Remember the outsider, Jimmy Carter ?

He was not a part of the Washington establishment but he kicked their asses in the primaries. They never really accepted him, even though he picked Fritz Mondale, a Senator, as his VP. Ted Kennedy actually chose to run against him in a primary in 1980. It didn't help.

Does anyone see any parallels with Howard Dean? A governor from a small state - challenging the political status quo of his Party? I think this is what is happening with the criticisms from the establishment of the Party.

whathisnameagain??? Oh yeah, Clinton or something......

Julie

I think a lot of Dems felt frustrated and powerless after the Reagan-Bush years and were willing to accept whatever the Party served up. They served up Clinton and the DLC's influence grew exponentially, and we are fighting that same curse today, good or bad.

I'm mad as hell and I'm not gonna take it anymore. My activist self is ready.

Howard Dean is not from the South. He's a Yankee deeply distrusted for inherently lacking Southern "values."

They both had huge issues to build their campaign around. Carter built his around being an honest contrast to Tricky Dick. Clinton built his around the faltering economy and George H.W. Bush's seeming lack of interest in addressing the problems.

Dean might end up with a similar issue in the missing WMD's--that might project him right to the top--certainly he is generating a lot of noise, and at this point is pretty far up into the pack.

It's also interesting that conservatives are starting to call President Bush Nixonian--see --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com/2003_08_03_politicalcomment_archive.html#106008686157509834 So perhaps Dean does have a better chance than people realize.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

Carter was not from the North. He was a "cracker" deeply distrusted for inherently lacking Northern "values."

Or is the "North" morally superior to the South? I don't think so. :)

and he had watergate. It was also piece-time, and Ford had a huge lack of support, within his own party even, for pardoning nixon

or rather, those the media tries the hardest to make look like outsiders, aren't in reality.

Carter was hand-picked by the Council of Foreign Relations for the Presidency.

Carter is a founding member of Brzezinski's Trilateral Commission and was also been a long-time member of the Council for Foreign Relations (CFR), the country's most powerful, globalist-leaning foreign policy group, who have plunged America into Vietnam and other wars and squirmishes.
________________________

The Council on Foreign Relations
&
And the Trilateral Commission

The two organizations that run the United States

Its influence

In 1944 and in 1948, the Republican candidate for President, Thomas Dewey, was a CFR member. In later years, Republicans Eisenhower and Nixon were members of the CFR, as were Democrats Stevenson, Kennedy, Humphrey, and McGovern. (Note: We believe Kennedy became disloyal to the CFR prior to his assassination.") The American people think that they have a choice when they vote for a President, but the truth of the matter is , with few exceptions: Presidential candidates for decades have been CFR members.

In one of the CFR’s annual reports, published in 1978, it listed a membership of 1878 members. Eleven of its members at this time were United States Senators, with even more Congressmen belonging to the organization. 284 of its members listed in this report were United States Government officials. And the Chairman of the Board of this immensely powerful pyramid was stated as being none other than David Rockefeller himself.

The CFR not only has its members in the United States Government, but its influence has also spead to other vital areas of American life. According to Newell: "Its members have run, or are running, NBC and CBS, ‘The New York Times’, ‘The Washington Post’, ‘The Des Moines Register’, and many other important newspapers. The leaders of ‘Time’, ‘Newsweek’, ‘Fortune’, ‘Business Week’, and numerous other publications are CFR members. The organization’s members also dominate the academic world, top corporations, the huge tax-exempt foundations, labor unions, the military, and just about every segment of American life."

Barry Goldwater states in his book, "With No Apologies", on page 231:

"Does it not seem strange to you that these men just happened to be CFR and just happened to be on the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, that absolutely controls the money and interest rates of this great country without benefit of Congress? A privately owned organization, the Federal Reserve, which has absolutely nothing to do with the United States of America!"

<snip>
http://www.prolognet.qc.ca/clyde/cfr.html


Clinton - same thing. CFR selected and supported.

