To all anti-Dean DU posters...may I please make a single, diffident point?

Each day, I see more and more threads attacking Dean. These threads are started by DU posters who adopt an indignant or belligerent tone towards those of us who are supporting Dean, who are excited about Dean, or who have in some way expressed enthusiasm or excitement about Dean.

The gist of all these posts (if I may do the posters the disservice of clumping their remarks together) is fairly straightforward: Dean is not the best candidate.

These posts then list Dean's positions, or refer to his gubnatorial record, the speeches he's made, or other Dean remarks, in an effort to show that Dean is dishonest, or has behaved badly as a candidate, or in some way betrays or contradicts the essential Democratic message that he claims to stand for. Or, these posts warn of the strategic blunder of a Dean candidacy. Some of these posts adopt the Lieberman-esque "leading the party into the wilderness," and some don't, but, in general, there is a warning tone that suggests that those DUers who support Dean are either self-deluded or naive and are going to learn a rude lesson in November '04, if not before that.

While I can't speak for all Dean supporters, I think there's an essential misunderstanding inherent in all of this.

To explain, I'll describe my own position, which I think is fairly representative of the Dean "movement" in general. I am very excited about Howard Dean. I am, in fact, more excited about Howard Dean than I've been about any single Democratic figure on the landscape since Al Gore. I might even go further, since my enthusiasm about Gore has always been muted by Gore's puzzling (and occasionally maddening) behavior and tactics.

I am excited about Dean for a single reason. I'm not even going so far as to say that he's the "best" candidate, nor do I necessarily believe that, amongst the Democratic contenders, he's the one who would made the "best" President. That stuff happens all the time, in each election year. My excitement is based on something far more profound and unprecedented.

I like Dean because he has sought out, and has found, the hidden anti-Bush fervor in the general public.

For three years the press and the Democratic Party has acted like there is no such fervor. They have behaved as if Bush is the second coming of FDR, Reagan, and Kennedy combined. They have accepted the Karl Rove/Bill Kristol/Ann Coulter line that the public loves this thoroughly unlovable President.

Month after month (since 9/11) I have watched in horror as every major news organ, every public figure, and every opinion-maker has catered to Bush's agenda. To my intense disgust, my own political party has not only rallied around Bush; they have led the charge. On DU, we saw the disasterous results coming in 2002 and were powerless to stop them. People like Daschle, Lieberman, Gephart, and H. Clinton have astounded me with their weakness, prevarication, and lack of courage and vision.

In short, we on the left have behaved like battered wives, putting sunglasses over our bruised faces and insisting that we aren't being exploited, raped and beaten. Every single public figure has given into this trend, with the sole exception of Al Gore, whose overdue and underreported "fire in the belly" speeches keep coming across like the increasingly shrill voice of a discredited and self-deluding outsider.

It has gotten so bad that most of us have forgotten what it was like to have a real party to belong to.

Howard Dean is on the covers of Time, Newsweek, and U.S. News this week. He is there for one reason: he raised half a million dollars in a few days, over the internet, mostly in small personal checks. He raised this money because he made clear that he opposes George W. Bush, and that he won't step down from that challenge.

This is an incredible development. It's more than that: it's the kind of event that should have DUers jumping for joy. It's as if Dean entered an abandoned and discredited old mineshaft...and struck gold.

Call him opportunistic if you want; but it's the same "opportunism" that propelled Clinton in 1988, when the party was considered dead and old war-horses like Edward Kennedy and Mario Cuomo were sitting on their hands.

It's very early. It's August of the Primary Year. Anything could happen. But, for the first time, I can hear my brethren. I don't have to speculate any more about the vast American public and how they would react if they were shown an alternative to Bush, and to gnash my teeth that my party refused to provide one. Now, they can SEE an alternative to Bush, and they are rallying behind him. For the first time since the awful night in December 2000 when this whole nightmare began, another flag has been planted.

