A lot of people here seem worried about 'Dean Worship'

My 0.02 cents:

1. I have trouble understanding why a candidate who inspires passion, devotion and pugnaciousness in supporters is a bad thing. We need passion. We need devotion. And God damn if we don't need some people willing to bloody some rhetorical noses.

2. I get the sense - and have been told by a number of Dean people - that this candidate is the first politician they have ever pinned their heart, hopes and passions to. In other words, we have a serious case of hard-core puppy love going on here. Once again, I fail to see how this is a problem. Here is a candidate bringing people in to politics, and filling them with a desire to get the job done. In the words of Colonel Kurts from 'Apocalypse Now,' "If I had ten divisions of such men, our problems in this country would be over very quickly."

3. I wish John Kerry could do to his supporters what Dean does for his.

Now, I am sure this thread will have the inevitable visitations of "He's a used car salesman" and "He's not a progressive" and "I don't trust him" and "He's too short," etc. That's fine, because that's not what I am talking about here.

'Dean Worship' is a good thing, folks. We need passion. We need devotion. We need fighters.

In fact as another Massachusetts guy my initial support was behind Kerry. One of the reasons I moved into the Dean camp is because of the degree to which Dean has managed to inspire and capture the hearts of like-minded individuals.

I can't remember a candidate (or politician) being so idolised by the Left since the Kennedys.

except maybe the Big Dog

Thats GOTTA mean something folks !

I hope we will see this subject as your next article.

Your post was a great observation and reflection of what is at the heart of the Dean movement and, needs to be at the heart of the Democratic party at large.

POLITICAL puppy love.

:evilgrin:

You got it, Will. I wish ALL of our candidates were able to inspire that kind of passion. It would make politics a lot more fun, not to mention hopeful.

Eloriel

That's what I think it is.

:hi:

:evilgrin:

We have been pretty supportive of our (desired) candidate without, at least as far as I can see, attacking the others, even though we have come under attack. I think a lot of Clark supporters could be Dean supporters and visa versa. I like the grassroots aspects of both campaigns.

I think the "envy" comes from any DU'er who needs to protect his or her candidate. . .Clark does not need that protection, neither does Dean.

. . .I think we all need to take a step back and breathe. Although I am Clark supporter I am a huge Dean fan. After his Meet The Press appearance I offered some CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM and I was roundly labled a Dean basher.

I think all need to respect the other candidates, but more importantly we should not be too sensitive to criticism of our pet candidates because some of it might actually be constructive.

I appreciate the lack of vitriol in your posts. Like Professor Plum said: "don't drink the mediawhores koolaid" i.e. stop playing into Rove's chubby little hands and bashing fellow Dems.

:kick:

Every time a Dem bashes another Dem, Karl Rove gets a 16-foot hard-on....

...we all have to say only nice things about Lieberman?

:shrug:

in politics, to be ignored is the worst insult. i'm going to do my part.

I'll probably be a Clark supporter as well when he announces and I agree with you that Clark and Dean supporters "should" be able to support either or. I hope you'd admit that Clark supporters do have ONE loose cannon on this board.

However I am not sure who you are talking about and I hope you won't let that person or persons ruin your view of Clark supporters.

Anyone that reads DU even on an every other day schedule would be aware of it. Nonetheless, I plan to support Clark unless he falters under press scrutiny in the first 30-60 days of his campaign.

loose atom bombs?

Good one! :)

anger at the way things are and the courage to change them," said St. Augustine.

I'd add a 3rd daughter, Innovative thinking, to this definition of hope. All 3 definitions capture what the Dean campaign means to me.

My support of Howard Dean grew slowly, but it has remained steadfast and strong because his campaign is helping those of us frustrated by the current Dem and Repuke leadership to find the courage and innovative thinking to help change the course of this nation for the better.

I've tried to stay above the fray on this issue -- but it's obvious that we need some passion if we're to succeed in this contest.

I just happen to believe that this level of passion that he receives from certain supporters will not carry over or transfer to whatever candidate wins, if it is not Dean.

Everyone is passionate about their candidate, but I just honestly get the impression that there are more rabid Dean supporters who will not vote for whatever Democrat gets the nomination. And that is their right. But the fact is that when it comes to the all important "issues", ultimately Dean is no more radical or liberal than any of the other candidates. Ultimately the main difference between Dean the rest of the field is this supposed fire he has and the way he inspires people. Which is great. But if someone says that they won't vote for any of the other Dems if Dean doesn't get the nomination then that to me seems shot sighted and superficial. To not vote for someone who has at least 75% of the same views and opinions as one candidate, simply because he's not as flashy or showy or inspiring.

I say this now as someone who has decided to become a Dean supporter and do everything I can to see him get the nomination and then to win. I just wish people would cut the cr*p all around and just focus on winning in '04.

Actually a study on NPR was mentioned recently and it's conclusion was that Dean supporters are heavilly Anybody But Bush folks.

Dean supporters want Bush out. Thus the support for Dean IMHO.

I didn't hear about this study but I hope it's true. I just hope a lot of these "new to politics" people still stay with politics even if Dean doesn't get the nomination rather than saying "Well that's why I was never involved in politics."

Politics isn't only a "sing if you're winning" game.

...nomination or no, the Dean campaign has already influenced, and perhaps changed completely, the tenor and cadence of the 2004 elections. The people getting involved now are REALLY angry at Bush, and they aren't likely to just stop being angry. Before this "snowball" started, it was all about Lieberman style triangulation of Bush and "giving in to his strengths" while gently exploiting the base while pandering to the middle, or some such. Now we've got an almost daily hammering of the Bush regime, we're no longer just 10% of the population that think he sucks, we're a majority that thinks he's taking this nation in a dramatically wrong direction.

I remember being a 10 percenter, it's good to be able to dissent and breathe again. We're too numerous and diverse and spread out to present an easy target, and we've got to stay that way...

I want a badge for surviving that time, damn it!

:evilgrin:

how many People have awakened! :bounce:

I like your "snowball" reference! I can really visulize it! :-)

Passion is very important to getting people excited and motivated. I happen to have a crush on another candidate, but the most important thing is people are starting to get excited. That is how we will get things changed.

when I think of voting for him. There are others I could vote for gladly but I just identify so much with Dean and I think he's a rational, logical person who looks at all the information when making a decision. That's really important to me.

with all due respect. Dean took a courageous and dangerous step by opposing the war and now I think other candidates wish they had. But the moment is gone and all that is left to them is backpeddling. I think Kerry is a good man and I heard him interviewed again on NHNPR today... I just can't get excited over him. I'll vote for him if he is nominated but I don't feel inspired to work for him. His explanation today for voting for the war was essentially ... I left it up to the President to do the right thing and he didn't. Well anyone who didn't recognize the set up that Bush engineered to get us into that war had to be comitose! Dean obviously recognized it.

and Howard Dean has that in spades.

:kick:

It will take more than belly-fire to be the next Barishnikov...er...President!

Who Dean has inspired to become involved .

I Have done many firsts with the Dean Campaign

I own a discussion group , belong to email groups .

I try to avoid these threads because they can get
good friends (whom I love) bickering like the
Hatfields and Macoys .

All in all at the end of the day I vote for Anyone But Bush in 04.

Just watching Dean manage his campaign is bearing witness to a phenomenon. If Howard Dean wins, we are witnessing and or taking part in history like 'never' before.

I also feel if he can manage the country in the same fashion as he has managed his campaign, we've got one hell of a future President folks?!

This was originally aired in June on Letterman. Amazing how things have changed.

Top Ten List 6/23/2003

10. You've actually heard of him

9. Whenever he discusses plans to revitalize economy, you get goosebumps

8. Named your cats "Howard," "Dean" and "Six-Term Governor Howard Dean"

7. You'll only watch movies featuring Ron Howard or Harry Dean Stanton

6. When you hear a report on the radio about a highway accident, you murmur, "Please, god, don't let Howard Dean be involved"

5. Constantly complain rival candidate Dennis Kucinich isn't "Howardly" enough

4. Changed outfit four times before watching appearance on "Meet the Press"

3. You stand by him despite the fact his infidelities embarrassed you in front of the entire...oh wait, wrong Democrat

To see the top 2 click here. Frankly, I didn't like them, so I left em out :D

http://www.cbs.com/latenight/lateshow/top_ten/archive/ls_topten_archive2003/ls_topten_archive_20030624.shtml

I have been reluctant to pin my hopes on anybody completely, as my dh and I worked for the Paul Wellstone/Walter Mondale campaign(s) respectively. I'm still in shock over what happened in Minnesota but am anxious to be hopeful once again.

