The Assassination of Howard Dean

Of course, the DLC did not take kindly to this direct challenge. The crucial dynamic in America today is that big companies, political parties and media are powerful businesses -- and they will do anything to crush new threats. The DLC reacted with fury to the Dean candidacy, going all out to torpedo his momentum. Although Democratic nominees soon piled on the "bash-Dean" bandwagon, earlier attacks were carried out by DLC operatives. There was even the smell of scandal when two top Democratic candidates were found sharing information about Dean in an attempt to slow him down.

This is where Dean lost a crucial ally -- the mainstream media also joined in on the anti-Dean feeding frenzy. In his early days, he had flayed big media for caving in to George Bush on Iraq, and media giants never forgave him for this. In the same week, Time and Newsweek ran "Who is the Real Howard Dean?" stories. One cover showed a face covered in dark shadows, another showed an incomplete jigsaw puzzle! Semioticians take note -- bad guys in westerns always have their faces obscured in shadows!

In the end, Dean threatened a troika of powerful institutions. He was a threat to the political parties (because he attacked Democrats' centrist drift), to media (because he criticized their cowardly reporting) and to big business (because he would roll back chummy tax-benefits for corporations). All three institutions responded with venom and destroyed Dean's candidacy. In 1968, a bullet ended Robert Kennedy's anti-establishment candidacy. In 2004, the methods used were more subtle, but just as effective.

America is riven by a strange schizophrenia. It is an entrepreneurial nation that prizes individuality and celebrates non-conformists. Especially in the area of business, mavericks like Ted Turner and George Soros have been able to define their own space. But in the area of politics, the establishment guards the doors zealously -- outsiders have no chance. In 1976 an unknown peanut farmer from Georgia came out of nowhere to capture the White House. Jimmy Carter was the anti-Nixon, his mantra was, "Trust me, I will never lie to you!" But insurgency candidates like Carter don't appear too often. People like Bernie Sanders have to run on Socialist tickets. Other voters are deserting the Democrats for the Green Party and Working Families Party, scoring small, incremental victories in local council elections across the nation.

http://www.alternet.org/story/17881

kill off his candidacy FIRST? No one NOTICED or showed any concern that the media was UNDER-reporting Kerry's strength on the ground for all those months?

No one noticed that the media tried to abandon coverage of Kerry as much as possible throughout the second half of 2003? Or that they worked to declare his candidacy dead for months to dry up his national fundraising?

Could THIS be why they increased coverage to OTHER Democrats while ignoring Kerry?

Kerry Seeks to Reverse FCC's "Wrongheaded Vote"

Commission Decision May Violate Laws Protecting Small Businesses; Kerry to File Resolution of Disapproval

Monday, June 2, 2003

WASHINGTON - Senator John Kerry today announced plans to file a "Resolution of Disapproval" as a means to overturn today's decision by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to raise media ownership caps and loosen various media cross-ownership rules.
Kerry will soon introduce the resolution seeking to reverse this action under the Congressional Review Act and Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act on the grounds that the decision may violate the laws intended to protect America's small businesses and allow them an opportunity to compete.

As Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, Kerry expressed concern that the FCC's decision will hurt localism, reduce diversity, and will allow media monopolies to flourish. This raises significant concerns about the potential negative impacts the decision will have on small businesses and their ability to compete in today's media marketplace.

In a statement released earlier today regarding the FCC's decision, Kerry said:

"Nothing is more important in a democracy than public access to debates and information, which lift up our discourse and give Americans an opportunity to make honest informed choices. Today's wrongheaded vote by the Republican members of the FCC to loosen media ownership rules shows a dangerous indifference to the consolidation of power in the hands of a few large entities rather than promoting diversity and independence at the local level. The FCC should do more than rubber stamp the business plans of narrow economic interests.

"Today's vote is a complete dereliction of duty. The Commissioners are well aware that these rules greatly influence the competitive structure of the industry and protect the public's access to multiple sources of information and media. It is the Commission's responsibility to ensure that the rules serve our national goals of diversity, competition, and localism in media. With today's vote, they shirked that responsibility and have dismissed any serious discussion about the impact of media consolidation on our own democracy."

All the media hype over Dean's candidacy was before one single vote had been cast. Kerry was a non-entity.