I'm not saying that Dean is the answer, in the long run. I'm not sure that any Dean supporter is really saying that. But, when I hear Republican family members and friends speaking so admiringly of him, it's like I can FINALLY see the weather vane turning.

For the first time, I can hear America's dissatisfaction with Bush. It's in those checks and pay-pal donations, and now it's on the cover of Time Magazine. I won't have to move to Canada or France. This really IS my United States.

We should all be excited about this; even if we don't like Dean. And we should understand, all of us of DU, the momentousneous of what's happening.

I'm sorry to take such a presumptuous tone. But I feel strongly about this and I think I'm not alone. The infighting is not necessary.

or that he would make the best president?

I think some Dean supporters would disagree.

Your post was a very thoughtful and moving one, though. I can understand where you're coming from.

If the Democratic Party really wants to get to its roots it should encourage Dean to drop out. Why? He is at the highest level of popularity, drop out now while he is ahead and wait till 2008 perhaps, and do some research about what being a liberal is.

He can't run as a liberal because he has only researched how to be MD and not a radical.

If he wants to defect from conservatism he has to renounce all conservative philosophies such as his pro gun and pro death penalty platforms, and read about the American labor movement’s creation of liberal movements before it sold out to the mob and to reactionary politics. And to read up about history of Dissent in America. Dean is just a person that wants to deal with the symptoms of our social ills not get to the root of its cause, only then can he organize and opposition to all the injustice of the conservatives.

But to say he can change it because he is like them will change nothing.

you otherwise make some good points. and BTW, the living JFK is as close to our roots as we'll get thank you.

so let me state this. There are some Dean supporters who consider anyone who is critical of Dean, a Rovian bug, and frankly Dean is too conservative for me on things. I also dont like being told Kucinich has no chance by some people whose candiate too was way down in the polls. I am not gonna tell you all the reasons why I prefer Kucinich and Kerry to Dean but I will tell you that I do and its simply state that they are better on the issues and I prefer them too. So please understand I am not gonna attack Dean really but I really dont understand Dean's appeal, and yes I have comteplated whether I am a progressive dinosaur heh. So hear me please, I dont understand Dean's bashing of things he had simliar views on a la the war resolution. Dont flame me Dean supporters really please dont, I try my best but frankly I dont think hes the best we got, and to be honest understand Dean isnt the only one bashed and Dean supporters have bashed too. Thanks, dont give me hell for this. I really wanted to be honest in a way.

What I have seen from the Dean campaign that I haven't from many of the others is a confirmation that the people rule, not big business. Dean is relying on many individuals, not just fat cats. He's reminding folks that the government is of, for, and by the people.

I am still looking around, but Dean's appeal to what I believe to be the core of our nation-that the people rule-is one reason I'm leaning heavily towards supporting him. My husband has already decided: for the first time in his life, he plans to contribute to a political campaign.

No, I don't agree with everythng Dean says or does. But I feel that his approach to campaigning is what is needed to get rid of Bush.

I personally admire him more for his political strategy (genius potential to unite two opposite halves of the party) than his tapping of my outrage, but I agree with your point. An undeniable part of what makes Dean exciting is his ability to bring our emotions back into politics.

However, you have to realize that a lot of people feel as strongly about other candidates as you feel about Dean. There are Dean supporters who go after other candidates, so there are supporters of other candidates who go after Dean. I personally have yet to get really passionate about one candidate, but Dean is one of my three favorites. You have to acknowledge that some are not swept up in the Dean movement, and are not obliged to be excited about it.

Speaking for myself, I think what he has done in terms of fundraising and expanding his presence has been very inspiring and heartening. It's part of what separates him from the pack to be one of my favorites. He's going have to more to get my full support--we have some very good candidates.

Edi: Ooh! My own pet peeve! Misspelled "separate"!

eliminates aggravation from Dean-bashers.
Those who have serious & sincere questions or comments
about Dean's shortcomings are worth hearing & considering
& exchanging ideas with.
Bashers = ignore. Try it, it works.