~Peace

We had a new arrival of kittens around that time and I named our orange tabby male - Howie!!! LOL

...but those top two now seem so...interesting...in how completely wrong they've turned out...

2. When he announced his candidacy, you didn't laugh your ass off

1. You're actually considering wasting a vote on him

No one is laughing now, and no one would be wasting their vote on him...

...and they are out there in droves. I'm also glad Dean is getting so much support. The US media is constantly trying to downplay the amount of angst out there in the general population- which is evident given the millions that protested against the Iraq war. Dean is what the country needs, and what the world community desperately needs.

My #2 choice, Wesley Clark, stated in an interview a couple of months ago that it was his concern about US foreign policies that was making him consider a political campaign. Think about it, after 34-years in the army you would think Clark would want to enjoy his retirement, but instead he's pissed and worried about the coutry that he has spent most of his life defending. As Gore said this week, something fundamentally has gone wrong here...

Anyhow, we do need fighers, and Dean seems willing to fight for what is right - restoring America.

Based on what I heard of Kerry in a short interview on NPR (yeah, I hate 'em but I still listen now and then :)), I'd say that is pretty unlikely :(

But Dean supporters have this rigidity to them that I don't like.

I love Kerry, and will defend him whenever possible, but even I don't think he's perfect.

I get the sense around here that a lot of people think Dean is the ONLY person who can beat Bush in 2004. And that's just nonsense.

Any Democrat, short of Kucinich, Braun or Sharpton, can beat Bush.

The thing I like most about Dean isn't anything he stands for. I think he's a moderate in liberal clothing, but I don't care.

What I like is his ability to get people to support him. His foot soldiers.

If Kerry had that he'd be unstoppable. But I hope that if Dean doesn't get the nomination the Dean folks will still fight for whoever the nominee is.

My guess is, a majority won't. I heard a lot of folks at the meetup I went to say it was Dean or nobody. That Dean is a fighter, that Dean is this and that.

As if no other Democrat has ever fought for anything.

Personally, that irritates me to no end because the goal is unseating Bush, not getting Dem X into the White House.

So I'm at an odd paradox. The thing I like most about Dean is the fundamental loyalty his supporters show towards him and his ability to attract new people into politics. What I like least about him is also the fundamental attitude displayed by Dean folks because they're so enamored with him.

Odd, huh?

we get it from so many angles that it's tiresome. The accusation is over and over again;

"You Dean supporters don't know the real Howard Dean." *yawn* and :grr: It gets old.

I've been reading this board non-stop for months now and the posts that Dean supporters call "Dean bashing" or "attacks" or whatever are more often than not anything but. Does Dean take his hits? Sure. I think every candidate does. But then there's that extra 20% up and above that many (not all but many) Dean supporters cry about that are so completely innocuous and harmless. That's where this reputation comes from.

As I've said over and over when I was an undecided I raised questions about every candidate. The Dean posts I made were the only ones that provoked pure bile and anger and hatred over nothing.

I'm happy to say I'm supporting the guy at this point, but I refuse to change my tone on many of his supporters. I've been down this road too many times before and watched people burn themselves out in the political process because they invest way too much into one guy.

He's either too left or too right depending on who you ask.

And, I think your confusing fire with burning ones self out. Not the same my friend.

I don't think Dean is THE candidate, just the best candidate overall.

God I hope this is true

I would like to add to that list Leiberman

I don't worship any human. I really starting paying attention to Dean because he was and is willing to punch Dumya in the nose and doesn't apologize for it! My 13 yr. old watched some of the candidate forums on c-span while school was out and he really perked up when he heard Sharpton, Braun, Kucinich and Dean. He listened to Edwards, rolled his eyes over Lieberman and at the end of one of the forums, he turned to me, eyes huge, wide grin on his face, and informed me that, "If I were old enough to vote, I'd vote for her." Parental questioning followed and his response is that she has experience as an ambassador, she is articulate, intelligent and sounds like a democrat. He also thinks that Graham should stay in the senate since he is on the intelligence committee. He would like for the others to remain in their current offices as we're gonna need them later, Sharpton should continue to speak truth to power and use humor the way he does, and went upstairs chanting - Go Carol, go Carol.

Later he informed me that perhaps when he is old enough to vote it wouldn't be so difficult for an African-American woman to be elected.

From the mouths of babes....I'm done bragging now.

Oh yeah - Take that Peggy Noonan!!!!

there is hope for the next generation!

...my eleven year old son had much the same reaction. He was absolutely appauled when I told him that despite her being reasonable, with sound policy positions, she had no chance of nomination or election. His response was great, "All these people always talk about how 'the best person should get the job' (this in response to the arguments between his mother and I regarding affirmative action), but they don't seem to actually mean it if the best person is a woman or black."

Yeah, when our kids are old enough to vote, hopefully the impossible today will be the probable tomorrow.

Pisses their grandparents off mightily!

I hope my son when he is old enough says stuff like that. Tell him his adopted family of DUers is proud of him too!!

puppy love happens to those who are inexperienced.

having our candidate picked by a snowball that is fueled by the inexperienced makes me nervous.

But I ain't what you would call inexperienced when it comes to American politics.

In my case, it was disillusionment with the Democratic Party since the 2000 and 2002 debacles, more than so-called "puppy love". The Dems, with few exceptions, just were not fighting for what I believe in.

Dean has reinvigorated my hope that perhaps there is some fight left in the old mule. He may not get the nomination (although I wouldn't put money on that right now, if I were you), but I am grateful to Dean for challenging me as no other candidate has in a loooooooong time.

would you be willing to start a thread and very specificly list what you referred to when you said "The Dems, with few exceptions, just were not fighting for what I believe in."

if you are willing, thanks.

I'm on a break at work and don't have all afternoon to write a 30-page document to submit. :evilgrin:

Seriously, I'm a left-of-center Democrat, so I'm used to being frustrated by the centrism of the Party in recent years (I've been a registered Democrat for nearly 20 years). I understand that my worldview isn't the worldview that will always prevail in our pluralistic Party (let alone, in our pluralistic world). But, in general I would say that many of the Dems (Paul Wellstone was usually an exception) repeatedly rolled over for the Bush "juggernaut" after the 2000 election on key votes that I feel placed our form of government in jeopardy, or at least weakened its constitutional foundation.

The vote sanctioning the theft of the 2000 election, the Patriot Act, the Iraq vote, the "GOP Lite" strategy of the 2002 election are just a few broad categories that come immediately to mind.

Maybe, if I can find the time to write a more complete report in between doing my job, taking care of my three kids, spending time with my wife, preparing for a move to our new house in a couple weeks, organizing a big Dean event this week that I'm coordinating where I live (it will have Dean's campaign manager, Joe Trippi, as its special guest), I'll let you know. :-)

you like him because he's more left than you feel the dems have been in a long time. yet there are Dean supporter here who point out his centerism.

both camps can't be correct, can they?

i can't get anyone to be specific about anything they like about him beyond the war and the fire in his belly.

that makes me nervous because he cannot be be both a leftie and an electable centerist. i just doesn't work that way. some of you are wrong.

which brings us back to puppy love. no politician can be all things to all people so some of his supporters are infatuated rather than informed, i fear.

"you like him because he's more left than you feel the dems have been in a long time. yet there are Dean supporter here who point out his centerism.

both camps can't be correct, can they?"

Yes they can... Dean is to the left of most of the dems on a lot of issues, and he is a centrist on other issues. However even on those centrist issues, he is to the left of a lot of the dems who have been voting with republicans for the last 3 years.


"i can't get anyone to be specific about anything they like about him beyond the war and the fire in his belly."


THat's just flat out bullshit... I have posted many very specific explinations of why I support Dean on a number of issues, and i know that dozens of others have done the same.


"that makes me nervous because he cannot be be both a leftie and an electable centerist. i just doesn't work that way. some of you are wrong. "


Or you are looking for excuses to attack... when the fact is that Dean is to the left of most of the dems who have been supporting Bush's policy... while that does not make him a leftie, it does make him more to the left than those voting with the far right.

Understand? It seems rather simple to me.

"which brings us back to puppy love. no politician can be all things to all people so some of his supporters are infatuated rather than informed, i fear."

Ahh yes and like a broken record... those who support Dean just don;t know the real Dean... we must all be too stupid to see the truth, right?

