How Terry McAuliffe and James Carville created Howard Dean

Monday, January 5, 2004 12:01 a.m. EST

A year ago Democratic leaders were convinced a key to winning the White House was to minimize internal bickering and settle early on a nominee. That candidate could then speak for a united party against President Bush. The party has gotten its wish--a jammed early primary schedule virtually guarantees the Democratic candidate will be known by early March--but party leaders now seem to be having buyer's remorse. The nominee will be either the mercurial and error-prone Howard Dean or someone who may have a hard time exciting fanatic Dean supporters.

James Carville, the razor-tongued Democratic strategist, was among many party leaders who were certain of a cure for the Democrats' blues: "We've really got to get a presidential nominee," he said in February. "And the quicker the better." Democratic National Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe listened to this siren song and helped engineer a change in the party's 20-year-old rule that no state other than Iowa and New Hampshire could vote for delegates before March.

Iowa and New Hampshire promptly moved their voting dates to Jan. 19 and Jan. 27, respectively. That meant holiday-distracted voters would have only a few weeks to pay attention to the actual race once the New Year's bubbly wore off. That meant that for all of 2003, liberal party activists were in the driver's seat when it came to deciding who would raise the most money and be anointed the front-runner in media coverage. That turned out to be Mr. Dean, who tapped into activist rage over the Bush administration's war in Iraq and lingering anger over the disputed Florida recount in 2000.

But while "Bush loathing" is almost universal among Democratic partisans, it resonates with only about 20% of the electorate. Many of the people who don't approve of Mr. Bush's handling of his job are turned off by bitter attacks against him.

more: http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/

into the next century.

"That meant holiday-distracted voters would have only a few weeks to pay attention to the actual race once the New Year's bubbly wore off."
dude, these guys have been campaigning since summer.

And he won me over in October of 2002.

I mean this part: Many of the people who don't approve of Mr. Bush's handling of his job are turned off by bitter attacks against him.

I bet those clowns at WSJ/OJ don't have any data to back this up. They are just manufacturing a public opinion. WSJ was horrid against Clinton when he was president (also).

Interesting article, though!

Stupid Americans -- us included -- say they are sick of programmed robots and "soundbite" politics. We want them to speak up and tell us the truth, we claim.

But as sonn as a candidate comes along who does speak like a real human being, he is jumped on as being crazy and unable to control his mouth.

We get what we deserve I guess. And by all of the attacks on Dean, it seems like we deserve a robotic candidate who never says anything that hasn't had all of the life sucked out of it by the strategists.

An un-scripted, un-focus grouped candidate who succeeds is an anathema to political consultants and pundits and must be stopped at all costs.

a lie down, carcas they can kick to death so that Americans see the Dems as the problem and not their miserable failed policies which they have so far managed to obscure with wars and terrorist threats.

They are pumped up by what they did to Gore, so now they want to set it up that a candidate who speaks his mind will be defying what the American people are looking for. And yet, Bush has continually spoken his mind with his Texas Gunslinging/Religious Fundie talk and no one seems to mind that or even his ridiculous "mis-speaks" which are in effect terrible gaffes that Dean gets trashed for but the Chimp blithers on.

Disgusting.

which explains the late arrival of Gen. Wesley Clark.

What the heck is going on here?

Oh wait - he wasn't absolved, and he's still a liar. :eyes:

Interesting stuff!
:think:

for the Democratic Party to get the message all across America...

it's a GREAT debate...FREE TV time...attention to Democratic issues that would never happen without it....

the Democratic HUGE Speaker's Bureau is awakening America to the horror of bush*....

and it's good practice for the candidates...(bush* desparately needs such practice, but with no opponent...the reTHUGs simply emphasize their arrogance to the common people)....

a REAL Presidential Candidate will be chosen in March, and everyone will come together....I hope that Kerry/Clark is chosen, because that team can BEAT BUSH....

these reTHUGlicans should STOP WHINING....they know already that the shrub can't win, but they are doing their usual media 'back-door' attacks on Democrats (ohhhh, ohhhh, the attacks on bush* only resonate with 20% of the electorate....Bull...the attacks are resonating with all of America)....those 'cheap-labor conservatives' want Democrats to belly-up and be real sweet to their reTHUGlican, bush*....and no way is that going to happen in 2004.....

I haven't seen Bush go over 60 percent on approval, re-election, or Iraq war guys... And Republican strategists have admitted they think any major Democratic candidate will get at least 46% of the vote simply by how divided people are.

If a Democrat gets elected President, the rabid right wingnuts of the house will eat him alive! You think they were harsh on Clinton? Tom Delay has already proven he has no limits on his bizarre quest for power, and with Republicans controlling the house, the senate, the courts, the military and the press, what chance would he have to put a stop to this worldwide rape, let alone his own dignity?

Yeh, that is good.

Are you kidding me? You're actually posting an editorial by John Fund at DemocraticUnderground.com?

John Fund, the right wing pinhead who beats up women.

I could find a lot on the other candidates by using the dregs of the right wing, but I don't think it is right.

They should NOT be using such sources here.

If I used RW sources, there's all kinds of garbage being spewed about the other candidates out there.

or whatever her name is, and she mentions how she attended some mid-Western focus group of Dems and how she was so taken aback by how they called the president "an idiot". Can the pundits really be so out of touch or do they just believe their own spin?

If the entire world can see that he is an idiot, how can there be so many idiots in the US alone who can't see it? The press is full of shit, and there is the potential for a groundswell tidal wave to rock this boat out of the water.

Not Borger. Think Borgia. That way it's easy to remember just what to expect from this woman.

Julie

5. If you post an article or other published content which is from a conservative source or which expresses a traditionally conservative viewpoint, you must state your opinion about the piece and/or the issues it raises.


Thanks,
DU Moderator