:kick:

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

I have gone through those emotions and feelings you descrbe so perfectly, too!

I want to e-mail this post to a friend of mine who is curious about Dean and I'm sure wonders what I am so estactic and avid about!

I'm so glad you posted this because I was really getting down about this particular thing even though I won't let myself get bummed for very long.

I was on such a good high after my first Dean Meetup last night! And the momentum is astounding!

And now reading your post has helped put this other thing to rest in my eyes. :-)

And that's okay I guess.

I understand everything you're saying and was leaning towards Dean for the exact reasons you state. But then something bizarre happened and it turned me off cold, not that I wouldn't support Dean if he gets the nomination.

A few weeks ago when the Niger story hit, some of the Democratic Party tried to begin holding Bush accountable. Finally there was an actual fact to go on. Instead of everybody rallying behind this effort, Dean came out and pretty much stated any Democrat that voted for the authorization had no business saying anything against the war. And all the Deanies fell right in behind him. And the story is gone.

Dean had an opportunity to put the party and the country first and mount a cohesive campaign against Bush. Instead, he put his own campaign first and that is something I won't get over.

Call it bashing if you like, but that's the way I see it.

that Dean ought to play his out-in-front-against-the-war card
more judiciously, because everybody knows about it by now,
but do you have a cite for...

"Dean came out and pretty much stated any Democrat that voted
for the authorization had no business saying anything against the war"

did not "fall in behind him" ...We all wanted that niger story to go the whole way. And there is no proof that Dean tried to kill it.
just more innuendos.

Thats when he said tht everybody makes mistakes and we should shift our focus. Right? They tell me it was a brilliant strategy.

Clinton and not Dean?

Seriously though, could someone give me a link to Dean saying that war supporters shouldn't criticize about the Niger stuff?

on that cite/quote, sandnsea.
By the way, IF Dean did say it,
he shouldnt have, but we shall see...

about 10 of them, but when I went to post, the whole thing screwed up and I can't get them back. I also ate dinner, I presume that's okay?

I'll go get them all again.

These are a couple where he diectly attacks other candidates. There's similar statements where he attacks 'those in Congress'. How are the Democrats supposed to go after Bush when Howard Dean is attacking Congressional Democrats at the same time?

"Or did he, in fact, know what the truth was and tell us something different. I’ve called for an independent investigation headed by Republicans and Democrats who are well respected in the country to find out what the president did know and when he knew it. We essentially went to war, supported by Senator Kerry, Representative Gephardt, Senator Lieberman and Senator Edwards, based on facts that turned out not to be accurate. I think that’s pretty serious and I think the American people are entitled to know why that was."

"If they are opposed to the doctrine of preemption, then why did they vote for this preemptive war?"

And here's a couple of general bashes, anything that's not true I consider a bash.

“I think we’re going to beat the living daylights out of these other candidates because they need a backbone transplant.”

"Too many in my party voted for the Patriot Act." Then he says "I will repeal *those parts* of the Patriot Act" He doesn't even come out and criticize the whole Patriot Act himself, but attacks others for voting for it. Nobody seems to remember that little detail.

There's alot more, anybody who wants to be honest with themselves shouldn't have any problem finding them.

"Dean came out and pretty much stated any Democrat that voted for the authorization had no business saying anything against the war."

I dont see any of your quotes being supportive of that statement.
That's why I asked, because your interpretation of what he said
is extreme at best, misleading at worst. That's all. I still
believe that he should be more sparing in his pressing of the
advantage he holds on the anti-Iraq War issue, but I dont think
what you posted supports your claim that he said pro-war candidates
should say nothing critical about the war. We're gonna have to
agree to disagree on this one.

Some people only see and hear what they want to, not that you're in that category. Every time Dean comes out against Bush, he's quick to attack the candidates who voted for the war at the same time. That's effectively saying he's the only one who has the right to attack Bush on the war because the others voted for the war too. In one quote he goes so far as to chastise those who are 'trying to say they voted for the authorization to force Bush to go to the UN'. Never mind nobody ever said that that I'm aware of; and never mind that's Dean's exact position on the authorization anyway. And when was the last time Dean put out a press release on Bush's war lies? I have no use for him.

