If Dean had been this frank in the primaries, he would have won going away

What I can't stand is the nuance and finger in the wind approach too many Democratic candidates take when going up against the Republicans. Howard Dean crystallized, in one statement, what should have been said months ago.

How can you like the fact that a war was fought for a reason that doesn't exist?

How can you like the fact that our deficit is so big our grand children's children will be crushed by it?

How can you like the fact that the Patriot Act is taking away our right of free speech, and no one cares?

I just think more frank talk like this sooner would have served our party better in the elections.

maybe you just missed it.

Of course the media missed it.

EDIT: on rethinking it...the Repukes screwed him, with the help of the media, and some of the Dems.
I think the Repukes were more afraid of him than any of the other candidates and wanted him out of the way...early

maybe the party as a whole wasn't ready for him. But he still helped to reignite the party--he deserves great credit for that. I think he will be a great Chairman if he gets it.

welcome to DU!
now back to the impending flame war as the ABDs discover this thread.

By giving the media and his opponents opportunity to spin and contort his statements and speeches. It wasn't because he was being blunt, it was because he was poorly articulating his ideas. Dean didn't want to welcome a symbol of racism into the party during the primaries, he wanted to bring back white Southerners. But he chose a bad way of saying it, just as he chose a bad way of saying he hates the Republican *leadership*.

You listed the war, the deficit and the Patriot Act--Joe Sixpack Republican doesn't know much of anything about these or the deceit and corruption that led to them, but now he can hear twenty-four seven that Howard Dean hates him and so does the Democratic Party, if the media choose to spin it that way. How open will he be to listen to explanations of these disasters if he's told that the party hates him?

You and I know what Dean meant, but just by including the word "leadership" he could have saved himself a lot of nasty spin and misinterpretation without diluting his message. It's not weakness to put forth your ideas in a way that ensures they are interpreted correctly.

In fact..I think he did a worse job..and for the same reason.
The media was in the hands of those who were looking to spin and manipulate. Whatever stupid remark the idiot in the White House made did not seem to detract from his credibility with the press.
Look at the debates. Kerry was head and shoulders above the idiot, literally and figuratively!
Look what they did! Camera angles and spin to do everything they could to give the idiot the advantage!

In that case the meaning was clear, it was just two words that were taken out of context. He should have chosen two different words, because we can't expect the media to step in even when a statement is twisted to signify the exact opposite of its objective meaning.

Monday morning QB all you want.

Kerry was our worse Dem Establishment candidate. Kerry was pathetic at rally speeches and he is an elitest snob. Instead of windsurfing on his vacation during the RNC convention, he should have been out with Jimmy Carter building a house for Habitat for Humanity. That would have been a great way for Kerry "to connect with voters."

Kerry hadn't and still doesn't have a clue on how to connect to average American voters. If it wasn't for ABB, Kerry would have gotten blown out in a landslide to the Chimp-n-Chief.

:loveya: inspiring!

Tactically he should have voted for the $87 billion supplemental and of course shouldn't have said the "for it before I voted against it" line, as the Republicans expoited it beyond comprehension... That and his image didn't appeal to Joe Sixpack, esp. w/ the windsurfing. It's ridiculous criteria to selecting a president, but that's how a substantial portion of our country thinks. I believe Dean would have lost by about 15% had he been the nominee, as Kerry's Iraq stance (mistake to go in but we have to complete the job) and tax stance (just repeal the tax cuts to the richest Americans, not all the tax cuts as Dean advocated) actually appeal to the majority.

Howard Dean did not advocate pulling out the troops.

but it would have been much easier for the RNC to portray Dean as the "anti-war candidate" than with Kerry.

so yeah, the Repukes would have branded Dean with the pacifist label, but Dean had already reframed the Iraq war as a moral issue and said unlike Bush, he would never send out troops into battle on a lie. Kerry could never say that.

I think what a lot of us liked about Dean was his frank and always constructive speech.

(not me personally but it did freak people out somewhat)

edit to add: I think it is useless to go back and do the what if thing. The Republicans would have smeared and twisted Howards words and life as much, if not more, then they did John Kerry.

Lets move forward.

blatantly and effectively

Target of the DLC, target of the mediawhores, target of Rove. (not like there's much difference in the three these days)

issue down to a nuanced allegory. Cuomo was the master at doing that. Clinton was very good too.

Dean's problem was not that he wasn't frank. Furthermore, sometimes a frank comment doesn't caputre the very real complexities of an issue. Sometimes very complicated ideas can only be told effectively through a nuanced allegory.

What separates good progressive politicians from bad reactionary politicians isn't that one uses "nuance" and that the other is frank. The difference is what they're trying to tell you regardless of how they deliver the message.

You'll notice that Bush ABSOLUTELY CLUBBED kerry for having "nuanced positions" (said with a smirk, of course)

Hell, I'm a pretty smart guy, and though I understood his positions, I sure didn't like to listen to him try to make talking points out of them.

them about the politician. Without actually going to see the actual politician speak. Four winning campaigns proves "good progressive politician" in a progressive state to me.

Thanks.

It's why the establishment in the DNC and the press circled the wagons to destroy him.

(perhaps literally, as those who could have but didn't stand up to Hitler)

on reprising the role of their German Spirtual Predecessors, the German Social Democrats of 1933.

How history repeats it's themes so regularly is beyond me, but it happens like clockwork.

To be honest, Imperial Amerika more resembles the Imperial Roman Model of Transformation than anything else.

But the Busheviks have dusted off an improved Goebbelsian Propaganda immeasurably, and that is something the next generations of historians will study as a precautionary take to New Amerikan Totalitarianism as WE still tgry to come to grips, obviously unsuccessfully with how everything that Hitler did was "legal" and how to stop it again.

Now that I more fully understand the phenomena of Germany 1933 as it is being replayed at home in the Empire in 2005, I begin to wonder if this desire to Lick the Boot of Der Fuhrer, when approached in this "legal", highly propagandized way, can EVER be stopped.

Cleary Germany and America were powerless...

:hi: x-g.o.p.er

Are you still in the Imperial Armed Service? Or did you escape? Are you properly preparing for the Cold Dark Night of BushPutinism to fall upon us?

I hope you are well, sir.

He was the first one to say "world not safer with Saddam captured" to the horror of Holy Joe and Kerry and the rest.

He was the first one to say the emporer had no clothes.

nt

He was gaining popularity even with some Repukes that I know

Now, the same conspiring elites that torpedoed his campaign are going to send him around with a collection plate for the DNC. Disgusting

There's nothing wrong with changing your opinion as it might evolve over time, but if you get too cute you come off a a pandering politician, which was an image that Kerry had a difficult time shaking.

Dean was, is, and has always been consistent on his positions regarding health care, the war, etc. You might not like his opinion, but you always knows where he stands, and people respect that a lot more than pandering.

Suffice as to say, there are those of us who feel Dean's career has been an exercise in changing positions. But it looks as if Dean will be the DNC Chair and I have to learn to like him, so don't start a Dean/Kerry war with me. Kerry did not pander. His entire life was about standing up against the wrongs. He has lead an exemplary life and I for one could understand his positions with no problem.

He wasn't wanted. He should have won then. He'll win/we'll all win in the future. It's good to see more people listening to what he has been saying all along...instead of listening to false "news reports" about a nonexistant temper in a man who has always been straightforward and brave enough to point out that the emporer is naked. :hi: