Dean profiled in Business Week

This article by William C. Symonds indicates what several on DU have long noted, including me. It bears repeating: Dean is no Liberal. And, according to one authority quoted in the article, Dean's not even a Democrat.

Of course, I know that those who support the ex-governor ex-doctor ex-stockbroker won't like this because it doesn't fawn over the guy. To them, I am sorry for hurting their sensibilities. The truth isn't always a pretty thing, but it is a necessary thing for good government.

Dean's backers need to get the real picture on their candidate: The guy is a wolf in sheep's clothing. Should he actually win the Democratic nomination and then go on to win the presidency, the record shows he probably won’t be doing too much to change things for the better — from the Liberal perspective.


Who's the Real Howard Dean?

As Vermont governor, the liberal firebrand was a fiscal conservative with close ties to business

Howard Dean has fought his way to the front of the Democratic pack jostling for the 2004 Presidential nomination partly because he has won the hearts of so many liberals with his antiwar rhetoric and shoot-from-the-lip style. But who is the real Howard Dean? Is he the left-of-center insurgent being portrayed in the press or the business-friendly fiscal conservative and pragmatic moderate who governed Vermont for 11 years?

SNIP...

Business leaders were especially impressed with the way Dean went to bat for them if they got snarled in the state's stringent environmental regulations. When Canada's Husky Injection Molding Systems Ltd. wanted to build a new manufacturing plant on 700 acres of Vermont farmland in the mid-'90s, for instance, Dean greased the wheels. Husky obtained the necessary permits in near-record time. "He was very hands-on," says an appreciative Dirk Schlimm, the Husky executive in charge of the project.

And when environmentalists tried to limit expansion of snowmaking at ski resorts, "Dean had to show his true colors, and he did -- by insisting on a solution that allowed expanding snowmaking," says Stenger. IBM (IBM ) by far the state's largest private employer, says it got kid-gloves treatment. "We would meet privately with him three to four times a year to discuss our issues," says John O'Kane, manager for government relations at IBM's Essex Junction plant, "and his secretary of commerce would call me once a week just to see how things were going."

SNIP...

Says Garrison Nelson, a political science professor at the University of Vermont: "Howard is not a liberal. He's a pro-business, Rockefeller Republican."

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/03_32/b3845084.htm

I think thats what makes him different from people like, say, Lieberman. Deans antiwar stand is whats getting him his support.

Alot of Dean supporters recongnize that this guy really isn't all that liberal...hes just liberal on an issue or issues that are salient to them.

If Dean is a centerist one should compare him with people like Lieberman and Graham, who are actually running as centerists...and maybe Edwards, who is also a bit of a centerist and is running as a populist.

I mean, he basically says, if there was a threat, we should go in. The difference between that and, say, Edwards is that Edwards basically says, "I was on the Senate foreign relations committee and the information we got said there was a serious threat...and we didn't have the choice of selectively ignoring intelligence..." In fact, there's alomst no daylight between those statements. Dean may say that subsequent events prove that the intelligence was bad, but it's really not clear where that leaves the candidates, and it's not like we even know now what the truth is either way.

By the way, I feel it's more accurate to say that Edwards is a populist running as a centrist.

And I think the thing about Dean that separates him from the rest isn't politics -- it's that he's angry, and I don't think that's a good way to be if you're a democrat and you want to win. Anger works for fascists, but I can't think of a liberal candidate who ever won on anger. Even Huey Long ran on hope.

means Dean was, "not really against the war?"

and even Kelly said there was a threat. He just didn't like the way the public was included in the debate. I totally think the war was wrong, and I'm not impressed with the public discourse, but I think that if David Kelly was saying there was something going on, and if Edwards was on the senate foreign relations committee and was seeing information that he did see... well, I'm just going wait to pass judgment when I know FACTS, not conjectures or spin.

I really think there's way more to this story that is apparent on the surface (I think it's being spun both ways). As for Dean, this issue has been debated to death here. Dean has been all over both sides of this issue. He wants to win points by saying that he's against the war, but he's said he'd be for it given certain conditions, and nobody knows if the conditions are now determined to be facts. (Of course Dean would like to say that we now know they aren't facts, but I don't know that and I really don't think he knows it either.)

So what?

The way it happened? Please deal with reality. If the hypothetical was posed with the right conditions, even you might have supported the war (say, a sattelite picture of ICBMs on Iraqi launchpads aimed at the US).

But, we are not dealing with a hypothetical. We are dealing with the way Bush ACTUALLY handeled the war and the lead up to war. can you say in good conscience that Dean supported that?

There may have been a threat (any country with weapons is a possible threat). But was the situation as dire as the Senators were lead to believe via shoddy "proof?" Apparently not.

If you're saying that the worst thing for the candidates to do was participate in a media lie of encouraging people to go along with the war, I guess, no, Dean didn't do that. But if you're talking about something like that, I'd say what Edwards has done is just as valuable. Had he opposed the war, his opinion would have been marginalized, just as France and Germany's has been on an international level. This way, Edwards bought himself entry into the continuing debate on the matter (much the way Blair has done), and with that entry, he has continuously made the point that the UN should be involved, and that the true test of America's goodness is whether we allow Iraq to free itself from both the shackles of it former dictator and the shackles of American imperialism (which is also Blair's post-war strategy). I think that's incredibly smart, and it's smarter and more valuable than what Dean is doing (and, face it, Dean was just doing what he needed to do to get a higher profile at the time).

As is your mischaracterization of Dean. Let's take your post point by point:

"participate in a media lie" - No, Bush Administration lie. Dean saw through it, I saw through it, most of DU saw through it, other candidates saw through it. What was wrong with the Senators? Oh yeah, election time!

"his opinion would have been marginalized" - No, but it will be marginalized now, because he got it wrong (note dean's rise and Edwards stagnant campaign).

"Edwards bought himself entry into the continuing debate on the matter" - See Lieberman for how well this is going over...

"and that the true test of America's goodness is whether we allow Iraq to free itself from both the shackles of it former dictator and the shackles of American imperialism" - Who are we to decide this? That's the UN's job - not the 3rd ID's. And, just how did they get into those shackles of American Imperialism in the first place? (See Iraq War Resolution).

"Dean was just doing what he needed to do to get a higher profile at the time" - Well, going against 70% of the American People on the War would have that affect. But it would have been much "safer" to join the Senators behind Bush on this one.

Oh, and please answer the question in my last post.

You're not going to vote for someone you disagree with over someone you agree with, why wouldn't they do the same?

if it's 65-75 percent who continue to support it nationally, that means it's slightly higher in the swingstates.

Dean wasn't on the intelligence comittee, he has no way of being a better judge of the facts than Edwards or Kerry.

and he'd rather win the primary and lose the general than lose the primary and actually give the dems a chance of winning

When the dust clears, people are going to remember who took a principled (if unpopular at the time) stand, and vote for the leader - not the guy who ran for political cover.

Early last month, the man many have anointed as the frontrunner for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination gave the kind of speech liberals have long been waiting to hear from a presidential candidate. Speaking before an audience of defense intellectuals in Washington, North Carolina Senator John Edwards attacked President George W. Bush's foreign policy as a case study in "arrogance without purpose" and "gratuitous unilateralism."

What happened a few days later was enough to make anyone's head spin. Edwards joined 28 other Senate Democrats and voted to approve the resolution granting Bush license to go after Saddam Hussein with all the gratuitous unilateralism he cares to muster. It wasn't even surprising that Edwards voted yes. He was one of the measure's cosponsors.

For liberal observers, watching Edwards in action felt like a time-lapsed version of watching the entire 2002 campaign. Across the country, Democrats in tough reelection fights fell over themselves to appear as centrist as possible (the list of Iraq resolution cosponsors, noted The New Republic, "read like a who's who of vulnerable incumbents"). Moreover, Edwards was joined in his vote by every other Democratic presidential hopeful, although some had delivered pre-vote speeches even more war-shy than his. For the handful of Democrats in Congress with presidential ambitions, the obsessive desire to avoid offending the president's supporters simply proved too compelling -- even if, in their hearts, they clearly believed the president's course was foolish. Two of them, Tom Daschle and Hillary Clinton, even made the astonishing claim that passing Bush's resolution would help prevent war in Iraq. Apparently, a safe vote with the President was worth even the risk of non sequitor.