Oh. I didnt know that.

You again claim he is saying something he
did not say:

"That's effectively saying he's the only one who has the right to attack Bush on the war because the others voted for the war too."

That's your interpretation, based on your stand
that you have no use for him. That's understandable.
But he is asking legitimate questions of candidates
who supported the war but now criticize it. If I were
one of them, I would say, "I was wrong in supporting the
war, in voting for the resolution. I was misled by false
intelligence, and I praise Dean for having the foresight
to be against the war before me," etc.

Who's your man or woman, by the way?

Front page of his website...

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_statement_foreign_iraq

Oh, and on 7/25 dean came out with this:

"It's Time For The Truth"

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7147&news_iv_ctrl=1441

Hope that answers your question...

I give up on this issue. I have no use for him because he's a liar on his position on Iraq. I didn't decide I have no use for him BEFORE that, it was afterwards. And I just got through reading a list of his quotes in Politics & Campaigns, and they support what I've already said.

Howard Dean was not anti-war. Howard Dean said Saddam Hussein was a threat, needed to be disarmed, unilaterally if necessary. That's what he said. In December 2002, he said Bush should have gone to the UN and told them that the UN resolutions needed to be enforced and that if they didn't do it, we should do it ourselves. Well that's what Bush did in September. That's what Congress authorized him to do in October.

And Howard Dean did nothing to support the Democratic Party in the effort to hold Bush accountable. If he can't put defeating Bush ahead of his own political campaign, then I don't believe he is the man to unite this party and defeat Bush.

But I'd still vote for him if wins. Which is more than I can say for the 'I'll never vote for someone who voted for the war" bunch.

who do you favor as a candidate?

(For the record, I've never said
I'll never vote for someone who voted
for the war. I'd wager that's a small %
of the Dean folks.)

I've said repeatedly that I will make my decision towards the end of the whole process. Watching the way somebody campaigns over the long haul is as important as their policies. I've given money to Sharpton, I'm more of a Kucinich person at heart, I like Gephardt's union roots, I like Kerry's policies, I like Edwards' sincerity.

Just have to wait and see.

I can respect your viewpoint (although I don't agree), because it seems you have at least reviewed Dean's record and statements. We'll have to agree to disagree on this point.

But, I look forward to rooting on our candidate with you after the primary is over. :toast:

1. This is a political campaign. Dean is a candidate in it. That he points out inconsistencies, as he sees them, in his political opponents is hardly something to complain about.
2. He does this with good reason, even if he doesn't win the nomination. He is trying to get across the point that the party needs some integrity and BACKBONE. This cannot help but be very good for the party in the long run. And it's already working. Some of the candidates are stronger in their statements now, especially about the trumped-up intelligence re the Iraq War, than they had been in the past. By challenging them, Dean gave them a little more courage.

what they want to...

:eyes:

would partially retract one's initial post considering the lack of evidence one found for it.

His statements were meant to discredit and quiet anybody who voted for the war from talking out against anything to do with the war. Period.

Clinton undermined the Democratic attack on Bush so much more than Dean could have.

That's exactly what I said the night he said what he said. I was very upset. At least Clinton also added the fact that any uranium intelligence should have been seen by the President. That information kind of got missed.

But it still doesn't change what Dean's done for months. Which is the reason these 'stop bashing Dean' threads annoy me no end.

these candidates to say they had no idea? Well that's just so much horse caca. It would take a bit more than that to turn me off an honest speaking candidate.

Absolutely right - what I object to is the strident insistence that everyone other than Dean is a hypocrite, RINO, whatever - it's like these people haven't been paying attention to the news until the last 8 months.
If you are feeling all stirred up about Dean and his campaign I say great. Work for the campaign, trumepet the cause, more power to you. If you think that the excitement he is generating is something new and unprecedented, well, I won't try to convince you otherwise. Time will tell.