And now - two of our Democratic hopefuls.

There's no such thing as an outsider winning. More smoke and mirrors to better manipulate people. Find out what they want to hear, tell it to them, get their votes and go on about your agenda.

We are so depressingly gullible.


You can read about Carter and the CFR here:
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Trilateralism/JimmyCarter_Trilat.html

...who is the Council on Foreign Relations supporting this time?

-snip-

William H. Kent CFR
Nannerl O. Keohane CFR
Robert O. Keohane CFR
Harry F. Kern CFR
Paul J. Kern CFR
Ann Z. Kerr CFR
Clark Kerr CFR
John Forbes Kerry (D-Md) CFR/S&B 1966
Martha Neff Kessler CFR
John G. Kester CFR
W. Carl Kester CFR
J. L. Ketelsen CFR
Francis A. Kettaneh CFR
Paul V. Keyser, Jr. CFR

-snip-

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/cfrall1.htm

I know him.... his nickname in college was "Mad Dog"

all of this CFR stuff is truly ridiculous... running the US with only 1878 members? puh-leaze

There are two big groups of theorists in Political Science-

the pluralists

and the elitists

They are making observation not reccommendations.

The elitists would argue as you have that whether the nominee is Democrat or Republican he needs significant support from the elites in this country.

I think the right is going to attack Dean's personal life later. Like the problems with his son etc......

ever to be run in 1976.

Dean is showing signs of having something like that support.

The only question I still have is does he have the ability to beat *...

He has to have the ability, because they will bury us with money...

Carter ran a great grassroots campaign.

Hopefully Dean won't be as abrasive and elitist as Carter was when he entered the White House. Hopefully Dean can surround himself with experienced insiders.

Carter certainly had his personality problems.

What I remember best about the era is the extent to which Dems beat the crap out of Carter. I couldn't understand it then (still don't).

The Dems set Carter and the whole party up for failure. They made a science of political failure. The Repubs took advantage of the upheaval.

him almost from the beginning. Ted Kennedy's run against Carter in 1980 was the final culmination of that dysfunctional relationship.

He lives in my town, and my professors worked with his campaign. So I get to hear about it all the time.

He did the Panama Canal Treaty, the SALT II treaty, negotioated peace between Israel and Egypt, and created the departments of Education and Energy.

That's a tall order in just 4 years. He was unable, though, to ever make himself a "Washington insider" or to fix the economic problems that Ford left.

He was the first President I ever voted for, and the first President I ever worked for.

Carter was the southern populist. The exact opposite of Bill Clinton. When he tried to pass National Healthcare, it failed not because it was "too liberal", but because Ted Kennedy didn't feel that any bill should of been allowed to pass in his committee except for his own. This is a pity, because Carter's bill would of provided universal coverage, and unlike Kennedy's bill, could of passed in the then Democratic controlled Congress.

Jimmy Carter was anything but abrasive! If we had an abrasive leader in 1980, like shrub or Reagan...all the hostages would have woundup dead, and not been returned alive thanks to a President who kept his cool. Like 9/11, such a crisis may give the President a boost in the polls, but this is not what we should expect from the Commander in Chief.

Dean could as easily be a Clinton success.

Your analogy is crap. Try again.

He had a base- He carried every single southern state except Virginia. No Democrat will do that again in our lifetime.

The fact that he brought the entire south with him "to the table" is what distinguished him.

Northerners are much more likely to vote for a Southern Democrat than Southerners are likely to vote for a northern Democrat.

Also, Jimmy Carter is an intensely religious man. Howard Dean is an intensely secular man.

And while Georgia isn't the largest state in the Union it's about , what 15 times larger than Vermont.

Other than that they ran as outsiders I see very few similarities.

I dunno, I never bought the hype. I never saw Dean as the dark horse, and frankly, being as hyped as he is, having raised so much money and ranking as he does so soon, I don't know how anyone else can see him as one either.