More: http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2002/46/we_192_01.html

James Fallows, Atlantic Monthly, National Correspondent made an interesting observatoin on Cspan today. He noted that the media coverage seemed so one sided because the political debate was so one sided. He said that had the congressional democrats offered some substantial oppposition to Bush's plans, there would have been something for the media to report.

As it was, with Kerry, Edwards, Gephardt et al capitulating to Bush's plans, there was no media lie, just congressional apathy.

"It isn't our fault...I blame somebody else."

It is so incredibly offensive that Fallows would pretend that he doesn't need to do his job because Congressional democrats didn't want to be branded as traitors. Maybe if the media printed the truth every once in a while, politicians (like Cynthia McKinney) wouldn't have to worry about getting unelected in a hail of lies from the media which doesn't seem to care about its job.

He was doing his job. Very much so. He was writing about the dangers of the war, even questioning the "what after" plans in Oct. 2002. To his astonishment, his questions didn't get any traction. That he blames on the congressional dems. He wrote, they wimpered, end of story.

If Fallows thinks Dems fell down and that there's some big truth out there which is getting traction, I'm wondering, where the hell is that big truth. Woodward and Bernstein worked hard and told a story. Meanwhile, I'm reading FAIR reports about how the New Yorker published one tiny little criticism of Bush just once and got so much heat they went out of the their way to be much friendlier to the administration. What did Fallows write? If there was some important story he told, I must have missed it. (And again, I remind dear readers of DU of what happened to McKinney -- the one perosn in Congress trying to ask questions (merely ASK them) and the media participated in her destruction).

I've been reading some of the James Kelly transcripts, and, frankly, I'm astounded at what passes for journalism at the BBC. Nobody interested in the truth. All they're interested in some character-driven media circus in which they fit square pegs into the round holes they think will sell the most papers or get the most viewers.

No, you have a point. Fallows wasn't writing about some big truth. In fact he was writing about things like how those for the war just have to trust Bush that the threat of nuclear attack is as immenent as they say it is. He sort of dropped the ball on that one, for sure.

But the questions he raised are turning out to have been rather precient -- some, anyway. He wondered, for example, if we would be able to find Saddaam and suggested that not finding him maybe as bad as leaving him in power.

Read his article and you'll get the feeling that it was much longer than ten months ago. You'll probably also see that there were some amazingly naive assumptions, some nearly laughable (now) predictions, and some remarkable precient predictions.

Here's the link: http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2002/11/fallows.htm

Here's an intersting interview with him from the same time: http://www.theatlantic.com/unbound/interviews/int2002-10-10.htm

and he has never tried to appear that way, even to jerkoff booing Dean-supporters

but alot more independants would vote against than for Dean on that issue alone, by a 5-1 margin easily, and his signing of the civil unions bill would produce the same result

so he would lose on those 2 big issues(among other issues) that already happened and he can't change

thats retarded

it's also retarded to want to nominate somebody who seems way more left of mainstream than would actually govern that way

we need the opposite, someone who would govern as a solid progressive, but can very easily appear and look mainstream to independant and even moderate conservative voters when it matters.

Howard is probably the lesser of evils among the likely nominees for liberals and progressives.

Certainly better than Bush, much better then Joe L., but not too fatr from Kerry on everything except the war.

It is sickening that even in the shitoilke the Republicans and centrists have created over the last two decades, we still aren;t able to put up a true-blue liberal.

How many times do I have to read the same things about Dean? I've read them, I know them, I've long since decided that in the balance he is a good candidate, in fact he is the best candidate.

"the liberal firebrand was a fiscal conservative with close ties to business"

Dean has the biography of a privileged, unfocused, mendicant. People say, hell, FDR, JFK and Buddha were all rich guys who did good. Well, FDR was a traitor to his class and never would have been deen described as a fiscal conservative with close ties to business.