I agree with your assessment about Dean and Gore, but I'll go a little further. Late last year, I was really excited about the prospects of a Gore candidacy. He was finally getting his voice, and he was showing a lot of passion. The polls were overwhelming in his favor. And then he was gone. With very little reasonable explanation, he slipped away, not even giving the policy talks that he promised. It is obvious that people in the DLC, and most likely Lieberman supporters, were the ones who forced him to drop out.

After that, I leaned towards Kerry because I felt that he had the best chance of beating Bush. Dean hadn't taken off yet, and I hadn't gotten a chance to hear him speak, so he was pretty much an unknown to me. In the past few months I have gotten a chance to learn more about Dean, and he is exactly the type of candidate that I have been hoping for.

But this is where it gets complicated. I like Gore a lot. I still believe that Gore would be an excellent candidate, and would very likely trounce Bush. But I still don't want him to run. Why? It's exactly because I like him so much. I would have to choose between him and Dean, as I suspect a lot of people would. What that would do is split the vote between them, clearing the way most likely for Kerry. I have nothing against Kerry, but he just doesn't inspire me like these other two candidates do. Which is exactly what I believe some people are hoping for. Al Gore isn't going to change his populist message, so it is hard to believe that the people who screwed him over in December would be embracing him now.

but who cares? He's got the brains and then some. Most importantly, he's got the longest, truest track record of ANY of the candidates, and he's already lining up a formidable arsenal of important, substantial support in the form of endorsements, money, organization, and critical mass and momentum. (Kind of like W Bush in 2000, but at least the suit Kerry's wearing is filled.)

And my support for Kerry does have a lot to do with his percieved chances of winning (electability) and since the stakes are higher than ever before, I don't want to take a any chances. We need the biggest piece of ammunition in our arsenal, and it's Kerry.

come down on you. I have supported Edwards 1st, Kerry 2nd, and was pretty neutral about Dean. But over the winter and spring, I learned that posting anything short of worshipful of Dean was met with a barrage of abuse. Just ask some folks who've been here for awhile.

Dean's supporters, as well as my own education about his REAL stances convinced me that Dean is not the guy I will support. He got on the map by attacking the other candidates, demeaning and distorting their positions. It went on for months. And now, some candidates and their supporters dare to hit back, and you guys cry "foul".

Give us all a break. Dean started the sh.., and now he's got to deal with the ..it.

I think he is a dishonest person, an opportunist. I will respect your support of him, and if he gets the nomination, I will support him.

But he has left a bad taste, like no other candidate in this primary has - and he doesn't deserve to, and I don't think he will, win the nomination.

Lieberman, Kerry, or Kucinich? They have all engaged in the same exact thing.

"But he has left a bad taste, like no other candidate in this primary has - and he doesn't deserve to, and I don't think he will, win the nomination. "

I was initially favorable to neutral about Dean, but it was his supporters tactics/attitudes here at DU that left the bad taste for me (or maybe brought out the contrarian in me), not so much Dean himself...the only time I really got to see Dean was on those candidate forums and on Russert.
The Russert interview was interesting.

I need to tune-out DU and read those Newsweek and Time articles about Dean to get a more balanced view of the guy.

Because you have almost single-handedly knocked Edwards off my list of favorites with your divisive, opportunistic and less than candid argumentative style.

I support Kucinich, but I think all of those who have the strength to attack the administration deserve to be complimented. I'll be happy to support any candidate who can, in DK's words, "stand up, and speak out, and challenge this administration!"

There are two stances to take...

Dean has found a group he has studied, and has decided to tailor a message in order to get that groups support and you like that message and do not care whether he is telling the truth or not about what he actually will do if he wins the nomination and gets in office...

Or you hear a message, and decide to look at whether this message is one Dean actually intends on following through with.

There is another way of looking at Dean...

That he is another democrat who is moving the party further in the direction that are part of the reasons that you are disatisfied with the democratic party.

The example of what Dean did when the information came forth about Bush's faked intelligence. Rather than engage in a united democratic front against Bush, Dean attakced not Bush but trhe democrats who have been trying to stop Bush actrions sonce last October.

Deans attack on the October Resolution made didvided Democratic frce against Bush again, as Democrats insist that this act required Bush to exhaust all diplmatic and peaceful methods before use of force. Again Dean attacked this stance, weakening the democrats ablity to gain united demcratic public opinion to hold Bush accountable
Dean would ratther see Bush succeed, than assist Democrats in actively and forcefully opposing Bush.There was a name for these type of Democrats in 1980. They were Reagan Democrats, forcing the party into taking ever more connservative stances in order to stay in power.

Again. Deans comments about Social Security is another example. Deans statements conincide with the Republican ideas of weakening Social Security. Push the retirement age to 68 or 70. Dean has said both.

Dean supporters spent the better part of a day railing that Dean never said any such thing. Until Dean apologized and said his statements were wrong. Another of a long sequence of ean apologies for directly lying, or misrepresenting the actions of others.
The democratic party, and people like Kerry have been VERY effective in opposing Preublican attempts to weaken or destroy social programs. Kerry and oter republicans forced numerous labor and health acts through Congress that created the environoment that Dean had in Vermont.

The message may have some validity, but the record of the messenger has none. There is a great disconnect between Dean the Governor, and the Dean who is trying to say what you want to hear in order to get your worked up and enthusiastic about voting for him...

You simply are stating, you beleive him because you beleive him because he gets you worked up.

That does not necessarily point to Dean being able or even willing to make anything better than the hash Bush has made of this nation.

Deans record in many ways resembles Bush's. Dean was just fortunate that CLinton was president when he was governor.

What I do know is that as Governor, Dean was fiscally every bit as conservative as Bush, and socially, he was not much better.


I also know that in less than a year Dean has been caught lying, misrepresenting and having to apologize or retract statements numerous times. Once, OK. but three or four times, I am inclined to doubt the honesty of the man.

I think it was Robert Heinlein who said that 3/4ths of a lie is wanting to beleive it.

Perhaps that is why Dean has the support he does. They desperately want to beleive the message, so much that they are willing to ignore the record of the messenger.

+

how tiresome you are.

needed criticism to me. Was Dick Gephardt representing me when he stood shoulder to shoulder with George Bush and promoted an illegal invasion of Iraq? No! Was Joe Lieberman representing me when he said we should tone down our criticism of GWB and the lies he told to get us into that illegal invasion? No. Where was Kerry when he had to take some political risk and cast a vote that was not popular but was correct on the authorization to go to war? He was cowering behind the GOP.


In January, Dean gave a speech against the invasion. That was when the majority of Americans strongly supported the war. If the coward Senators and Congresspeople wanted a united front on Iraq, they should have done what was right when it required some risk. Now they want to dissemble their records and say "me too." It's too late. Dean's criticisms are entirely legitimate. I for one am glad someone is pointing out that to beat George Bush you have to stop agreeing with George Bush.

Would bring together a group of 12 in my hometown that included a registered Republican, 2 independents who have never worked on a political campaign, a local union official, and diehard Democrats to work for him?

No other candidate is doing that here...or anywhere close.

I care about getting rid of Bush right now and want to work for the next 14 months to do it...I don't want to wait until January or February when Kerry, Edwards, Gephardt, etc. get around to it.

The Dean campaign supports us...and we support each other. THE ultimate goal is to get rid of Bush, and the Dean campaign is nearly the only act in town to do that. In my opinion, we don't have time to wait, every step taken now is valuable. The other campaigns that are focusing only on Iowa, N.H. and S.C. don't seem to get that.

aside from being the most boring scifi writer of all time...next to AC clark.....Heilein was a conservative....interesting that alot of your cited news comes from right wing sources....

Here's the clearest example of what the thread author is talking about...