And that's not bashing?

sweet jeezus...you better get your game face on friend if you think what i just posted is bashing.

if people have posted precise and clear positions i've missed them.
most of what i have seen is fire in the belly stuff. give me links and i promise i'll read the threads.

however,i also promise to post my issues with the Dean supporters in as a polite manner as i can. for instance, your reference to a broken record cannot apply to me because i rarely post to Dean threads, either anti or pro so you just nailed me with the 'sins' of others.

and what i have posted has been my problems with how i feel about him and requests for info to help me in feeling more at ease. i'm pretty sure i haven't posted any refernce to the points i made in this thread before so i don't see how i'm being a broken record.

as far as i'm copncerned this is the third time someone has flung the term basher at me without cause. i'm starting to see what some people are griping about.

I wish Dean were further left than he is, actually. I happen to agree with most, if not all, of his views, though. See, I recognize that in order to win back the White House I can't be a purist in my views. Plus, it just makes sense to build coalitions among groups that share similar values. The Right does it all the time. You think Libertarians and Religious Right types share the same POV? No they don't. Not the Libertarians and Fundamentalists I know, anyway.

Dean seems to me to be open to building a broad coalition of centrists and those on the left. I'm fine with that. What irritates me is when the Dems shun the left altogether and focuses on the center/right in their coalition building.

I also like that his campaign is organized, that it's energizing people in ways I've never seen before (and I've done work for other campaigns...I know the difference), he shows me he isn't going to let the "liberal media" or the GOP define him, and he has been at the forefront fighting Bush hard. He's been the most aggressive in that respect.

So, I stand by what I said originally: This isn't puppy love. This is a renewed sense of hope. There's a big difference between the two for me.

In my gut, I believe most strongly that Dean is a pragmatist who actually cares about governing in the way that benefits the most people.

First, he can be both somewhat centrist (which is a relative term BTW) and still be further to the left than recent nominees. Clinton wasn't exactly the second coming of McGovern.

Second, I have given several specific reasons in both other people's threads and my own as to why I support him.

I specificly like the fact that he has a strong record of fiscal sanity in Vermont. That state is vastly better off than all but a handful of states due to his fiscal sanity.

I specificly like the fact he signed and campaigned on signing, the 2000 Civil Union bill. He is still the only chief executive to have done so. He also signed and was instrumental in passing (in just months) the gay civil rights bill in Vermont.

I specificly like the fact he was spot on on this war. He has bordered on prescient when it comes to this issue.

I specificly like the fact he made reducing child abuse and insuring children priorities in Vermont.

Hijacking bastard.

:)

i'd start in on the sexist nature of the term bastard : evil grin :

no fear Will, the subject seems to have turned back to the Dean supporters pretty quickly and i'm outta here.....

BUT, happily, there are a lot of people who do -- people who have been attracted to the political process for the first time in their lives, who are now not just supporters, but ACTIVIST supporters.

And, quite a few of us old fogies too. ;-)

Eloriel

I want someone to speak up, and he does it.

It's got nothing to do with puppy love or worship.

He's the best man for the job.

if he doesn't get the nomination, I can and will wear someone else's pin at Homecoming USA.

it is not puppy love. I am 62 years young and way past puppy love. Darn! Worship, no. Try respect. I respect, and give tons of credit, to this man who came out of nowhere to stand up to Bush and his machine. He did this with class and was the first I heard doing it. He has courage to burn and has won my highest respect, effort, money, and my vote. Other then that Will, I agree with your thinking. Please keep up the good fight!;-)

it's one thing to come to the table and say "Here's a candidate" or "Here's my candidate". It's quite another to say "Here's THE candidate" and expect people to just capitulate.

To me, some of these supporters seem to worship him like Charles Manson's family did (and NO, I'm not implying THAT, so put down the flamethrowers). He's the greatest man alive and anyone who think that is the enemy. dean people slam the other candidates, then go into attack mode when anyone questions or speaks ill.

I will support dean if he gets the nomination. But if I still have a choice until then, I will use it.

I just want to encourage you to get involved with supporting your candidate offline. You probably already are, I know, but for me, it's not that I'm so ga-ga over any one candidate: I'm just passionate about EVERYONE getting out there and volunteering for their candidate. I think an enlivened democracy is the best weapon we have against Bush!

dean people slam the other candidates, then go into attack mode when anyone questions or speaks ill.

Freepshit. Anyone can go to the politics forum and count the number of attack threads against various candidates: Dean "wins" quite clearly.

that's the kind of crap Dean bashers are posting... then they get all bent out of shape when they get called on it.

And I don't mind people who have real questions about Dean... but the people who post the same garbage over and over again, after it has been explained or refuted... it is clear they are posting talking points, not debating.

How can they post the same op ed hit piece and act like it is fact, and not expect to have people point out what they are doing?

jumped behind a candidate. they are energized dems that will not desert the party if he is not nominated.

The problem isn't Dean worship, it's the touchiness, even from some long-time, sensible posters, who imagine Dean is being attacked anytime someone asks a question or posts information that's not endorsing Dean.

That's the problem Will. It seems you're not allowed to even touch the closet door-knobs without offending someone. If this is the re-action at DU, a LOT of people are going to be traumatized if he wins the Primaries and the Republicans throw the dirt they have. If this stuff doesn't get aired out now to people's satisfaction, how will we Dems feel IF he's exposed as a fraud and can't attract enough votes?

There's more to this race than getting YOUR (generally speaking because I know he's not your primary choice) candidate past the Primaries- you have to make sure YOUR candidate will stand up to scrutiny and that seems to be something most Dean worshippers are unwilling to do. The attitude from many seems to be "Run everyone else over and shut them up so we can get our horse to the race track"; anyone caught asking "Can we examine your horse to see if he can win the race" is crucified as soon as they open their mouth. Great tactic if we can convince the Republicans to keep their mouths shut. Great tactic if we can shut up all the Dems who ask why Dean's gubernatorial records are sealed if they're so stellar. Running on anger can only run so long. Running on anger blinds. Worship all you want but answer the questions!

All that said- I really like the passion Dean is inspiring because we've been missing that for so long but I think it's important to scrutinize him as closely as we are scrutinizing the other candidates. No candidate deserves a free ride in these elections!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=190887&mesg_id=190887#top

Maybe there are a number of Dean supporters who are just like you say...I think there are a number of Kerry, Clark, Kucinich, etc. supporters who are that way as well. There are more Dean people like that on DU most likely because there are more Dean supporters overall...witness the most recent online poll.

But....there are a number of us who are not like that, and please do not sell us short. I even posted a while back helping Kerry supporters celebrate his 200,000+ online signups seeing it as a strike against Bush.

Whatever candidate you would most strongly support, I really doubt you would just cast aside really passionate supporters and workers or say "You're just too passionate and committed, now please go away."

What should those of us who are longtime Democrats who have worked for other candidates and still feel very empowered by Dean and his candidacy do?

I'm not spending my time bulldozing people, I'm talking, organizing, and discussing...politics, at its best, in action!

that is a broad brush! I would venture to say that most of the Dean suppoerters are not that touch- the problem is that those who are are making an AWFUL lot of noise. Let me add that some DU Dean supporters have even publicly called them to task and this has not only been much appreciated but I think it even improved the tone of the discussions. The problem is that we're not there yet.

I did sell you short. I apologize. That wasn't my intent and oftentimes I just charge in with a bit too much intensity.

half of the Gore problem last time was the lack of a competitive primary. for months, i have been saying that our strength conmes from the vetting, from the competition for the candidacy.

here we are, five months out from the start of the primaries and we're being snowballed into trucating the procedure and anointing a candidate by the media and by people who can't agree if Dean is a leftie or a centerist.

this can't be good.

I've never heard Dean or Dean supporters say anything about wanting to truncate the procedure. I have heard him say he will go to the convention to keep his voice in the mix even if he is not the nomineee.

I am one of those who has never been fired up by a candidate before. I've voted in every presidential election since I was 18, but have never donated my money, much less my time, to a candidate before. Dean inspires me by giving me hope that the Dems won't lie back and get stepped on any more. I am comforted in having a candidate who had to fight his way to be one of the frontrunners in this campaign (and not just expect it by name recognition or arrogance) because I feel as if I have to fight just as hard to make my vote count. We must get Bush out of the WH, and Dean is the only one I've seen not tiptoe around trying not to piss anyone off. He says what he means and he means what he says, even if it's not popular. Even when I don't agree with him, I am assuaged in knowing where Dean stands.

A young man came home one evening wreathed in smiles.