It's not all about Kerry folks.

skewed to taint Kerry's primary victory.

And the few barbs Dean made towards the media during that time were given as cause by the writer for why the media went after Dean late in the primary, completely ignoring the SERIOUS legislative remedy that Kerry was seeking since June of that year.

Why don't you check on the date of WHEN Dean was given a press plane by the corporate media ensemble - they certainly did RUSH that decision - ever ask WHY?

In major media, we should expect numerous threads that portray him in a less than positive light. Who saw either of his interviews yesterday?

I love what Dean has been these days and it's sad that we have to revisit a painful time for him as well as all of us indirectly...

But those two appearances were very forceful, and some of us hoped for those things to be said long before now.

In any case, they are being said now, and that's what counts. :hi:

The media loved Powell, Bradley, McCain the image popular political no chances who would in the main leave them alone financially and have a great symbiosis that would uplift the president and the media. the political world wanted Bradley and the GOP was finally prone before a Bush/neocon demand. The Economist opined about Lieberman as a "moderate" who would continue the economic picture and give way to more business advantages than Clinton ever had. Of course being a softie and naif means being dead in the water unless the prize is literally left to you by default.

In 2000 none of the triumvirate wanted Gore to run except perhaps the GOP sector of the political scene if only because of the media dislike and the Clinton "baggage" spin. In 2004, dean was as much or more a threat to the entire agenda as he was possible presidential winner. So his candidacy was terminated with extreme prejudice by everyone. The other points being raised here are not intrusions. it is how the powers that be rate, build up and destroy their picks. Unmerited deference was given to Bush and the whole focus on the Dems by the "three" sectors was hostile- even intramural Dem divisions. Kerry surmounted the last and most inconsequential of the factors by uniting the party but including a few too many DLC shlubs who ruined whatever they touched and protected themselves from a well deserved retirement. By then the media dared not wistfully hope for a challenger to the godking benefactor who had them out on limb and denigrated just about everyone except Lieberman, at least being faithful to their penchant for picking losers if not the most "exciting" media prop.

All in all, the campaign was largely geared, except in the confident ambitions of various contenders, as revolving hopelessly around the untouchable Iraq policy and almost untouchable economic policy while Bush was let off the hook out of fear. Dean threatened the main unspoken battle, against the policy, against the untouched Bush image. It WAS the real battle even more than his candidacy and he succeeded somewhat into injecting it into all the chief contenders, succeeding in gaining a lot more votes and attention than otherwise would have been accorded. He did not succeed in winning over the obstinate party into facing the real contest nor would he had he even won the primaries, both the centrists and the GOP actively spinning his leadership into a McGovern box. If he had won the election even so... But thinking back, I think they had done enough damage where by chipping away at his resource support would have made each step forward harder. The fact is he could not overcome the tactics or the others, so speculation would have to include a large erasure of history, so much so that others would have eagerly jumped to his side or tactics.

I can see why Gore, again belatedly, endorsed Dean. They both had suffered the big pile on, only Gore was late to the breaking away from the party's suicidal centrism. Even more important now, because of Dean, is not only the gravitas beauty contest, but the direction the party must take to get with the people and against the entire Bush agenda. Unfortunately, that is being carried over, not resolved, from 2004 and the GOP profits while time slips away. Several "good" candidates have even less hope than Lieberman and cannot be made to face it because of these delusions, sidestepping and intramural dominance games. Progressives will not get party power by default. There won't be a party left that way. Centrists will not get national office by default either, that is more certain than ever. Again, one key person actually working to change this hapless conundrum is Chairman Dean and the empowerment of the grass roots. And the media would at this stage want to keep him and all of us as invisible and unheard as possible.

The same poster brings up Kerry's supposed heroics in the strangest places. Nothing gets through to them. No objection, no rationale. It is the same old badgering over and over. zzzzzzzzz .
I thought I would read the entire thread until that slapped me again.

1. Dean called him a Republican.
2. The left tried to make him out to be some kind or war criminal.

is normal politics. Clark was on tape pre 911 efusively praising Bush. It was a fair question then, as it was for Webb this year. It will NOT be a fair question in 2008. Dean's misstatement of Gephardt's medicare votes was worse - it was a major distortion.