See much of the devicivness is conducted by a few radicals (yeah we have them too) who's sole purpose it to use the limited time they have on this planet pushing down on the human spirit instead of lifting up....

In other words...there are two types of posters here at DU...those who spend all their time tearing down other people's candidates to lower them below their candidates and those who spend all their time trying to raise their candidate above the rest of the field....

Let's try and ignore the former and pay attention to the latter....that's where the better angels of our nature really lies...

I just talked to my folks - both in their late 70's, he a retired West Pointer, she an "army wife."

They loved Gore, hate Bush.

We were talking about today's Gore speech, which they just saw clips of. They loved it, especially the parts where Gore attacked Ashcroft and Rumsfield.

And as my mom said "Gore Out-deaned Dean!"

THAT is what folks have been looking for, as the original poster stated. Somebody who is willing to call the moron in the white house "the moron in the white house."

Everybody in my family is glad to have the democratic party back again.

Hi AYM, and thanks for my favorite post since Plaid Adder's last masterpiece. Yes, while the other Dems mainly come across as saying "my clothes are prettier than Dubya's" Dean is telling people that Dubya is stark naked and it RESONATES. Like you I will support the eventual nominee but FOR NOW Dean is the one saying what must be said HOW it must be said and you have hit the nail on the head.

I felt myself breath a sigh. You hit on the key:

"I like Dean because he has sought out, and has found, the hidden anti-Bush fervor in the general public."

And the anger:

"Month after month (since 9/11) I have watched in horror as every major news organ, every public figure, and every opinion-maker has catered to Bush's agenda. To my intense disgust, my own political party has not only rallied around Bush; they have led the charge. On DU, we saw the disasterous results coming in 2002 and were powerless to stop them. People like Daschle, Lieberman, Gephart, and H. Clinton have astounded me with their weakness, prevarication, and lack of courage and vision".

And, the hope:

"It's very early. It's August of the Primary Year. Anything could happen. But, for the first time, I can hear my brethren. I don't have to speculate any more about the vast American public and how they would react if they were shown an alternative to Bush, and to gnash my teeth that my party refused to provide one. Now, they can SEE an alternative to Bush, and they are rallying behind him. For the first time since the awful night in December 2000 when this whole nightmare began, another flag has been planted."


Well done.

You're very kind. I'm just stating out what seems to me to be a fairly clear and direct series of points. It's easy for all of us to miss the forest for the trees.

not even hang around places like this. Go back and read some of them "how did your Dean Meetup meeting go posts" you will see the positive vibe there. Much of that is the tip of Iceberg. You will see the Dean bashers try to lay into the dean support folks the board mostly it’s out of anger because their candidate is not doing that good.. Most of Dean movement is hard to effect because it is just so grassroots in scope.

The lot of Dean Supporters on DU are just defending the periphery, and hashing out issues and concerns early. These people that come in to bash, make stuff up, nitpick and use their double standards will get theirs in the end, and what will be funny is they have helped bring on their selves. There is nothing more interesting than debating someone that doesn't understand what hypocrisy means, for the simple fact of how much of a crowd it brings in wondering what the fuss is about.

Know nothing about DU...so I agree.

And he does it without getting all apoplectic like Kucinich (Who I really like, but come on - get real - it AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN) If Dean can polish off the rough edges, he could be a great candidate. I am a little concerned about the scene when he shakes the 6'1" Bush's hand at the debate though - he better wear his platform shoes!

I hate Bush & his cabal and I'm not about to say it. They have set out to destroy everything good about this country from the beginning. They are murderous lying filth, and I will not rest until they're gon.

All you timid, scheming, small-minded naysayers can burn in Republicland hell as far as I'm concerned.

I WANT MY COUNTRY BACK!

:toast:

Thank you for putting into words how I feel about Dean. By the way, I organized a Dean Meetup this week (we had a good turnout, too: 36 people, which is a lot for our small town that's predominantly conservative). When I told the group that I've been a disgruntled Dem since the 2000 election, dismayed at how the Dems have just rolled over again and again for Bush, I got a lot head nods.