'Mother!', he said (he lived with his widowed mum), 'I got a big promotion today!'

'How wonderful, my son!' replied his mother, her face lighting up as she embraced him happily. 'We must certainly celebrate, and afterwards you must tell me all about your new responsibilites!'

So she fixed a special meal, and brought out the bottle of wine she'd been saving for just such a special occasion. As they finished the last of the wine and the special dessert she'd made, she said 'I am so proud of you, and happy that I brought you up so well. But now you must tell me about the promotion!'

'Well,' he began. 'As you know, yesterday I was only a guard at the camp. But now I am in charge of administering the Zyklon B!'

The moral? Substance is important.

:shrug:

OK. Dean lacks substance, according to you. I'm not sure I get how the story leads one to that conclusion.

I think it's pretty insulting to those of us who support Dean to say that we're like the mother in this parable.

The sickest, most obsessed Dean haters are really running with the "Nazi" theme. :puke:

or a limited will to understand, I'm not sure which.

Berne used the context he did because he was a Jew (né Bernstein) and interested in social adjustment. The parable had nothing to do with the Nazis qua Nazis, only with adjustment to a pathological society. But I suspect you knew that already.

Make a nazi comparison, then when called on being out of line, claim that the listener is too stupid or humorless to GET what you meant.


What I got is that you just proved exactly the level of viscious crap directed at Dean and his supporters... someone happy about Dean is likened to someone happy about a promotion at a death camp.

which was that Will Pitt's assertion that

'"Dean worship" is a good thing. We need passion. We need fighters'

makes sense only if Dean is worthy of worship, and if the passion and fighters are passionate about and fighting for good things.

The young man and his mother in the parable are happy. He received a good promotion. They are well-adjusted members of their society. Should that be sufficient to win our approbation? Berne argued that it should not, that the content of that happiness, the meaning of that promotion, and the context of that adjustment should matter.

to someone happy and supportive of a promotion at a death camp.


And you do not see that as bashing?


So far in just this thread dean supporters have been likened to nazi guards and the fucking manson family... and you people have the gall to whine when Dean supporters call you bashers or fire back at you in kind?

who have made that contention...


I think worship of anyone & anything is not a good thing...
on the other hand, "passion" can certainly be the thing that propels many of us forward.

If anyone in this sub-thread likened Dean to "nazi guards and the fucking manson family", it appears to be the Dean supporters themselves.

Jees...you guys need to lower your blood pressure over this guy....he's only a candidate for heavens' sake..

:shrug:

Peace
DR

and I read very clearly that post. Found it disturbing. Just as I found a post several nights ago placing Lieberman into a nazi context. Very ugly and ineffective level of discourse. I have never seen such intentional imagery "win over" either an undecided, nor convert a believer. Point seems to be to score points, or play to a chorus.

I have seen these techniques used by members of all sorts of different camps.

Fortunately I have also seen more posts strive for a much higher level of discourse.

You should have found it disturbing. Dr Berne meant it to be disturbing. And it is at a very high level of discourse because it calls into question all the facile assumptions of congruence that we make every day. The assumptions such as the one Will Pitt made in the basenote.

Would you have been more okay with it if I had altered Berne's parable (I almost did) to read:

'Well,' he began. 'As you know, yesterday I was only a simple agent, but as of today I'm in charge of our whole COINTELPRO operation'

Or would that not have worked for you either? Is it perhaps that you object to any parallel being drawn in which the participants are happy and self-satisfied, but the context is pathological? Is that the problem? Can you not bear the possibility that you might feel good about something that isn't good?

I would have found that a better illustration (even if I reject the analogy - as I don't "see" the pathology - I think this is where you are injecting your subjective view on others).

So now Dean supporters are pathologolical? Where do you get that?

I actually do believe that there are strengths and draw backs to each of the existing candidates. While I may disagree with different candidates and their supporters on different issues, I would not liken support for one or another as pathological.

In the basenote, Will Pitt asserts categorically that

'Dean Worship' is a good thing, folks. We need passion. We need devotion. We need fighters.

That assertion is syntactically identical to

'Bush Worship' is a good thing, folks. We need passion. We need devotion. We need fighters.

How many here would agree with the latter? If we wouldn't, why should we agree with the former?

He is talking about Democrats...and those who wish to carry the Democratic Party banner against Bush.

any candidate?

If that is the case that is where I would have started (the concept and level of devotion - applied to any candidate) - then used your later example (a little less inflamatory)... and then pondered the question - at what point does support/passion become blind devotion become pathological?

Still not sure, though, that this was your point, as opposed to something particular to Dean supporters; rather than focusing on will's use of the word "worship".

I resist it in general --I'm scared to death that Dennis will turn out to be a fascist, so I'm watching him like a hawk. He gets no worship from me-- but I'm particularly opposed to worship of a guy who (a) makes claims I know categorically to be false (marijuana) and (b) admits to -even boasts of- not being a 'liberal'. Thanks, but we've already had more of them than we can use.

between evil and not being liberal. I think making sure people have their eyes open is always valid. I think equating people that you don't trust to evil and followers to blind adherents who are numb to the evil - that is over the top.

(the excerpted one) your only commentary is that substance matters - and you don't cite the fervor factor. Then given the context of the quote - the implication is that Dean has substance but that it is evil substance and fervor vs just support (promotion vs just job) is irrelevant if the substance is evil.

Still reads unnecessarily over the top, and unlikely to win any converts or undecideds. IF the message was just about blind, unquestioning worship, than the illustration you chose is an ineffectual one because it adds the content of evil/horror - and lets that be the dominant theme. Seems, if this was the message, an analogy to illustrate unquestioning following would be more effective.

Let's work through one fairly straightforward issue in isolation.

We know -or should know- that there's nothing wrong with using marijuana. There are tonnes of clinical evidence to support that proposition. And that is in addition to the personal-freedom issue: adults in a society that claims to be free should have just as much right to smoke a joint as to knock back a triple shot of 151 proof rum, eat a piece of really artery-clogging Linzertorte mit Schlag, jump off a cliff in Acapulco, or risk dismemberment and death trying to break the land speed record. Smoking a joint or growing a plant is a crime only because we call it a crime, not because it harms others against their will.

So someone who, like Dean, is a drug warrior is signing up for all the side effects of the drug war. The racism, the killings, the robberies and burglaries, the imprisonments, the waste of billions of dollars, the deprivation, the subversion of other governments, the growth of criminal syndicates, corruption of law enforcement, the military, and the judiciary, corruption of the banking system...all that stuff. He's signing up to make our lives clearly, measurably worse. This is a choice on his part. He need not do this. He's not stupid (I think that's a fairly uncontroversial assertion), so why would he sign up to actively make our lives worse?

Let's now step back one pace. Why would anyone support someone who will make our lives worse? Well, we could say it's because the net benefit will be improvement...but that's not so, here. No one has postulated any such offset. So why would anyone support him, when there are other people (Kucinich, Sharpton) who won't do that to us (or at least won't do it as much)? The usual response is that Dean is electable. But that flies in the face of reality: whether someone can be elected is up to us. It's not a property inherent in the candidate--anyone is electable if we choose to vote for them.

So why would any sane person who has other choices choose to support someone who will make our lives worse?

I might prefer different stands - and I do believe some policies can border on evil. Marijuana - isn't my top issue and it isn't how I define evil. I think the relaxing of drug policies that lead to such inequities in arrests, sentencing, etc. and that are all punitive and not rehabilitative nor preventative need to be addressed. But it still is not how I define evil.

I also disagree with your estimation of electability. The constraints of our current corrupt system where money buys everything (just look at the ludicrous California Recall vote) - the only way to be able to get the message out - is either a massive mobilization of people doing face to face work - the likes that we haven't seen in my lifetime and/or through the ability to at least get some mass media coverage to counter what we know will be slanderous coverage from the right. That - in 2003/04 is our unfortunate reality.

I am far, far away from doing "electability calculus" and I have never voted solely on electability. I am far far from selecting a candidate. Right now I think that each candidate brings a few hard hitting, important issues to the table - and that our awful media coverage wouldn't even TALK about these issues if all of these men and women (woman) were not running and FORCING the coverage. That in turn forces some national dialogue. For that reason - I want the field FULL for quite some time. It will benefit the eventual front runner.

It is hard to win others over to your perspective when you place YOUR world view upon them and then say accept this as reality because it is reality. It is your reality (or my reality, etc.) I would guess that what you and I would define, issues wise as crossing the line to bad - all the way to evil, would be very different. I would not project my assessments on to you and then be puzzled, bemused, haughty or accusatory if YOU did not fully accept what is not fact - but instead is my assessment (value judgements) of facts.

You mix some thought provoking thoughts - with some very biased opinions. IN doing so the valid thoughts get lost because it is easy, if one does not agree with your assessment (that because of his hedging on marijuana that he is inherently evil) then they discount that argument - and in the process everything else.

In the end, thankfully, we really are allowed to disagree :D Peace.

promotion?

That is offensive.

And yes - it was a very bad analogy for that reason.

That's the deal, you see. Either you look at the context fearlessly or you say something like

Marijuana - isn't my top issue and it isn't how I define evil. I think the relaxing of drug policies that lead to such inequities in arrests, sentencing, etc. and that are all punitive and not rehabilitative nor preventative need to be addressed. But it still is not how I define evil.

'Marijuana' as such is not my top issue either. I've smoked it a few times and enjoyed it. I would smoke it occasionally now, if I could. But in and of itself? It's not a big deal.

But the results of the drugs war is an ENORMOUS deal to me. In my book, that is positively evil, no possible question in my mind about it. It causes untold misery for the sake of putting power and money into the pockets of a few and that is just about the definition of evil in my dictionary.

But you prefer to ignore that awful context. And I have to suppose you do it for self-serving reasons--because if you look at it, then how can you support some guy who wants to keep doing it? So you somehow have to avoid getting yourself into that bind.

And if you're an agent who's offered the promotion to run the COINTELPRO operation what do you do? Do you say No, or do you tell yourself that someone will do it so it might as well be you? Or do you even think about it?

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

I would conclude that some of the content of those posts have been shrill as well as obtuse.

I had a long response - describing my professional life and the work I do and have done on the front lines in some pretty tough urban climates and working with urban youth who are likely to drop out - through them (their eyes/experiences/etc) I see the worst of life in the US - but I also see their potential and give all that I can to try to find ways to make institutions better meet their needs and to give those kids who deserve a great deal - and have so much within them to offer themselves, their families and our communties. I put my LIFE on the line at time to try to improve circumstances. But you know - you are SO off base and so fricking judgemental - and so hostile - that there is absolutely no reason for me to go further.

There are few candidates that I feel are truely not electable. For the reasons I described above, but you chose to gloss over because it doesn't suit your argument.

Pushing for a reality that leaves Bush and his cabal in power, for me would be to perpetuate evil. I will be the one - still on the front line - having to deal with even more economic collapse, even more social services and education degredation, and even fewer resources to try to make an honest to god's difference.

But because you are for that reality - do I call YOU evil? No. As I stated earlier - I think that Kucinich should stay in the race as long as he can. He forces issues to be addressed - and if history is a teacher we learn that eventual candidates (front runners) often incorporate some of the more successful issues and ideas from those who drop out of the race into their platform. That would be great.

Comparing working with urban youth - to working as a guard in a concentratin camp is fucking offensive.

I'm not 'comparing working with urban youth - to working as a guard in a concentration camp', and for you to claim I am--THAT is offensive. (particularly since, out of deference to you, I changed the context to the cointelpro one -- which you then ignored.)

Try this: there are Bush, Kucinich, and Sharpton supporters who work with urban youth, too. Is there any difference between you all, or is the 'work with urban youth' the great leveller, making you all ethically identical in your lives?

Because if it's not the great leveller, and you claim a difference to your credit between you and the Bush supporters, then you'd better also claim a difference not to your credit between you and the Kucinich and Sharpton supporters.

you did it two posts ago.

You don't know me.

I work with Urban Youth.

ergo your ridiculous and out of control bash DOES indeed
equate nazi guards to working with urban youth.

BTW didn't I see you praising a thread elsewhere that was in favor of stopping the very tactics you are using here?

There are Bush supporters who 'work with urban youth' too. Is there any difference between you and them?

You need not answer the question, but it's a real question, and it won't go away.

it has absolutely nothing to do with anything. BTW, your use of the story is far out of context. Baiting is not becoming.

I am dodging nothing except your absurd equating of supporting some candidates as being equal to being proud over a nazi promotion. Again - that summary of that quote out of context is even pretty absurd.

You take someone disagreeing with your thesis as dodging questions.

I take it as obsessing over illogic, and not being willing to accept that people disagree without massive over statement and vilification.

I never said I do x and thus I am superior. I said you equate me to a nazi for NO reason except that I don't view a candidate as evil and don't view YOUR single main issue as THE TOP ISSUE. You ignored my statement that I have to deal with the consequences of this election in a very, very real way - and that drives my concerns. To you this is evil. To me your logic is absurd.

your approach is to be superior and exceptionally degrading of any view not yours, because apparently only yours seems to hold validity to you.

I am not claiming superiority over anyone - that seems to be your unique category.

REMEMBER I AM UNDECLARED.

JUST REACTING to YOUR CLaim that any support to DeAN is EVIL. :eyes: sheez.

That form of discussion never leads to new insights among discussants.

Thus I am done with this exceptionally pointless conversation.

but I'm still not getting it (and I'm not trying to be dense).

I must be tired or something. Lots happening lately in my life.

Frankly, I'm happy with Dean as a candidate and I don't think there's anything amiss about that. I'm happy that Kerry's a candidate. I'm actually hoping that Clark enters the race. I'm glad Kucinich is in the race, and all the others, even, on most good days, Lieberman.

The context for this happiness is that all these people are helping to energize elements of the Democratic base. That's a "greater good" issue that transcends my personal likes or dislikes.

But, personally, I like Dean because I've been re-energized by his campaign and I see lots of disgruntled Dems and even Greens I know wanting to get back in the Democratic Party's struggle to beat Bush.

There are people, even people whom we would think of as well-intentioned and 'good', who are (and I'm going to intentionally parallel your phrasing) 'happy with Bush as president'.

How can good people be happy with Bush? Obviously, either they don't believe he's doing the terrible things we know he's doing, or their value system is okay with it somehow (maybe via 'logic-tight' thinking or something, e.g. 'all k*kes are wicked Christ-killers except my friend Solly'). So we can talk against Bush til we're blue in the face and it's not going to help; they know what they know and that's what they know. We can see the waterfall ahead of us, and we can know that if SmirkCo stay in charge of the tiller we're going to go over, but we can't get that across to people who are 'happy with Bush as president'.

Similarly (and this is where my attempted explanation is likely to fail) I can look at the more ...*cough* 'fervent'... Dean supporters and see them say 'I know he's not liberal and I don't care' or something that totally flies in the face of reality ('he opposes med mj because there isn't enough science' when in fact there is MUCH more science than there ever was for aspirin). Can you step back and imagine how that sounds to someone who believes we're in trouble right now precisely because too few people in power have been pro-freedom 'liberals'? Because too many people have said 'I like him and I don't care'?

So when Will Pitt says something that seems pro-fanaticism, I get the cauld grues. And I speak out, using a parable that resonated completely with me when I first read it, a parable that I understood completely and instantly: content matters. It is not enough to be fervent and a joyous warrior, because there are fervent joyous warriors on the side of evil, too, whether or not they know it.

Make any sense?

right?

deep changes that desperately need to be made. That he will continue exploiting us to serve the wealthy elites. That's unacceptable. And, on some level, evil, yes. Willfully exploiting the defenceless is evil, because it amounts to treating people as things.

I appreciate your willing to flesh this out further than the initial post.

That's unacceptable. And, on some level, evil, yes. Willfully exploiting the defenceless is evil, because it amounts to treating people as things.

If elected, would he too treat everyone who is not as far left as he is as evil enemies? What measures would be taken to fight this evil?

But am I willing to suspend my critical judgement or throw open my arms and say 'take me, I'm yours!'? Not for an instant! Nigdy w zyciu.

One of the oft-cited differences between Right and Left is that of freedom. The Left --and I don't mean 'liberals' of the kind Phil Ochs sang about-- is generally open to people doing their own thing. The Right, on the other hand, talks about individual freedom but really means freedom only for themselves. I won't bother enumerating examples of that from the current regime; they're beyond numerous and I'm sure you know them as well as I do.

So if you look at Kucinich's policies, they all --with the single exception of that goddamned flag-amendment vote-- have the effect of improving economic and legal security--and thus freedom--for everyone. That seems to be quite important. (If you know of any of his policies that clearly seem to reduce economic or legal security for most people, please point them out because I for one very much want to know about them.)