Any one making war criminal comments sinks to the level of the SBVT.

Dean praised Bush (and Cheney), too.

Was it more than perfunctory? There's a certain level of courtesy that is normal - the Clark tape seemed to go a bit further, but had Clark have become the candidate that would have been what we would have said as well as saying that by 2004 he not longer thought that given all Bush did.

...that way.

If memory serves, Clark's speech was praising the administration's performance post 9/11 pre-Iraq.

Dean said (on Russert, I believe) that he tended to believe the President in the build-up to Iraq and that Cheney was an ideal VP.

I believe Dean's and Clark's were perfunctory in their given context.

because it bothered me when I first saw it for that reason. After reflection, I had no great problem with it as it seemed like the "my friend the distinguished Senator from PA" courtesy.

I knew that Dean had spoken in a reasonably pro-war vein, but didn't remember any details. (Dean had always seemed an interesting Governor. I knew he fought with the liberals in Vt, because we visit there a week each summer and would see the local papers.)

they had eliminated everyone else. Gee, wonder why?

And here you are hijacking a Dean thread for your hero. What a surprise!!!

is also when they decided to give Dean a press plane. How you can conclude that they chopped on Kerry only AFTER everyoone else is ABSURD - He was the firsat one they tried to take down by declaring his candidacy dead for MONTHS.

running for presidency.

That's when Dean was vilified by the DLC for "criticizing the president in a time of war". The swiftboating of Kerry was much later.

after his coverage was dropped to minimal while Dean was given a press plane.

The media declared for most of 2003 that Kerry's candidacy was dead which dried up his national fundraising forcing him to finance his own campaign in the last few months.

The media was deliberately UNDER-reporting Kerry's strength on the ground in Iowa while OVER-reporting Dean's numbers, and you all never NOTICED or wonder why?

In fact most articles that had anti Bush comments had both Kerry and Dean (and rarely anyone else). Their comments were almost always very similar.

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

sorry if accuracy offends you, but I expect it from anyone submitting a journalistic effort.

He can't complain about what the media did to Dean and blame them for the primary turning out the way it did, when Kerry was more greatly damaged by them for the longer period of time. A fact that he roundly ignored along with the reason why the media did its best to cut Kerry's coverage.

I don't like seeing "assassination" next to anyone's name.

:eyes:

history will repeat itself. Watch the Feingold campaign and see if the DLC/DCCC/DSCC doesn't try to pull the same thing.

Those who do not know history . . .

Never forget.

What the assination of Dean means for 2008 is that we need to work even harder for the populist candidate as to cement his support before he hits the DLC/Big Media radar and gets two sidewinder missles launched at him/her.

of course, is that those sidewinders will come from "our" side, just as they did in 2004.

Kerry and Wellstone were submitting their Clean Money, Clean Elections public financing of campaigns bill.

By siding with McCain then and helping craft that finance reform bill, Feingold got his name out there for the next few years - I'd say he's more clever than people think.

I love Howard Dean now. Back then though, I preferred another candidate. Also, when you're a hyped-up frontrunner with your photo on Newsweek and Time, you can bet that the media is sharpening their knives and looking for ANY slip-up, gaffe, misquote to pound over and over ...

As for blaming Dean's 2004 attempt purely on the media, big business and political parties, that's a tad simplistic and transparent. He spent way too much in Iowa and his campaign manager was awful. The scream didn't help and was in poor judgement. I've heard all the theories about the sound being altered and all that, but the blood was well in the water at that point.

The two cover stories tho covered by the veneer of balance, were highly negative in tone, and the message was : "loved by the far-right internet fringe, but unlectable"

The DLC had been trashing him in various other publications for weeks.

The DLC's candidates ganged up on Dean in Iowa and NH and ran swift-boat style attack ads.

The scream happened after the NH and Iowa results and is the "cover story" for what went wrong with his candidacy.

The DLC and big media sealed his fate weeks before.

If you want to have a pity party for Howard's 2004 try, have at it... I've moved on.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/features/la-dean19-video,0,6005088.realvideo?coll=bal-features-headlines

Nobody voted for Kerry in Iowa because of his scream because it had not happened yet.

Just as I said.