I can only agree with you that Dean, despite his weaknesses, has tapped into the underlying discomfort that a helluva lot of Americans feel towards the Cowboy in Chief.

My own feelings are that, though I think that Dean is too moderate, I can support him. Ideologically, I prefer Sharpton, Mosely-Braun or Kucinich. The four senatorial dwarves are beyond my ability to hold my nose.

I think that there is a deep seated distrust of Bush and his CEO, CFO, monied friends, in the country. And, an uneasiness about the war and it's cost in lives and money. Not to mention the disgust felt by many at the mealy mouthed excuse making of the four senators and their attempts to sink libaralism in the party.

The problem is: If Dean falters, then what? There seems to be no other (viable) liberal/left candidate to fall back on.

If-- and that's a big if I'm afraid-- Dean were to get the Democrat nomination, we might lose every single state in 2004.

You base this on what?

Seems to me that at this point there is no other candidate out there with the support that Dean is building accross the country. Please point me to another candidate that is inspiring people to stand up and take part in this election in the numbers Dean is.

Who exactly do you think can get the support needed to win even half of the 50 states if it isnt Dean. And if they can get that support why arent they doing it?

Posts like yours make me chuckle.

To make these sorts of determinations. This far out from 11/2004, there have been too many candidates in other election years whose star has risen off the charts, only to come plummeting back down a few weeks/months later. Without a crystal ball, it's hard to say who will emerge as the front-runner-- when it counts- at the 2004 DNC.

What I do know is this: Although I personally admire him for it, Dean scares away too many swing-voters to win on a national level. He may win the most liberal states, such as MA and his home state of Vermont, and he may have good numbers in the large metropolitan areas, but he won't get much more than that. There was an awful lot of red on that 2000 election map, even on the coasts when you got out of the metro areas. Any presidential candidate, Democrat, Repug, Green, Bull Moose-- whatever-- has to be able to win that red country to win the White House.

1. Strong on the Second Ammendment. He has a top rating from the NRA. Why won't that play well with the red states?

2. Balanced Budget. As govenor of Vermont he sorted out the state's finances. Vermont is now one of the few states not suffering a Bush budget crisis. In an area of America where fiscal prudence is held in high regard, why will this not play well in the red states?

3. As Govenor he has an electoral record of forging coalitions with moderate Republicans and Independants. This is in a rural state with solid rural American values. Why won't that play well in the red states?

4. All around the country his campaign is already turning Republicans and Independants in activists, not just supporters.

Howard Dean is the only candidate who can take the fight to these Red States.

And while he's doing it, he has to appear strong militarily too.

Who had actually turned out supporters in meetings across the country...in states that weren't having early primaries?

You say that history is littered with rising stars like Dean...I don't recall any who actually had created such a large organization and just fizzled.

No one that I am aware of has ever motivated this number of people to work this early...I'd be happy to hear of another example.

I appreciate your post. The Dean haters would have much more of my attention if they would post persuasive arguements for the candidates they adore.

Alas, it's only going to get uglier...hope we all have strong stomachs.

I'm responding to you without reading all the other responses here. I don't consider myself an anti-dean poster; I consider myself a pro-kucinich supporter, and I've endured plenty of anti-dennis posts from deaners who don't seem to recognize that others can find that same excitement you are referring to with another candidate.

I just spent a long time on this subject on another post; here's the thread. It's post #49. I think you'd see fewer anti-dean posts if the pro-dean posts didn't so often seem to be putting other candidates down. We could raise the civility level by focusing on the great things about our respective candidates, and debating our different perspectives without the anger and without the determination to prove how silly, terrible, unelectable, dishonest, or whatever the opposing candidates are. If our guy is great, we don't have to prove that about the competition; our strengths will get the job done.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=151259&mesg_id=151259

and good threads like this one also deserve a kick. (and people are complaining about GD quality?)