Or were "conservative think tanks," "IBM," and the "Republican Governor's Office," the only one's returning calls? :shrug:

"Dean's backers need to get the real picture on their candidate". . .actually, I already have one. Look, Dean couldn't have been Gov for as long as he was without being friendly to business. Believe it or not, I have no problem with "business friendly." What I have a problem with is "bought and paid for by big business and oil companies". I got a kick out of the article and there are some GREAT blurbs that the campaign can use. Hell, Dean doesn't have to "go to the center" in the general election and all the other similar crap being said about him - this kind of article DOES IT FOR HIM. Article was such an obvious "oooh, let's scare the liberals" attempt. Yeeps - believe it or not, Dean supporters don't expect Gandhi, don't expect to agree 100% of the time. At least this Dean supporter doesn't. I'll settle for a smart pragmatic realist who knows ya sometimes gotta compromise, but does it up-front and doesn't do it because he's expecting the check in the mail.

eileen from OH

Notwithstanding Vermont's political situations, It's time for a president who's going to tip the scales in favor of the public, and employees. There are couple people running who have that kind of experience.

To me, tipping the scales in the favor of the public is the most important issue in 2004, so I'll be looking for candidates who have a record for doing that.

about this argument? Think of the American electorate as a 10,000 pound chunk of granite. Big, heavy, incredibly hard to move. Folks that are so determined that they can, with one big swoop, move that block from the far right end of the stage to the complete opposite end of it (that being the left end, of course) are kidding themselves.

Lookit. We have no power. We hold nothing. No House, no Senate, no WH. We ARE in the political wilderness. The most important thing is to win. After we win and have some kind of power THEN we can start getting a little more particular and demanding. Until then I think we need to be more aware of the electability issues than your average idealogue might be.

It is a very unfortunate state of affairs but it is the situation and only by dealing with it realistically will we be able to make any progress at all.

Julie

Burn the witch!

One of his top campaign people was on NPR's The Connection along with some DLC type. He kept making the point over and over again that Dean is a centrist, not a liberal, and it's really absurd of the DLC--self-appointed Owners of Centrism--to try to paint him as a wild-eyed leftie.

So what's the news here?

...is the way it buys into the deliberate, disingenuous spin of the piece itself. The article jazzes itself up with this whole pretence of "Who's the real Dean," as if they are somehow outing him for something he has been disguising. This is SO right wing. First we attribute a position to you that you do not hold, then we accuse you of hypocrisy for not living up to it.

Well, a story needs an angle, and that's fine--that's how journalism gets written and I don't kid myself that it was not ever thus. But it's one thing to write the stuff that way, and quite another to naively buy into it and pass it along as some kind of revelation. Frankly, that's one reason I read DU--however flaky and tinfoil hat it is, I know that in general we're skeptical enough not to get caught by that kind of rhetorical trickery. I have to say--much as I respect Octafish (a fellow Beefheart fanatic)--that this is not up to standard.

By way of disclosure, I have not yet decided on a candidate and am not a Dean supporter. But I've been paying enough attention to know that

a) the definition of "liberal" is very much up for grabs (and if I could just find the analysis of a recent poll on the subject that I read this a.m. I would be deliriously happy--still searching)

b) Dean is not a liberal and in FACT doesn't in the least bit CLAIM to be.

Which does not leave me wanting to accuse anyone of bad faith, but does leave me wondering what the point of presenting this article at face value is.

on edit: the article I'm referring to in a) was about DLC vs Dean and what the polling data showed self-identified "liberals'" opinions actually were. What it actually showed was that those s-i liberals' opinions were much more similar to centrist views than the media (and Leiberman et al) would have it. Fiscal responsibility WAS a s-i liberal value, as was tax relief for the middle class etc. etc. Deep suspicion of and animus toward Bush, and equally deep suspicion of the Iraq war, were also part of the profile. Which is why Dean appeals. The point was that the DLC was misreading the results of the poll as an endorsement of their brand of Republican-lite "centrism," when in fact Dean represented a very different constituency that was much closer to what the poll showed as appealing to a broad spectrum of Democrats. And crap, I still can't FIND the goddam thing. Oh god I'm getting old and stupid. Ring a bell with anyone? I'm sure it was posted on DU.....

Doctor, I hope you know that I value both your DU Friendship and your perspectives. I remember how you — a fellow who also appreciates the work of Don Van Vliet — welcomed me onto the board when I signed in as Octafish. Thank you for remembering, too!