Those weren't factors...of course...I mean, having a campaign manager that doesn't return your phone calls is no biggie. Nor is it a big deal to Iowans that were extremely pissed at getting 20 copies of Dean 4-color 11x17 brochure merch a week or 5 phone calls a day... I talked with some Iowans that appreciated the fact that Dean supporters wore orange hats...so it gave them fair warning to latch their doors locked...so what if their Gephardt or Kerry yard sign was kicked down...

The article mentions nothing about Dean going into uber-gaffe mode from mid-December to well into February.

These certainly were reasons why Dean's campaign ran out of gas in Wisconsin. When you have a campaign manager that was too scared to possibly get fired or overtaken in an internal coup that he doesn't return phone calls to his own candidate, you know something is very, very wrong...

And if you think the media and big business are going to give ANY Democrat a break any time in the near future, I have some nice waterfront property in the 9th Ward in New Orleans to sell you.

This is all I'm writing in this thread. Get over Dean's loss in 2004. Do something positive.....NOW! Bringing this up now is precisely what Karl Rove wants...and since he wanted Dean to be the candidate originally, it does make you wonder...

failed to note EVERYTHING That went on, and not just to Dean.

If he had something to say about the media's work against Dean and pinpoint its cause to a few remarks made about the media then how could he POSSIBLY have failed to notice what happened to Kerry after his senate action to stop the FCC's rulings FOR the corporate media?

PM me and I'll explain Trippi's behavior to you. This subject is old, old news, and a much better piece would be the one in Black Commentator where several pieces on Dean explain a lot.

Let's move on shall we?

I can't help but think this was a molotov tossed into the living room intentionally for the amusement of "other" websites.

If it wasn't it has that same effect.

I agree we need to move on...and I agree this thread is like a molotov thrown in the room or at least a chance to pick at old sores that were pretty much healed by now.

Kerry's rise could be explained by what he did - or rather what Rassmann did. For many people, the first real exposure to Kerry in early 2004 was the perfect TV event (though it was real). The reunion of Rassmann, the guy Kerry saved in VN was a fantastic introduction. Kerry was clearly moved to meet him and his almost shy comment "that anyone would have done it." was perfect.

At any time, this would be an incredible testimony to the person Kerry is, in troubled times it was perfect - and why the SBVT really went after him on his service.

The media simotaneously focused on Dean's gaffes. ALL people will make gaffes. The media has the ability to edit a "bloopers" tape - and they did.

:sarcasm:

Dean was never in Iowa, and the "Iowa Caucus" was actually a brilliant radio play produced by Orson Welles on Halloween, 1938, that caused widespread panic when people tuning in late mistook it for actual news coverage.

(sigh) Sad, too.

that's the way it would be.

We have an enormous problem.

and, part of the "Founding Team" of the DLC offshoot, New Politics Institute, which is an offshoot of New Democrat Network (ndn.org)

Joe Trippi, NPI Fellow

as is Markos Moulitsas Zúniga, NPI Fellow


http://www.newpolitics.net/about/fellows/
http://www.newpolitics.net/about/foundingteam/

hanging with Simon Rosenberg who wanted Howard's job.

candidates got a fair shake from the media last time out. It wasn't just Dean; it wasn't just Kerry; it was EVERY ONE OF THEM.

Let's learn this lesson and try to see it doesn't happen next time out. I don't know how we can insure that, so maybe we can make this a thread sharing ideas about that!

TC

I suggest you start that thread, I'd like to participate!

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

that ugly 2004 primary scene Again!

Especially after they found out which candidate was going to be facing the kingmonkey.

campaign c.December 2003 ... reportedly, Sharpton's and Moseley-Braun's, too.

I believe Kucinich raised the media issue in a debate ... of the media trying to pick candidates rather than letting the voters doing it.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/12/12/1657250

"If it's Sunday, it's conservative" ... Biden, McCain ... the breadth of the debate is extremely narrow, and far from fair. It's already at work.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200602140002?offset=20&show=1

He doesn't need help from anyone on his character assignation.

You woudln't have needed to chimed in, now would you?

each in a different "prescribed" method.

John Kerry - He's "it", and then He's "Not", and then He's "electable" after Iowa.....and then He's "Not" again during the GE (Osama wants Kerry to win, they said)....Flip/Flop, Windsurfing snob, etc...etc...

Howard Dean - Who's He? He's "it"-Netroot extraordinaire/shoo in! Media onslaught starts on January 1st--then, No Wait, He's "Crazy"--ridiculed from Iowa on!

Wes Clark - Who's He? Not a Democrat/attacked via "not ready for primetime" media campaign-- Ignored In November/December - Revived in first week of jan, and then ignored from Iowa on.

John Edwards - Who's He? He's a lightweight! No, He's Wonderful and Eloquent and handsome and optimistic! Heralded as Bill Clinton born again right after Iow.......But He's running for VP (they said)! Made to disappear during the GE.

-------
contrast Bush positioning: Wartime President, plain speaker, sticks to his guns, tough guy! :eyes:

the lies in Rove's talking points.

and discuss some real solutions!

I'm not a media maven like you or Frenchie, so why don't one of you start a thread about solutions for this media problem of ours, and let's alll participate!

TC

Sometimes more than ten on a particularly BLATANT day.

See the Org "Media Matters" that was formed to attempt to keep watch of the media. Include Crooks and Liars, the old Mediawhores site, and others....and yet, the media still does what it wants.

I don't know if there is an answer TC....which is why it is soooooo frustrating to watch them, knowing that they are and have been full of shit for some time.

hell, they almost allowed the impeachment of Bill Clinton. So ya know, those are some mean and wicked bastards!

and 2004, especially after 9-11, but it really started when they wanted to take Clinton down for the most minor of reasons.

If silver-tongued Clinton can be impeached for nothing it was only because the media made sure of it.

I tried to start a thread like that after reading David Brock's "The Republican Noise Machine." It got about 2 responses....

I have none of the answers myself but I do suggest everyone read that book...It at least gives you some idea of what we're up against....and it's one big old monolith of a problem....

THE DLC. It's not all the media.

Nothing new there...

Some times it's the media and the GOP,
Sometimes it's the media and the Swiftboat liars,
Somethimes it's the media and the DLC,
Sometimes it's the media and the extreme left,
sometimes it's the media and Democrats against other Democrats,
Etc..., etc..., etc...

But the point of fact remains....the media is always involved somewhere in there, IF the "conspiracy" is to have any success.

because that was fine with you, but when they turned their attention to Dean, then it became a conspiracy?

The media was out to destroy ANY Dem - Dean came after the others were thought to be neutralized and damaged enough.

two year old article, and in comparison to what the left did to Wes Clark.

1. Dean called him a Republican - then tried to make him his runningmate.
2. The left tried to make him out to be some kind or war criminal.

Except for the Michael Moore/George McGovern Left, who embraced him.

I still have a clip of Moore making fun of the left for their attitude towards Clark.

But, no, there is still a couple of message boards made up of former DU members who are obsessed with proving Wes Clark is Satan.

There was the Amy Goodman piece on DemocracyNow, with the blazing headline that Clark massacred people in Kosovo (a headline that was "reworded" later,) etc., etc.,

I'll Be Voting For Wesley Clark/Good-Bye Mr. Bush
--by Michael Moore
January 14, 2004
link:

http://www.clark04.com/moore/
______________

Monday, January 19, 2004 Posted: 0102 GMT ( 9:02 AM HKT)

KEENE, New Hampshire (CNN) -- Retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark's campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination picked up an endorsement Sunday from former Sen. George McGovern, the Democratic nominee in 1972.

"I am here to endorse with all my heart and strength General Wes Clark," the three-term senator from South Dakota told about 500 people gathered at a pancake breakfast at Keene Middle School.

Wesley Clark talks with George McGovern at a pancake breakfast in Keene, New Hampshire, on Sunday

link:

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/18/elec04.prez.clark.mcgovern/
____________

I would have to agree that Amy Goodman was not very charitable toward General Clark; to put it mildly.

Clark with mainstream voters (you know, the zombies who do whatever television tells them to) in reference to the Deserter comment in the debate a week before the New Hampshire vote!

Plus, I'll never forget the "He's a Lieutenant, I'm a General" quote that Bob Dole set up on Wes Clark during a CNN interview during the Iowa election night returns......which John Kerry "used" against Wes Clark because it was "advantageous" to him at the time (guess that's politics).
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_01/003093.php (the real story)
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110004608 (the smear story)

Kerry -- "That's the first time I have heard a general be so dismissive of lieutenants, who bleed a lot in wars." At which point Clark noted that he had bled in Vietnam, too. (Reportedly, the joke in the Kerry campaign was that when Captain Kangaroo died, Clark told everyone that he outranked him.)
(of course Kerry forgot to, whoops, mention that Wes Clark almost died of his wounds in Vietnam, if one was gonna measure the amount of blood lost).


I'm sure that John Kerry later regretted using that one......cause he gave credence to Bob Dole's statements...who later turned on Kerry and swiftboated him pretty effectively (again with the media's help) during the GE.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5771731/
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/9/9/13438.shtml

and of course, Wes Clark took up defense for John Kerry during the GE as loyaly as anyone could!

Boy, politics really do stink a lot, don't they?

What rank did Clark have when he was wounded? Kerry said nothing about Clark's career or wounds. He simply pointed out that lieutenants had value in war too. Clark pulled rank on him and he responded. There is nothing offensive in Kerry's response -

Kerry was a lieutenant 35 years ago...there was no need to "pull Rank" on John Kerry, which is really not what happened, no matter how you want to remember it.

Wes Clark was responding to Bob Dole calling Clark a Lieutenant and Kerry a General after Iowa on CNN. Bob Dole, a Republican asshole, was attempting to disparage Wes (guess Wes was supposed to just nod and laugh? He wasn't gonna let anyone swiftboat him right there and then...period) a Military man with a 34 year career, by deranking him in military terms on National TV, and elevating someone else to General status when it wasn't so. Using military ranks as a metaphor to describe what was happening in politics to a military man and (at the time) a opposing candidate was Bob Dole's aim.

So Bob Dole was totally out of line, and he knew it.

So in reality, Clark didn't "pull" rank on john Kerry, as he wasn't even talking to John Kerry, and was only stating "the facts" of the realities to Bob Dole in reference to each's rank.

Only someone who wanted to "capitalize" on Clark's statement would have taken issue with what he said....which was nothing but the truth to someone trying to disparage him.

I realize that it was John Kerry using pure politics, because, come on.......John Kerry ain't no dummy. He knew exactly what he was doing when Clark was made out to be the bad guy in the scenario, when clearly Bob Dole was the asshole. Kerry got a taste of Bob Dole's assholyness during the GE, so he knows.

Here's the Kerry Campaign's Statement while capitalizing and distorting what Clark had even said.....The reaction from a Kerry spokesman: "We didn't expect General Clark would question John Kerry's courage and commitment to country given his record under fire, and it's disappointing."

I guess that Clark stating that he was a General and Kerry was a Lieutenant (after someone had said just the opposite) was supposed to mean that he "questioned John Kerry's courage and commitment to his country"? Yeah....Right! :eyes:

Clark himself was a Captain when he was wounded and nearly died. He knows better than most that all ranks are important in the military hierchary, in particular the frontline soldiers as he was gravely wounded on the frontlines, in the field. :eyes:

edited to add....and maybe John Kerry doesn't regret misrepresenting that whole incident for his own political advancement. That is certainly possible. I understand that it was "just politics"......Wes knows that too.

In fact, I Wish John Kerry would have been as smart, ruthless, and calculated with the Republicans totally dissing him when he was running in the GE as he was in dogging out his Democratic opponents.

I remember those who were calling john Kerry a "closer".......well, I sure wish that John Kerry would have "closed" that 2004 vote with him in the majority! that's for sure!

and celebrates non-conformity."

What country has this individual been living in?

Good Gawd - get me on the next bus outta here!



I feel like I'm in the :crazy: ((( TWILIGHT ZONE ))) :crazy:

Don't make me call Diebolt!

(or the fireman's association)

Just push the buttons on the voting machine and go back to sleep until 2008 when you will have Tom Daschle leading us back to awesome victory!

In the great spirit of milktoast & acceptable leadership, we say yea!

Dukakis, Gore & Kerry

Daschle in 2008!

that Gore is going to outlive that rep.

The boy has a fire in his belly, and I think he means to hurt
the oleoadmin.

