'm a strong supporter of NAFTA?' I didn't do anything about it. I didn't vote on it. I didn't march down the street supporting it. I wrote a letter supporting it."

Stephanopoulos was unprepared for this challenge--but Dean's rivals certainly weren't. Within hours the Kerry campaign had emailed around press releases doing to Dean what a rocket-propelled grenade might do to a cardboard box. It turns out that eight years ago--on the very same show, no less--Dean had proclaimed: "I was a very strong supporter of NAFTA. I believe it's going to create jobs in the United States of America." And the Kerry camp pointed out that, irony of ironies, yesterday's interview came ten years to the day after Dean's appearance at the White House's NAFTA bill-signing ceremony. (The Kerry campaign was somehow even able to provide the original, decade-old press release for the event--an impressive display of opposition-research firepower.)

In a Democratic party cursed by a lack of compelling messengers, Dean's sharp, concise speaking style holds real promise. But not if his rhetorical bluntness becomes arrogant, knee-jerk certitude

That's straight shooting. The difference between a lie and straight shooting is that when Dean tells a lie, it's straight shooting that needs clarification.

Democrats, by nature, seek to be a part of the establishment. They do this because the establishment is government, and government is supposed to work for the people. That it doesn't is due, in no small part, to anti-government conservatives screaming in washington about 'the establishment.'

I never in my life thought I would so often see supporters of a Democrat use this wacky line.

or Libertarians in Donkey Clothing... like Dean himself.

Help me to understand more about this dastardly plan--I'd never heard anything about it before you clued me in. Let's see if I have the basic framework: Dean is a pugnacious liar who will do or say anything in order to become the nominee. And if he wins in the General, he'll enact his Secret Libertarian Transformation Scheme. Therefore, he must be lying about all of those taxes he says he'll levy, because libertarians don't play that. Same goes for health insurance for kids, right? Help me out with the rest of the plan. I'm glad you got to me in time--I had every intention of voting for him before you hipped me to his chameleon nature.

Largely due to the Bush Administration, but I think also because of the bought-and-paid-for perception about the Congress.

I'm for big government doing good things, not big government in pursuit of world domination, or big government so connected to lobbyists that one can't tell the difference between them.

Right-wingers and left-wingers may both scream about "the establishment" , but they're talking about different things. Ask a liberal and a conservative if the media is biased. You'll likely get two 'yes' answers, but coming from very different positions. The conservative will say that we have a liberal media, while the liberal says we have a right-wing, corporate-controlled media.

Same thing with "the establishment". Yes, conservatives have been trained to bitch about the establishment, and they're wont to blame Democrats for all of the ills in Washington when their people are just as culpable, more culpable. But the fact remains, liberals are about new ideas, about change. Conservatives are about the status quo, not rocking the boat. And I believe that a great many liberals in America have decided it's time to rock that boat and make some much-needed changes.

Yes, you could make arguments that Dean IS an establishment guy, but that would be debatable, and besides, I'm talking about perception, since that's what shows up at the voting booth. And you could say that as soon as an anti-establishment candidate is elected, he is subducted into that establishment and becomes a part of the same old thing, but that's material for another post. :)

Thanks.

i like him less. When he says 'the soul of the democratic party' is at stake, i think i may agree with him - only in a different way.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13369-2003Dec18.html

from the end...
Dean did not address the article's specifics, but said voters can believe him "or they can believe The Washington Post."

Generally, given a choice between a politician looking for my vote and the Washington Post... well... let's just say that's not a choice he wants me to make.

lately?

go to it and the NYTimes every day
the politics section is solid, and the other columnists are good, but the main reason I go is that I like Howard Kurtz.

politics and policy are irrelevant...the average american or "sheeple" as some mistakenly describe them...are more than capable of perceiving CHARACTER...if they get the chance

them.

Of course Democrats want to be in power in Washington and have a hand in forging that consensus. But we're talking about a consensus that has been forged mainly by Republicans since about 1980 and to which Democrats have contributed too little for my taste. The two key items in this WC:

1) Government is the problem. What they really mean is, New Deal government is the problem. They don't have a problem with the one they're serving in, and which they keep making rules to keep themselves serving in.

2) The US is, for better or worse, an Empire (formerly known as Sole Superpower), and we just have to make peace with that domestically and war with it (economically, politically, and militarily) internationally. The wingers actually think this is for the better. They really believe that it is the American Empire's mission to turn the rest of the world into suburbs of the Great American Urb, with each nation replicating the key items--and all the other less key ones--of the WC in their own "consensuses." If only the world would become just like us, they truly believe, there would be no need to shove our "values" down their throat.

The idea of the "establishment" used to be a leftist one, back in the 1960s. The right has appropriated it to keep their ideology slaves frothing and voting.

celebrating American imperialism.

Democratic liberals have always sought to upset establishment beliefs. From getting Blacks to sit in the front of the bus to recognizing Gay marriages, it has been the mark of modern democratic liberalism to find itself at odds with the Establishment more than as part of it.

Establishmentarianism is the first step to conservativism. This is why I live to see the stogid Democratic Establishment shown the door. Change is the mandate of Nature. I'm sorry to report this.

their product.

Almost as well as Kerry does of marketing Bush's products.

Republican "right,".....There's no way he's fought to bring it to the "center!!"

Dean's remark was right on target(although I'm not a Dean supporter.) Saddam's capture won't make us any safer. He was dangerous only to his own people. Even his neighbors knew he had been de-fanged. Only Israel wanted him out of the way.

What a slanted article!!

But not from the Washington Post (or the WA Times, or the NY Times)...
It needs to be from a reasonably trusty source.

It doesn't, plain and simple. Was it Rummy or * that said finding SH wasn't a priority BEFORE our troops started getting attacked.

Iraq is less safe for our troops, bec the Iraqis that were afraid to say "get the f*ck out" bec they feared SH coming back, don't have any fear now. If you think it's bad in Iraq now, just wait.

Pass me the rubber drumstick, please.

It doesn't surprise me that many Democrats are becoming uneasy about Howard Dean, because the ones that aren't busy chanting the Dean mantra are realizing he's the second best candidate in the race. Wesley Clark started running for President about 10 years after Howard Dean started! Already, he is either pulling alongside in many states, or nipping at his heels. Clark is clearly more electable than Dean, so why would the Democrats race their second best horse? I, for one, am not willing to bet that Dean can beat Bush. His mobilization of the misguided youth is commendable, but they aren't the people who will elect him in a general election. Wesley Clark is the only clear choice for the nomination.

has been greatly exaggerated.

This must be the new GOP talking points. The same thing was all over the St. Petersburg Times and Tampa Tribune last week. They were quoting unnamed "Democrats" from all over the state who attended the convention, and were worried that Dean would be the nominee.

I don't think they attended the same convention I did! Howard Dean stole the show. To quote the president of our Democratic Club, who lost a close congressional race last year, "When Howard Dean walked into the ballroom, he sucked the air out of the convention." When he was done speaking, Dennis Kucinich was left with a sparse crowd to address. Even though they were both speaking and answering questions at dinner an hour later.

The only total bust-out candidate was "Go Back Home Joe". After hearing him speak Sunday morning, I gave away a $50 brunch ticket rather than be inflicted again. I drove back to Clearwater and ordered a pizza.:puke:

Everyone else was pretty good. Kerry came across as very intelligent, and experienced. I really enjoyed Edwards, he has some good policy ideas and has the same fire and passion as Bill Clinton.
Clark just talked about his military career, and was generally uninspiring. I missed Gephardt, because I was sick Sat. morning. And Kucinich is a good congressman, and should remain there. p.s. to Kucinich moonies- I like Dennis, and have spoken to him many times over the years. I told him the same thing at dinner.:spank:

Howard Dean is the man!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:kick:

You said this about the Florida convention thing

"Clark just talked about his military career, and was generally uninspiring."

Did you have ear muffs on when everyone was cheering their heads off for Clark or something?

Even in 2000 we had some Democratic insiders supporting Bill Bradley (against Al Gore). If all Democrats agreed 100% we wouldn't be Democrats.

However, as I've said before, Jesus Christ isn't running for the Democratic nomination. Fear is something that the Republican Party is very good at generating, even among good Democrats.

But it's best to look past that and look at objective measurements. And I point to two in particular. First, all the major Democrats are equally competitive against George W. Bush according to the polls. Sometimes Dean "leads" that, sometimes Clark, sometimes Kerry, etc. All within the margin of error. (Lately Dean has been "leading" most, but again it's within the margin of error.) That's a good sign that any Democrat would ordinarily be capable of taking on Bush.

But then we get to the second problem which is money. Only Dean has the ability to raise and spend as much money as he wishes through the party primary in July, 2004. There is an important argument to be made (and considered) that every other Democrat would be mute while Bush blitzes the airwaves this spring. (Kerry is in that category as well. He opted out, but he is basically broke at this stage.)

We know from 1996 when Bill Clinton trounced Bob Dole that this issue matters. Dole couldn't run any TV ads and got clobbered by Clinton in the spring of 1996. Now the shoe is on the other foot. So are we going to nominate a candidate who has the spending power (and ability) to withstand the onslaught? I think we absolutely must, since anyone else will have a huge problem with unanswered TV distortions.

the Bush meat grinder in the general election.

That's a positive in my book. F**k em

and I am certainly not a democratic leader, or a DLC style democrat.

I don't understand why they would keep talking about his mythical "antiwar stance." And I don't think any candidate's opposition to the Iraq invasion will hurt us; events have proved us right.

The combative style is one reason why I've been uneasy. While it has obviously been successful for his primary campaign, it is a little too much like my perception of republican campaigns. The aggressiveness and eagerness to attack opponents with "dirty bombs;" ie: derision, soundbites, and "spin" rather than substance has raised the level of discomfort.

I've been especially uneasy with the way the DNC, the media, etc., have rushed to label Dean "liberal," "left," "antiwar," etc.

If a moderate like Dean can be successfully spun as "liberal," we are in bigger trouble than I thought. American democracy in ICU. And "leading democrats" are helping put us there.

yes, we have to make sure every comment which is made is approved by some Madison Avenue focus group.

And was fully on board with Clinton by the convention.

I'm not worried about whether we will all come together.

They had it in for Clinton big time.

Yeah, too much pollyanna handwringing about unity and taking all this personally. We'll do what needs to be done when it's time to do it.

If you think the "establishment" is afraid of Dean, Trippi has hornswaggled you. DEAN IS THE ESTABLISHMENT.

Dean was chairman of the Democratic Governors Assn. whose job is to raise money from huge corporations more so than the DLC. His record in vermost was pro corporate--AND HE BRAGGED ABOUT IT.

If you think all the folks scared of a dean nomination are DLC--you're fooling yourself self indulgently.

Lockhart didn't gewt to where he was by being a dope--And believe me, he wants to beat bush

This all goes without saying. Until we have a nominee there will be supporters of other candidates.

And, of course, not all Democrats are backing one candidate. This is obvious to anyone who undertands primaries and the process in general.

are worried about losing their reputations because the grass roots Democrats are taking the party back.

Whoever it might be. I am uneasy of all politicians, some more than others. That's not necessarily a DLC thang!