Regarding the Business Week Dean profile: As most DUers, you are very informed when it comes to the candidates and their positions on the issues. Many people, however, aren't so well-informed and base their support not on the reality but on the rhetoric of a candidate. And, while I believe Dean is sincere in wanting to kick Bush out of the White House, I know there are other candidates who are better qualified to lead the country as President. My candidate, I am convinced, possesses the vision and experiences needed to institute policies that would restore much of what made America such a special place before November 22, 1963.

salin made very clear yesterday http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=167565&mesg_id=167565 how difficult it will be for everyone to come together behind one candidate if we spend all our time between now and the convention tearing them up and cutting them down. The reason I posted the article was to make clear that for those who've waited for a candidate who'll really give it to the corporatists Bush fronts for, Dean is not the guy — no matter what he says.

EDIT: added "to the" in the last sentence.

So, let me guess. You, because you support Kerry, fall into the category of "very informed," while I, for liking Dean am "not so well-informed" and am basing my support on rehtoric. Yeah, that must be it. Dean supporters are just too dumb to support Kerry.

On the other hand, I've yet to see you post anything in support of Kerry beyond, "I am convinced (he) possesses the vision and experiences (sic) to institute policies that would retore much of what made America such a special place before November 22, 1963. Gee. That sounds a lot like rhetoric to me.

And BTW, what did make America such a special place before November, 1963? And please don't state the obvious because I know your not suggesting that Kerry will "restore" much of JFK.

edit: spelling

But my brain is still working. So, I don't appreciate you ascribing to me something I did not write nor have claimed. You, HFishbine, are the one who stated you and all Dean supporters are uninformed.

Regarding Kerry: Yes, he would go a long way toward restoring what America was like before JFK was killed.

First, he'd bring a Liberal perspective to the Executive branch, as his positions in the Senate have demonstrated. That means using the power of the US government to change the country for the better for ALL Americans, not just the wealthy and well-connected.

Next, an honest Attorney General would put the neo-fascists, monopolists and other sundry gangsters in their place — whether behind bars or behind the counter at the burger joint. You want to see 9-11 investigated and the crooks foreign and domestic brought to justice? Vote for John Kerry.

Need more proof? Kerry was on Nixon's Enemies List and Ollie North's Enemies List. That's the heart of the BFEE.

Kerry's approach is that of an enlightened leader, demonstrated by bringing back alive every man under his command in combat in Vietnam. JFK demonstrated the same stuff as the skipper of PT-109.

To close, because I'm pressed for time at present, remember that John Kerry is a man of vision, like his political hero, JFK.

We once had a President who said "Let's go to the moon and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard."

For those who may not understand what that means, HFishbine, JFK got our nation united behind a Great Cause: We won the race to the moon. For centuries, that had been considered an impossible dream.

A dreamer like Kennedy made that into a reality. Imagine what we could have done to solve the problems on earth? Poverty, disease, want, ignorance could be solved. The guy best qualified and EXPERIENCED to complete the job is John Kerry.

Now you're talking! See, that's so much more appealing than suggesting, as you quite plainly did, that some people support a candidate because they are buying into rhetoric. Instead of attacking others for supporting someone other than Kerry, you do much better at making the case for Kerry. You're quite articulate in doing so too.

Yes, I'm aware of the dreams inspired by Kennedy. Although he was shot the year I was born, I wasn't too young to remember seeing his dreams come to fruition. I even remember my dad telling me, as we watched the grainy black and white images, how it was president Kennedy who challenged the nation to get to the moon before the end of the decade, and by God if we didn't do it.

Interestingly, I posted on another thread today dicussing ways to create jobs, that what we really need is a massive investment in some worhtwhile R&D. I cited the space program as an example.

I'm looking for the same kind of leader you are in every way that you mention. Right now, Dean comes closest to that for me. But keep talking to me. If you inform people about why Kerry is so inspirational for you, you might win a few converts. You might even get this youngster to move him up from a current 2nd choice. But trust me, you'll do more to bring your dream to fruition if you avoid insulting supporters of other candidates.

Analysis DrBB. Wish you could remember that poll, it sounds interesting.

Ah, found the damn thing at last. Most interesting thing I've read all day on this topic.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2003/081303a.html

Basically the thesis of the article is that, DLC apocalyptic warnings notwithstanding, Dean's strategy of energizing the base is CORRECT.