And Dean is a far better person to take us out of the days
of milquetoastdom than he would be as a presidential candidate in 2008.
I think that race is Al Gore's to win (again) at this point, if he wants it.

I thought this was a new article and I couldn't figure out why anyone was still writing that old crap.

I once loved Dean... I initially supported him for the Dem ticket in 2004, but then changed my mind when his campaign imploded after Iowa. Folks can blame the media if they want to, but Dean, just like Kerry after the swift boat attack ads, was free to respond however he chose. There's a right way and a wrong way to respond to an attack. Dean clearly chose the wrong way.
http://www.pollyticks.com

Surely you jest? Dean was a centrist himself! Infact he was labeled the fifth most conservative governor in the nation by his fellow governors.Dean said many times that he was NOT a liberal. I am so tired of a false picture of Dean being presented to suit the needs of the indididual writers. I supported Dean for chair . I did NOT support him in the primary. I almost did but I didn't like what background information turned up. I didn't care for his corporate realationships , particularly with IBM, and he was too cavalier about the enviornment. But he is an okay guy.Just not presidential.He shot himself in the foot with his mouth and his frittering away , by his own admission, his supporters money on "cheese and chocolates " for potential "big donors". That lost me and quite a few others. Dean lost the primary all by himself.It is time to stop blaming everyone else and touting conspiracy theories.

Your post reminds me of late '03 when DU threads would have differen Dean supporters in the same thread both claiming Dean was liberal and moderate. Even his supporters didn't know what he was. That's a result of how Dean ran his campaign, not what the media did to him. That's why I disliked him more than someone like Lieberman who was at least up front about what he is.

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

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

and on a scale that had not been seen for a long, long time. That's why they hated Dean, certainly not because he was "left-wing"; because he was not. On almost all issues Gov. Dean was not more "left-wing" than President Clinton. And they know that.

They just couldn't stand the sight of ordinary Americans getting involved in politics and taking it seriously outside of their guiding hands.

They have to attack ordinary Americans who think for themselves and get involved. It's a threat to them and their grip on power.

This was stuff that was seen with peoples' own eyes! I was a Dean supporter!

When you attack those who supported him, it is dirty pool. It is the kind of thing the DLC did, they were ruthless.

When you ignore criticism, you are liable to face the same failures over and over again.

Read this, and it is only part of it.

That's right it's only part of it. What I was saying had nothing to do with being anti-Iraq war as I was. I don't think I mentioned the war anywhere in my post.

So go ahead and try to humiliate. Those are tactics used by the Republicans, and our party should be better than that.

You're right, none of the hardcore Dean supporters have ever tried to humiliate anyone. Neither Eloriel nor AntiCoup2K4, who have both been tombstoned way after the primaries.

There was astroturfing started here at DU in 03, and most of the Deaniacs got sent away trying to defend themselves against the things that were said.

Document or retract the astroturfing charge.

There is an awfully distressing tendency among a minority of Dean supporters to serve up no end of lacerating comments about other candidates and then to react with a sort of stunned and outraged shock when anyone criticizes their guy. It's the flip side of seeing the race in such heroic, if not messianic dimensions.

The primary is actually not concluded yet. And, pace John Calvin, I assume the outcome is not predetermined. So it is still permitted to criticize Mr. Dean and not be an enemy of democracy.

with the less temperate supporters who were in it more for the fire of the campaign, than the practical language aspect of Dean's campaign.

mf and many others here at DU represent those who were attracted to Dean's practical nature, and it's why many of us support him as Chairman. We feel he will LISTEN to both sides, which is something we never felt from Terry Mac.

:hi:

I remember seeing Dean bird-doggers outside events for other candidates. Most of the people were civil enough, but you don't win over too many people when you're holding signs that attack the person people just heard speak. That's especially foolish in Iowa, where you need to get the backers of other candidates to switch to your side after the first round of the caucus. I don't know if that can be blamed on his supporters or if it was a tactical mistake by the campaign management.
Edwards' reluctance to attack other candidates paid off most Iowa.

Not very kind words for someone who was not there.

This is sad to see this keep on.

trashed first or most? Get it together people.

Who is your enemy?

Is there some new development in the 2004 primary?

I would point out that Dean would never have gotten to the point he did without frequent coverage in the corporate media, more than what other candidates received. His coverage preceded his popularity.

Its also important to realize that Dean's top contributor for most of the primary was employees of AOL Time/Warner. So much for that "the corporate media is out to get Dean" meme. Its bullshit. The media helped destroy Dean, but they created him first.

And frankly, Dean benefited a great deal from his public spats with the DLC. It allowed him to appeal to the left while being a moderate. His frequent attempts to play both sides are what lead to the "Who is the real Dean?" headline. It was a good question and a valid criticism.

The usual "I'm more liberal than you and anyone like you is a DLC stooge"... ad nauseum.

:shrug:

if you were around here in early '04 for the primary gang wars.

More so than most here. Should tell you something that I am alarmed that groups in our party love war and want to stay.

That scares me.

.

As Chait said, the radicalism of the left lies not so much in your ideological platform but in your ideological style. You think like sectarians.

If the Iraq war had never happened, you'd still find fault with those who don't fit your ideological vision.

Your group has the war they wanted, the one they wanted so badly they called us fringe.

They got it, they own it.

I hope I never get like that. I hope I don't have to resort to quoting Chait about our Democrats. I remember him well.

The DLC wanted the war, they got it. They wanted the bankruptcy bill to protect corporations...they got it. NAFTA..got it.

... the war never happened. I know you can.

What then? What would you be complaining about?

If Gore was the President, we'd have a sitting DLC President and DLC vice President.

Would you be so against the DLC then?

The war is your crutch. And the left has been waiting for it since 1972.

I know all about who is and who isn't DLC, and I also know the ones who are dependent on their resources.

How can I not interject the war? It is tearing our country apart, and they are advocating staying while a civil war is raging.

I am a moderate. They are not moderate.

"I am moderate."

Right.

You're blinded by ideology. Of course you can't see it.

People who want war...

People who want to stay in Iraq though it is hopeless...

People who want to spread democracy...

People who want to attract the "abortion grays" (middle ground)...

People who want to privatize Social Security..

People who sold out to the corporations on that sick bankruptcy bill...

People who sign bills or introduce bills to stop all abortions even in the case of rape or incest...

These people are NOT moderate. They are extreme.

I am moderate.

Just as the left tried to co-opt the term "liberal" to make anyone to the right if them appear more conservative, now you're doing the same to "moderate."

I would like to be calling myself truly liberal now, but both extremes scare me because of my Southern Baptist background. The church wanted their holy war, and we left it.

I think the extreme that took us to war is the one I am most afraid of now. It would be different if they were willing for us to leave, but they aren't.

as a moderate.

I wanted to make it clear that the DLC's term for us was wrong. They started the fight in 03, and I wish they would stop it. Now they are just calling us liberals who don't want the country to be safe. Shades of Peter Beinart and Al From.

the fight started in the 80s with Jesse Jackson firing the first round.

You may think the term "fringe" is wrong for you, but then you co-opt another term.

Shades of Henry Wallace and George McGovern.

I am. If others want to twist the word to make it ok to have holy wars, or imperial wars, or to make it ok to go after gays and women's rights then they are co-opting the term.

with Hillary this week that indicate at least she is now saying what needs to be said.

I do some phone work for Democratic fund raising, and people are mad as hell.
They sure support the cause, but have huge questions about who among elected officials are supporting the cause. One of the biggest complaints is we don't hang together. We have no plan. They keep going along with Bush. etc. Things I understand completely. So I had to come up with an answer because we don't stand a chance with the Republicans. We can't just throw up our hands and pick up our marbles and go home. But she made the point, the same one I came up with, which we don't think about or emphasize enough, is, the Democratic party is a populous party. We are the big tent. We are not the narrow brain traumas of the right. "Doing Something" means different things to all of us. We don't have narrow agendas. We don't focus on the negative and seek to take out the cancer of oh say abortion? human rights? We are not aiming at targets. WE are trying to open the gate. This battle is so misunderstood. Hillary FINALLY said she is proud of our debates. That as Liberals, we HAVE to disagree. There is no other way. We are the ones who are open to honest debates. Republicans have a rule book and nothing budges from that. That is the choice. Freedom or bondage. Right now we are in bondage. Elect a Democrat and give us all a chance.

Flame-Bait, and antique to boot.