Not just as people having different views on some issues but really EVIL. Ok, I suggest that this position is given much more publicity that it's got so far: it would really be a winner to get votes and win against Dumbya...

My views--as ought to be plain to anyone who has ever read anything I've ever written!--are all on the side of maximum individual freedom within the context of social responsibility. I think Kucinich shares as much of that as I can expect of anyone with a Dem label.

I also believe he is the only person standing for President, with the possible/probable exception of Sharpton, who has the will and the motive to make the changes we desperately need if we're not to go over the waterfall. In my view Dean does not, Kerry no longer does (he once did, I think), Gephardt no longer does (he, too, once did, I think), Edwards should but does not, CMB should but does not (something I very much regret), and Lieberman, like Dean, never did. I'm not sure about Graham, but I suspect he does not.

I asked:

Does your candidate Kucinich share your views on this?
If elected, would he too treat everyone who is not as far left as he is as evil enemies?

You answered:

"I hope he does, and the evidence seems to suggest he does"

Which part of your own answer didn't you understand?

Sorry, it still doesn't make sense to me.

I just don't see the fanaticism that you do.

I'm not even talking about DU. I love DU, but it's not the real world. Maybe there are Dean fanatics here, I don't know. I've been tuning out a lot of the flamefests on all sides. I just don't have the time to piss away my energy on such futile exercises.

I'm talking about people, regular people who have never been involved in politics, people with families, retired people, college students, gays, straights, whites, growing numbers of blacks and Latinos, getting energized by a candidate who makes them want to participate in our democratic process.

I see this not on the news, but in my organizing for Dean. In fact, I'm one of those people. I'm married, have three kids, am struggling to bring in enough money to buy a new house, and all that. While I'm more politically involved than most people I know, I've been quite disgruntled over the past three years. Well, I've been pissed at the Dems for a long time for, in my opinion, too often selling us out to the GOP and corporate interests. I was very close to leaving the Dem Party all together after the 2002 election, but Dean has renewed my hope that maybe the Party isn't over yet.

I don't see the disturbing "fervency" that you do, not in the people I meet face to face. I see people who feel like it's worth giving a damn again and that there's someone who is working hard to create a renewed community where that means something.

When I start seeing whatever it is you're seeing among those people I'm seeing every day, I'll start to reconsider my support.

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

I am sure there are other analogies one could use to make this choice. Have to agree that this seems specifically chosen to offend, rather than the stated purpose to elucidate a point.

Makes me sad in all directions (as an undecided) when the choices of words/stories/examples used are selected to conjour up gruesome images. Imo, the technique is both unnecessary and ineffective. Saw a post a couple of nights ago that placed Lieberman in the middle of Nazi imagery. Really disappointing.

right over their heads.

except to notice a nazi reference and accuse you of bashing.

if there is not a better way to make this point that does not draw an analogy that suggests that the supporters are so substanceless themselves that they would view as a comparable good a promotion - even if the promotion is in an evil context?

I am not even a supporter (Proud Undecided Here) - and saw that was a very intentional and unfortunate analogy to use.

Saw an even uglier one used against Joe Lieberman that was a more overt bash.

This was a bash - an attempted literate covert one - but a bash about the intelligence and/or desensitized to horror such that can no longer even detect evil - of supporters of a candidate. Simply hard to read it any other way.

another intentionally chosing the most insulting framing of one's point... and then get a bit peturbed? fatigued? exacerbated? when it receives the intended response?

Seems a little dramatic.

.... loses perspective and will follow the candidate blindly....

We were all told Bush was the GOP savior- total opposite to that horrible Clinton- now most all of us here, certainly didn't see it that way, but many others did- and still see it that way.

I hate to see any supporter blindly follow their "man" and not be aware that he is merely human...that is what gets us in trouble...

...so its walking a fine line between support & passion and blindly following...if you can keep it clear, then HURRAY!

Fo me it's a shared passion for someone who supports what I believe and stand for and want to see this country be....nothing more exciting than working for and cheering someone on who represents what my hopes & beliefs!!

I just hope all supporters can be open minded and if things come up about their candidate , they are able to see it, accept it & reevaluate if the energy they give is to the right & best candidate...

Peace
DR

0.02 cents (one fiftieth of a penny) is about all you can afford after that $600 dinner date. (see thread in lounge.)

I totally agree with you as per passion & devotion. I just can't understand why Dean rates such. His record is not really that left friendly. Perhaps it's because people are so hungry for a percieved winner that they'll accept a half cup. Seems to me that Kucinich has the maximum progressive program and should be where lefties find home. We're just entering the primary season and this is where the party should "find itself". If progressives don't express themselves fully & bring muscle to the convention then the corporate wing of the party wins again.
Post convention of course it's anybody but *.

A candidate who inspires such enthusiasm that many supporters actively fight to marginalize all dissent and competition IS a bit worrisome. Admittedly, the unwarranted screed of "unelectability" made them understandably combative, but woe be unto anyone who points out any deficiencies; one is often so thoroughly reviled that it's almost like some kind of street fight. I don't like being lectured to as an inferior; this is why many Physicians bother me. This is why he bothers me, and this is the dynamic that bugs me about some of his supporters. It's a short hop from fervor to intolerance, and he fire of enthusiasm is welcome, but the Commisars and Ward Bosses of acceptable thought aren't.

Yes, I've posted about the refreshing whiff of passion among his supporters, but what is charming zealotry among the underdogs becomes a very strident groupthink when they've become the dominant plurality by a sizeable margin. That is now the case. They are "The Man", so feigning victim status is as ridiculous as christians bellyaching about being some downtrodden minority in this country. (I'm not talking about the country, I'm talking about this board)

Far too many of the downtrodden feel released from the bonds of decorum and coexistence because of the thousand natural shock that their--and ONLY their--flesh seems to have been heir to. The Deanies often feel so put upon by the machine centrist/appeasers that they grant themselves the right to respond to any criticism with the dudgeon of the persecuted. Well folks, YOU AIN'T THE PERSECUTED ANYMORE, SO DON'T ACT LIKE IT. And please, don't be persecutors. He may wind up being the nominee, and he'd make a fine President, but it might be a pyrrhic victory: the hatred of liberals has often been channeled through the "common man" dismissal of us as sneering at the uneducated. The tone of many of his supporters and of him can fuel this fire, and that could have a huge backlash. What happens if we win the Presidency, have one embattled term that's highlighted by us being tarred as intellectually elitist, and lose the next election? We won't be better off. It will be shades of Carter, except Carter is and was a warmer and more likeable guy than Dean is. (Don't cry about that, few stack up to the humanity and sweetness of Jimmy Carter.)

It's amusing to see the Clark-barkers swarm the Deanies of late, because some of the Deanies are openly resentful of the intrusion and unable to see the parallel. The worst of the Deaniewienies aren't as bad as the worst of the Clark supporters. There's an almost right-wingish triumphal ridiculing smugness to some of the latter: the "would you like some cheese with that whine" line is straight out of AM radio. The worst of the Clark-barkers do seem worse, but the similarity of sanctimony is palpable. There are also many Clark supporters who seem like fine, coexisting sorts, and it's good to see the passion there, too.

If you remember Dr. Zhivago, think about how the sincere, gentle Pasha becomes the ruthless and intolerant Strelnikov with time. It's a parallel I like to draw for a common career arc in the arts, and it fits in the maturation of political affiliation.

Deanism is a former cult that has graduated to full religion status. Unfortunately, what was charming in a park setting is often grating from the pulpit. As for the Clarkies, we'll see; at the moment, they're streetcorner zealots with that familiar thrill of the "once lost, but now found"; time will tell.

The bulk of Dean supporters, like the bulk of supporters for ALL of the other candidates, should be aware of reigning in those who might go a bit overboard on the fringes?

In one's life, one will often be many things, and it's the adjustments made that prove the wisdom of the individual.

There's a higher calling of finding the best candidate (best for the rest of the world, one with an acceptable chance of winning, best for oneself) that should transcend the "team identification" and "need to be proven right" that is at the root of too much candidate affiliation. When someone says that his/her "horse" is the only one who's ethical (or somesuch) they've insulted the listener. When one adopts shrill tactics because of having been so disenfranchised and put-upon for so long, one is telling the listener that their tribulations simply don't count, and that they simply haven't suffered and/or worked as much. When one adopts shrill tactics but then decries opponents for similar ones, one is being a hypocrite.

This is all meant to bring some perspective to it.

More than anything else, life changes. What is charming and amusing from a ten year-old is often grating from a forty year-old. The fervor of the up-and-coming who's fighting against "the man" smacks of sanctimonious groupthink censorship coming from a supporter of the #1 contender. That's all.

And sure, we have to be responsible for our allies, out of respect for our cause. Remember, the ultimate cause is a brighter and nurturing future, NOT to see that we prove all the other numbskulls at the bar how goddamned brilliant we are because we were the only one who could see reality. That feels like living in a world of first-year grad students; and it just isn't my cup of hemlock.

I must say that I'm pleased with the overall tone of the tiny cadre of Edwards supporters, and they make me proud to be shoulder to shoulder with them: there's an inclusiveness to them, and a willingness to listen. (Sorry for the self-congratulatory detour there, but remember: WE are the underdogs--actually the middledogs--at this point, and I trust you'll grope back in your memory for the feelings of hope and frustration one has in that role.)

'Nuff said?

But I'm neither obsessed with being an underdog nor really focusing on leading the pack. I made my decision after reading the candidate positions submitted to MoveOn, and decided I would work for my chosen candidate as long as his campaign seemed viable to me.

I feel I have far too much letter writing, rally attendance, and talking about issues to obsess about activities of the underdog or the one in the lead...I suspect my attitude wouldn't change much in either situation. I suggest to all other fellow Dean supporters that personal testimony is the most effective persuasion for all of us...gloating about anything doesn't really have a positive role in human interaction.

The only way to worship a politician is to make oneself blind to his/her flaws. I don't know any politician on a national scale (past or present) that is worthy of worship. In fact, I think worship towards any steward of the state is fundamentally dangerous--look at Reagan or Bush, if you like. But also, I don't think Dean supporters *worship* him either--it's just that they are very enthusiastic and want to sell him every chance they get. It goes without saying this will irritate supporters of other candidates.

That said, I am jealous of the genuine excitement and energy Dean generates in others, since no candidate in the race currently generates it in me.

don't get out there and rally the masses as much as Dean has.

I have not decided which candidate I will back, but I just wish that they were all real fighters that we could trust.

They can talk a good game about fighting for you, but then they fail to back up those claims by relying on tired rhetoric raging from "I supported the President on Iraq because bla... bla... bla..." or "The important thing to remember is that Saddam is out of power bla... bla... bla...": effectively hedging their bets.

It seems that some of them are more comfortable criticizing each other for short term gain when they all should be criticizing the one that matters for the long term victory.

I couldn't agree more with you on point 3. I was half listening to J. Kerry on NPR this AM, and it sounded like he was delivering the same "Voted with the President to oust the bad guy" message that I have been hearing again and again.

You are not going to energize your supporters by actively giving * what he wants. The only way to get your supporters interested is to make it apparent that you will really fight for each and every one of them. It's not your candidacy which is important thing. Their future is!

I just had a vision of politics being nothing more than a rehash of feudal society: where the aristocrats lead the serfs into an uncertain battle knowing full well they will be ransomed or promised estates in exchange for fealty whilst the serfs are cut down or burnt at the stake.

I'm not a Gephardt fan by even the longest of shots, but look at the heat he's gotten for missing votes.

Edwards, Gephardt, Graham, Kerry, Kucinich and Lieberman all have more than full-time jobs and serious responsibilities out there. Edwards has to decide if he's going to run for Senate too, for which he's taking flak. If you're saying that Edwards, Kucinich, Graham, Kerry and to a certain degree Gephardt aren't seriously attacking this President, then you need to get out more.

The harshest criticism of Junior I've heard on the personal level is from John Edwards, but they're all hammering on the ethics of the policies. To date, the best line from the whole bunch comes from Kerry, with the "Creed of Greed".

Dean has the momentum he is the Eugene McCarthy of the moment. Maybe he'll go all the way. It's scary to think that the nominee will almost certainly be decided in about 6 months from now, especially since 2 months of that'll be eaten up with this Californication. (Tip o'the hat to the Red Hot Chili Peppers...)

I do get out quite a bit, but I also read and listen to what the candiates are saying.

No flame. I am not going to go through a laudary list of short comings of the candidates. Nobody is perfect, but I want to see blood. I want to see a fight. I want to see unity on our side.

I want to know that these candiates are going to tear the Chimp into a thousand pieces: today, tomorrow and during the debates.
I don't hear that often enough.

One liners are great (Creed of Greed) but as I posted I just heard Kerry this AM, and he didn't have the piss and vinegar that he should have had.

Hammer * every day. Every frikkin day.

Why?

Bush is going to use every dirty trick, and probably invent some new ones, to kill the Democratic nominee. The heat that Gephardt has recieved will be noithing to what Shrub rolls out.

The best way that these candidates can inspire and mobilize their supporters is to go for the throat every time they get on the radio or tube.

It's one of the reasons I like Edwards as much as I do: he calls him a phoney. (I like the word, it's juvenile, deliberate and absolutely true.) I've been a strident proponent of the "bash Bush" philosophy and have posted frequently about it. If he's not taken down on the issue of personality and honesty, any failures can be dismissed off as mistakes or bad advice. He has to be so absolutely tarred by the world as a lying, murderous greedhead that mothers will tell their children "eat your peas or Junior will get you" for centuries to come.

The Republican Party has put all it's eggs in this basket case, and they are incredibly vulnerable. Couple this with class warfare, and we can take back the house too and then proceed with putting a few hundred of them in jail and sending the forces of darkness back to their gated communities where they don't deserve to be.

I truly feel that hammering on his personality has to be a component of ANY strategy to take them down.

Thanks for the post.

that mothers will tell their children "eat your peas or Junior will get you" for centuries to come.


love it...simply love it.

It's really the astro-turfing - vague, emotional messages with little substance - that is what is so irritating.

The worst is Dean supporters bashing the DLC, since Dean *is* DLC - that's just rank hypocrisy.

Yes, Dean shares many centerist views that are in line with the DLC, but this was never the reason why Dean supporters bashed the DLC. When a Democratic organization tells its members not to vote for a centerist candidate because that candidate is too far to the left, then the supporters have every right to get pissed off. The DLC lied to their members for the sole purpose of building up a candidate of their choosing. They're fighting for their own political validity and they don't care if they split the party in the process. From where I'm sitting, the DLC seems very self serving to me and they've lost my respect regardless of who wins the primaries.

Dean supporters seem willing to split the party to nominate Dean, which most establishments players seem to think can't win a general election, an opinion I happen to share.

Besides, as the Dean supporters like to point out, everytime the DLC "bashes" Dean, he gets more popular - in fact, one of the DLC supposedly bashing Dean is married to one of Dean's campaign people - a little more than meets the eye here don't you think?

In any case, the Dean people on this board are starting to sound like the Larouchites.

I was a supporter of the DLC, mainly because of my loyalty to Bill Clinton. As far as I'm concerned now, I'll listen to what they say but but only after I've donned my sceptic hat. Their attacks, trying to paint Dean as a lefty, made absolutely no sense. The only explanation that I can come up with is that Dean is just not connected enough, because he sure as hell is no lefty. They're acting more like the GOP did in trying to suppress opposition to Bob Dole and George Bush.

I, for one, would welcome your non-emotional, non-name calling critiques of it.

Having grown up in the rural Midwest - it's very refreshing, and has significant substance.

As I have lived long enough....

Bobby Kennedy was by far the only candidate that installed
such wide spread passion in his supporters in a league of
its own.

Yes JFK had a passionate following, as did
Bill Clinton, BUT nowhere close to Bobby.

And Bobby was anti-war too.

:)

voting for him if he is the Democratic candidate-right now I'm still doing all I can to support Dennis Kucinich, including voting for him in the WI. 2-17-2004 primary.

which I wished I had used in my thread of yesterday. It is a good thing and for me personally the last time I felt this kind of passion for a candidate was as a 12 year old supporter of Jimmy Carter in 1976--he is still my political hero.

I think if Wes Clark gets in the race we will probably have two candidates with passionate supporters.

And spot on as always!

:toast:

:)

alienated and angry Democrats, had to say. He did some research and devised his campaign as a treatment plan to help heal the Democratic Party and our nation.

Listening to his patient is the key to his success.

Acknowledging that his patient's anger and alienation is valid but not healthy in the long run helped him build empathy with us who became his supporters.

Developing a campaign plan that invites us to help his campaign other than just making donations, has empowered us and made us loyal supporters. Even donations are used to boost our morale. The Cheney Challenge donations when to produce ads aired in Texas to attack Bush' reckless policies. That was a brilliant stroke by Trippi and Dean because it made us feel that our money was being used in a worthwhile endeavor.

Innovative thinking and strategic planning have propelled his fledgling campaign into a bold crusade for returning America and the Democratic Party back to its ideals and moral center. Dean has taken the innovative high road to winning the nomination.

Willing to adapt and change Dean has greatly improved his performance on TV and in the debates. Obviously, he recognized he had a problem or was willing to listen to sound criticism of his performance. Dean also recognized his deficiencies in regard to minorities and foreign policy. He intentionally made efforts to reach out to those groups by attending conventions held by N.O.W., NAACP, Young Democrats, NARAL, or explicitly addressing specific groups, like Latinos. The big thing is that Dean showed up at these conventions when the other top running Democrats bypassed them or just sent taped videos. By ATTENDING or specifically addressing these groups that feel like they are taken for granted by the Democratic Party establishment, Dean SHOWS his RESPECT for these groups who compose a good chunk of the Democratic base.

honest, and we hope it transfers to Clark when we nominate him for prez :)

much as I was fascinated with (eg WATCHING not tempted to vote for) John McCain in the early primaries against Bush. Was traveling a lot during the early primaries - and whereever I was had to try to find the local news - and see the latest developments with McCain. I found that drama far more compelling than Ross Perot's run in 1992.

I guess the point is that it is interesting to watch when a candidate captures the imagination of a range of folks - in a really unexpected way.

Can't say he has my vote - way too early for me to judge and there is far too much I don't know yet about most of the candidates. But I can say he and his fans have captured my attention - for whatever it is worth.

We can't do anything that might excite the Democratic base! Surely you got the memo from Al...

</sarcasm>...

I was at the recent Dean meetup here in Seattle and I met a few people who had either stopped being interested in politics or never got involved. Dean has sparked a fire in people with his views and his passion. The other people running have failed to achieve this thus far. There are those who want Wesley Clark to run but my questions are these. Does anybody knows where he really stands? What if Clark doesn't run?

John

I get the same sense that this is the first candidate they've pinned their puppy love onto because this is the first national election they've ever voted in.

What happens if he doesn't win the nomination? The broken hearts club will pine away burning broken-hearted mpgs on election day instead of voting. If they have pinned their hopes on them and he aint there, they wont be either

What happens if he loses the election to the worst president ever?

how the hell is dean even in comparison with bush or any of the assholes in his administration?

the dem leadership deserted us. he has led in getting us a voice back.

your post makes no sense.

I implied it to mean that if Dean does not win the Dem nomination, then his supporters would abondon the ship. Your reply indicates that, perhaps you would feel your voice has been taken away and you would perhaps blame the Dem leadership and stay home on NOV. 4th. Maybe other Deanie-boppers would too. My OPINION is that the Dean campaign is mostly fueled by an internet phenomenon with a strong youth backing. Of course you cant compare Dean to *, unless he were to win the nomination, and then the whole nation will have to.

My first vote for president was Walter Mondale, I have been fighting the good fight for a long time. It should not take Howard Dean to inspire long-lost Democrats. Who is responsible for giving us the (worst.president. ever.)? If he inspires long-lost voters, fine, as long as they stick it through 'til the end.

:shrug:

that I have explained ad nauseam. DU now has a bitchin' search engine. Use it.

...........Shallow reply.....N/T!

I must admit that I am also a little taken back by the devotion of many of Dean's supporters. I am fully in Dean's camp and yet find myself dazzled by what you call the "puppy love" of so many of Dean's supporters...especially the younger ones.

I can not express how much satisfaction it gives this old leftwinger to see college youngsters pumped up about a political candidate, wanting to walk for him, phone for him, fight for him.

If this is a bad thing, then someone please, please point out why so.

Thanks for your insightful observations, William.

Getting people to believe that they can make a difference within the system is not a bad thing. I am gladdened and encouraged by the enthusiasm I see for Howard Dean.

Yes, there may be a fair degree of naivete among some Dean supporters. And yes, some of those supporters are in for a rude awakening when they realize the true depth at which the process is corrupt, and to the extent at which it corrupts those who embrace it. But I respectfully submit that it will be the hope, passion, and stubbornness of the diehard loyalists that will be essential in helping us persevere through the looming darkness that awaits us all.

Once the B*sh Machine unleashes the full extent of its unrelenting vitriol and hatred towards the eventual Democratic nominee, we will look back at the relatively petty squabbling here at DU as quaint times. Fascists loathe the Democratic process, and they don't surrender power lightly.

The outrages that we've witnessed so far in Florida, Texas, California, et al, are just the faintest precursor of things to come. I expect fraud, dirty tricks, and massive corruption. I expect illegal detainments, disappearances, and massive arrests. I will not rule out terrorism and martial law. I know I will be appalled by things that I never thought I'd see in my lifetime, in my America, and I know I will be tempted to lose hope.

In my grimmest hour, I would consider myself fortunate to have the passion and hope of our youth to sustain me.

We do need fighters. We do need idealists. We do need people who are devoted to the greater good. We need people who believe that the spirit of Democracy is greater than those who would subvert it. We need people who see that the dream of a noble and just America is worth dying for.

The values and ideals that Howard Dean invokes, are greater than the man could ever be.

as a kerry supporter, i DON'T wish this.

but the references to "Dean worship" and "hard-core puppy love" belies a subtle undertone. Mixed message.

...it is relief that someone has had the balls to speak up on our behalf.

Since he was the only one that showed guts first, since he has had an exceptional educational backround, a pretty damn good record as govenor, and a passion that is against the hostile corporate takeover of america--i jumped on his bandwagon.

He is putting forth an incredible effort, and it isn't phoney. It is an effort to contend with the rove political machine. It is an effort not derived from ego. It is an effort that recognizes something is terribly wrong in the way things have unfolded under the Bush administration.

It's not 'worship'; it's exhilaration for those who have felt disenfranchised and deserted.

Maybe so. But I've talked to quite a few Dean supporters, including mainstream Democrats, lapsed voters, flaming leftists, Naderites, gay activists, civil libertarians, anti-death penalty lawyers, pro-single payer health professionals and even a surprising number of Nation staffers. I have yet to find one who mistakes Dean for Eugene Debs, or even for Paul Wellstone, whose line about belonging to the "democratic wing of the Democratic Party" Dean likes to borrow. They've gone for Dean because, alone among the major Democratic contenders, he has taken Bush on in an aggressive and forthright way, because he's calling the craven Democratic Party to account and because they think he can win. "I have no illusions that Dean is a true progressive," said one young graduate student who describes himself as a leftist, "but I don't care. I just want to beat Bush. If Dean has the momentum, I say, go for it." That word "momentum" comes up a lot.

Right now, Dean is the only viable candidate who speaks to the anger, fear and loathing a large number of ordinary citizens feel about the direction Bush has taken the country, while the mainstream media blandly kowtow and the Democratic Party twiddles its thumbs. He has gone out and actually asked for the help of these citizens, rather than taking them for granted. That is why 70,000 people have sent him money, and why 84,000 have shown up to work for him, and why tens of thousands of volunteers wrote personal letters to Iowa and New Hampshire Democrats and independents urging them to support Dean. His willingness to challenge Bush without looking over his shoulder at the last undecided voter in Ohio is the big story--not whether he signed Vermont's civil union legislation in a private ceremony to avoid publicity, or even whether he insisted on balancing Vermont's budget at the expense of worthy social programs.

What the media see as progressive self-delusion is actually the opposite: a bare-knuckled pragmatism born from the debacle of the 2000 elections. If Kucinich can capture the public's imagination, great. If Kerry acquires more backbone and fire, fine. Right now, though, it looks like Howard Dean is Ralph Nader's gift to the Democratic Party.

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0816-07.htm

Dean simply took a theory about the war and said he would oppose the war. I’m sure we have many more Democratic candidates that regret that they never opposed the war or the stealing of the election.

Just because he was opposed to the war and sold it to the public does not mean that he is a liberal, and that once he is in office he will be the next JFK or Gandhi. He is far from being the next JFK or even being the next president. He is in fact the most unelectable of all the democrats that is why the Republicans have been ordering the media to print pro-Dean stories. The media can make any one of the 3 stooges into someone that looks like George Washington.

The Republicans know this. If Dean was a real liberal he would drop out as soon as Clark jumps in, for the good of the party, just like Nader should of dropped out on Election Day 2000 for the good of the party.

It's not the right formula that will win or the money but the right candidate. Wesley Clark is the only one that can win.

eom