While liberal Democrats may be angrier with Bush over issues ranging from the stolen 2000 election to the continuing violence in Iraq, the liberals agree with the DLC on many policies. Both favor expanded social programs, such as national health insurance, within a government that exercises fiscal discipline.

Even as Dean absorbs the brunt of the DLC’s attacks, his candidacy could be seen as reflecting this surprising commonality. As governor of Vermont, Dean acted as a restraint on many of the more progressive ideas coming from the state legislature. Though Vermont is the only state in the Union that doesn’t require a balanced budget, Dean balanced the state budget 11 straight times....

So, although the DLC has cited this poll to back up its apocalyptic rhetoric about liberal Democrats driving the party off a cliff, the poll numbers suggest an alternative – and less alarming – interpretation. By whopping margins, liberal Democrats favor a strategy of limited and responsible government. Rather than two sides deeply at odds, the DLC’s poll finds large swaths of common ground.

So the reason Dean's anti-war stance effective with "liberals"? Another relevant bit (and I'm pushing the copyright limit here, read the article!)

Not only was the nation manipulated to war, but the election was manipulated to solidify Republican power.

This background of Democratic leaders repeatedly getting suckered by Bush and the Republicans helps explain the intensity of feeling within the Democratic base about challenging Bush aggressively in 2004. The anger has thrust Dean into prominence because he opposed the Iraq War from the outset and underwent intense media criticism after April 9 when U.S. forces appeared to have won the war with relative ease.

This article does more to answer the question at the heart of this thread--Why does Dean, a "centrist" or "moderate" appeal so heavily, and LEGITIMATELY, to self-identified "liberals"?--than anything I've read so far. It also challenges the mistaken definition of "liberal," on empirical grounds, something that I think is LONG overdue, and that the DLC is as guilty of perpetuating as Faux news.

Dr. BB. I eat up this kind of stuff.

And these paragraphs are at the soul of why I support Dean fiercely over Kerry, Edwards, and Lieberman.

Not only was the nation manipulated to war, but the election was manipulated to solidify Republican power.

This background of Democratic leaders repeatedly getting suckered by Bush and the Republicans helps explain the intensity of feeling within the Democratic base about challenging Bush aggressively in 2004. The anger has thrust Dean into prominence because he opposed the Iraq War from the outset and underwent intense media criticism after April 9 when U.S. forces appeared to have won the war with relative ease.

He's out there kicking *'s jewels on a regular basis, and for now, I'll settle for that.

:kick:

So have most, if not all, of the other candidates. The Doctor seems to have gotten the lion's share of the coverage — perhaps, with good reason. He does give a great speech. And his voice conveys his essential earnestness and decency. While that can't be faked, his positions and essential philosophies can be hidden.

Thinking back to his appearance before the California Democrats (in April or May?): I was working on a project on my desktop, listening to C-SPAN covering the speeches. I didn't recognize the voice, but I sure as heck liked what he was saying. I, too, want my country back. My thinking is that it wasn't ripped off by ultra-conservative TV preachers, though. Fascists stole it on November 22, 1963.

snip>
The most controversial change under Dean's watch was the overhaul of Vermont's traditional system of paying for public schools with local property taxes. The new system shifted funds from rich towns to poor towns through a "sharing pool" and raised the burden on Vermonters earning more than $75,000 a year. It sparked an explosion in education spending, "which is up 40% since 1997 even as the number of students are down 6%," says Douglas -- and a firestorm of protest in wealthy towns such as Stowe. After Douglas took office, the sharing pool was eliminated, property taxes for homeowners were reduced, and the sales tax was boosted to make up for lost revenue, making the Dean education plan less controversial.
end snip>

Poor children should receive an education that is as good as the one received by the well-to-do. CA tried to pursue this innovative idea but Davis brought suit. Seems like a good first step in the future of AA.

Overall, I'd say this is really good press. Howard said himself, on Larry King, "I am the center!". No surprise for me but I do appreciate the details on the sharing pool.

... as well as his education funding reforms. These demonstrate that Dean's head and heart are in the right place when it comes to protecting children and investing in their future lives.

Ex-New York Gov. (and Gerald Ford's appointed vice-president) Nelson Rockefeller was a “Liberal Republican.” Now largely extinct, I believe these were the true inheritors of the Party of Lincoln. My reason: they believed that government has a role to play in making life better for ALL Americans. Because of how I identify myself, however, I prefer that a “Liberal Democrat” determine how best to go about doing that.

…
Of course last week's Dean hype managed to do both at once. It knocked him down by setting him up, in a way. No longer was the question "Is he too liberal to be electable?" Reporters belatedly scoured his record and discovered a fiscal conservative who put balanced budgets before social spending in Vermont, who opposes federal gun control legislation and backs the death penalty for certain crimes. Now the make-or-break question about Dean became: "Will liberals desert him when they figure out that he's actually a moderate?" Then came other pre-fab worries about the problems of sudden success: Had Dean peaked too soon? Could his fledgling campaign handle the attention? And OK, maybe he was moderate enough to be electable, but was he likable enough? Was his reputation for "straight talk" just a euphemism for brusque and arrogant?

Hanging out with the local Dean folks was my way of getting out of what his campaign dismisses as "the media echo chamber," and trying to figure out what's really going on. I've lived here almost 20 years. I know the San Francisco Dean phenomenon is not a microcosm of what it will take to get him elected; I saw the way the GOP smeared House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi -- and pushed her to the center some -- by calling her a "San Francisco Democrat" before she even took over the leadership post. I know we're DLC founder Al From's worst nightmare. But I also saw some intriguing things following Dean around San Francisco at the end of July, and talking to his supporters the week after he'd gone. The Bay Area Dean machine is attracting more than the usual suspects: It's neither the Greens nor the City Hall regulars; it's neither the moneyed elite nor the rabble; it's not just the young and the hip; it's not ponytailed '60s holdovers -- it's all of them, and then some. I met Republicans and Ross Perot voters who were supporting the antiwar candidate who promises to repeal Bush's tax cuts. And I met Dean himself, and watched two speeches. You can't get his charisma without seeing him in person.
…
I ran into Well co-founder, entrepreneur and activist Larry Brilliant, the only other person besides Amy Rao I knew personally, and he was beaming. "Look at this crowd!" he said, marveling at its size and diversity. Later, he explained Dean's appeal in an e-mail. "Liberals like myself may be disappointed to find out he's a fiscal conservative, in the mold of Clinton not FDR, and a moderate on most things -- except this obscene ideological 'coup' of the Bush crowd. But I'm surprised how happy I am that someone is finally calling the emperor on the fact that he has no clothes. I was afraid Bush's deceptions would go unchallenged. That alone makes me love Howard Dean. I also happen to think he can win."
…
The UFCW crowd seemed a lot like Donna Brazile: They were ready to love everybody. Only the leftier candidates -- Kucinich, Carol Moseley Braun, Gephardt and Dean -- showed up; Sharpton couldn't make it, but Kerry appeared by satellite, as befits his attempt to be a more centrist liberal. All of them got big cheers. These were the folks Al From tried to warn us about. But if Dean hadn't been red-baited by the DLC, you might well hear him as the moderate in the race. He criticized Kucinich and Moseley Braun's call for single-payer universal healthcare, the left's politically impossible dream, as well as Gephardt's expensive public-private hybrid. Kerry vied with Dean for the moderate mantle with his relatively modest healthcare plan, but overall Dean came off as the fiscal conservative in the bunch. Amazingly, he got the biggest hand from this union audience when he called George Bush a "borrow and spend, credit-card Republican" and promised to erase the deficit if he's elected.
…
One thing I don't worry about is that his lefty base doesn't know what he stands for, and will bolt when they realize he's a moderate. His base knows exactly how moderate he is. I interviewed dozens of his liberal devotees, and they all know the not-so-liberal aspects of his record. Someone at the Meetup lamented his staunch pro-Israel stance; several people I met said they differed with him on the death penalty. Brilliant says he has issues with Dean on all of his more conservative stands. "But he's not afraid to say what he thinks. Dean asks the fundamentally sound questions and does not have an ideological answer that trumps reason, as Bush does."
…
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/08/11/dean/