Howard Dean for President!

Ugh. Do I hear 49 states for Bush?

 

Is Dean's 15 minutes up yet? Tick. Tick. Tick.

 

This is a bunch of crap because he isn't dividing us by race. He is simply putting affirmative action under the microscope. Why is this policy of racism tolerated by the anti racist left? ANY policy that favors ANY race over another is racist, and should be done away with. And i also didn't realize abortion was to be accepted hands down...

 

Howard Dean for White House Butler or Gardner!

You're candidate is TOAST FOOL!!!

 

So far Dean has my vote.

 

Dean has, much to my surprise, become a serious candidate for the Dem nomination because he's trying to win the nomination, not the general election.

A couple of months ago I said that the Democratic nominee could use two paths to victory: placate the moderates like Clinton did, or screw the South entirely and try to win every single state north of the Mason / Dixon line. If the Dems take the first strategy, Edwards is the most likely candidate. Dean's nomination could mean only the second, which is possible but very risky. Then again, it could be another Adlai Stevenson / Walter Mondale / Bob Dole moment -- if you think you're going to lose, you might as well send up someone whose career doesn't matter.

Would I vote for him? Sure, but I don't decide elections (much to many people's disappointment, I'm sure). A Dean nom is interesting but it likely means that the Dems have given up already.

 

Well of course that kind of purple prose quote from Dean was designed to appeal to his particular audience in that case.

Not even HE believes all that tripe.

But it's a pursuasive appeal to the Democratic far left, and is creating serious problems for John Kerry, he of the craggy face and the married money.

Big John thought he had the extreme left end of the party staked out for himself, and now is finding out he has to fight foe it. I can't wait to hear the mindless twadle he's going to have to come up with to top Dean.

Dean's hope, of course, is that guys like Kucinich (a nut job of the first order) can raise enough money to actually make some noise. Having somebody MORE liberal than you are makes you look more centrist.

The problem he's creating though is that he's gonna have a harder time running back toward the middle come election time.

Still and all, this pro-forma canned "Bush is the devil" talk is just boiler plate. Most ANY demo candidate will say the same kind of thing. (Of course, there are actually weakminded loons here on bigsoccer who take it seriously, but thet;s their problem, not mine).

These attacks on a leader ostensibly "dividing the people" is usually quickly followed by a warm, conciliatory and unifying "it's us against them" stem winder. Old news.

Overall though, Dean is a serious guy, and one of the handful of Democratic candidates worthy of some respect. He has the kind of personal integrity and set of core beliefs that make a strong leader. I disagree with him on most issues, but he knows what he's about and doesn't apologize for it.

Best of all, he's a sure loser in a general election.

 

As much as I like Dean, I agree with this. The South is going to be tough on Dean largely because of civil unions. The average voter will never understand that the civil unions law was forced upon Dean and the legislature by a ruling from the VT Supreme Court. Nor will they understand the difference between marriages and civil unions. It'll just be reactionary anti-gay crap in the South.

But on the upside, Dean has now raised over $2.6M. I know it isn't Bush or Kerry type of money but he'll have enough to run a professional visible campaign.

Just like that governor from a small southern state in 1992 with all of those adultery rumors flying around him.

Murf

 

I was watching The Last Party last night.

During Clinton's '92 nomination speech he said we have "themed ourselves to death". Them the gays, them the homeless, them the poor, them the blacks, immigrants, etc. The current administration doesn't truly care about 'them'. Unless them is corporate dividend tax cuts.

 

Mr. Pot meet Mr. Kettle

 

I believe this speech is called Howard Dean preaching to the choir. I'll be interested when he faces the challenge of reaching the nation as a whole.

 

Thanks for the link. I'll look into it.

 

Dean's an interesting example of the direction of the "left" wing of the Dem. Party. He's basically eschewed traditionally left-wing economic issues -- try finding anything about promoting union jobs or seeking full employment as a government goal on his website. Instead, his economic platform is really a return to Clinton's policies. His left-wingedness comes from his stance on civil unions, support for universal health care, and his foreign policy stances.

Economically, he's as moderate as any of the 5 other major candidates... Actually, Gephardt's probably to the left of him economically. (I think Dean's gained enough attention to deserve mention on a par with Kerry, Edwards, Lieberman, and Gephardt).

 

This is pretty good point. While the GOP in VT thinks all Dem's are liberal, Dean has probably faced more criticism from the left. He has consistently angered the left wing of the party, along with the Progressives, by refusing to raise spending and putting money in the 'rainy day fund'. The questions for him are whether those on the left he has hooked in with his oppostion to the war will accept his more mainstream policies; and provided he wins the nomination will he be able to run on his more moderate record to retake the middle ground without being portrayed as too far left.

I think that absent a total collapse by W (and we can always hope!) the Democrat who emerges is going to have to rebuild the Clinton coalition of voters. For all his faults, he was able to make the left wing of the party believe that he wanted to do the same things they did even though his policies deliberately failed to live up to those ideals.

 

I kind of wonder if, at this point, Dean is envisioning a Barry Goldwater-type campaign. This might be a stretch, but bear with me.

Goldwater contended that once JFK died, he knew he had no chance of winning. He ran (and this is according to his last autobio), at the urging of conservatives, as the best chance of recallibrating the Republican Party toward a conservative POV. When he ran, conservatives were seen as basically the lunatic fringe of the Rpublican Party, witness the constant questioning of Goldwater on support from the John Birch Society. People thought BG had no chance to get the nomination. But the Goldwater campaign served as a massive rallying point of conservatives back into national prominence, for the first time since, at least Robert Taft lost the nomination to Ike. It also served as the testing ground for the rhetoric and training ground for the generation of conservative political operatives that reached their fruition with Reagan's election and have pretty much dominated the Party since. BG's Republican opponents at the time were largely seen as establishment, big money, types who were willing to acceed to the post WWII New Deal state.

Now, I may be completely wrong or may be over-blowing this comparison, but I think there are some similarities between this moment in the Democratic Party and Goldwater's moment in the Republican Party. The Dems are basically run by the DLC, avowed moderates with great connection to establishment money but less connection to the Dem rank and file. Dean is a candidate of ideas who will say what he thinks, even if impolitic, much like Goldwater (witness his "i've never read an entire book by a conservative author because I couldn't find one smart enough for me" comment). Dean IMO would probably draw more on Democratic outsiders than the Dem campaign apparatus in running his campaign. And the Democrats, in recent elections, have been out of ideas of their own, running on protecting social security and old people, stealing Republican ideas and with a strained populism. And I say this as someone who will vote Democrat in the next election.

Dean might, if so inclined, see his campaign as an attempt to make a new identity for the Dems and train a new generation of people to carry forth those ideas. I don't know if he has this desire or has new ideas in him. The website shows some potential, but nothing fully intellectually developed. It wouldn't be pretty in the general election. But it could have greater benefits down the line than an Edwards loss.

 

Regarding what needs wrote...

While I seriously doubt that what Dean intends is a Goldwater-esque crusade. I do agree that what Dean (and I) believe is that the Democratic party should realign itself away from the Republicanism Lite/DLC crap and back to its core values of social democracy.

I don't believe that social democracy and fiscal responsibility are mutually exclusive ideas. I think the Mr. Dean brings a good deal of concrete thinking on some of these matters.

I guess it remains to be seen whether his candidacy will be one such as Bruce Babbit's, e.g. the flavor of the month, a factor in Iowa and gone by April '04, or like that of Goldwater.

As much as I loathe Bush and wish to see him leave his purchased presidency as soon as possible -- to the extent that I will work my ass off for whoever the eventual Dem. nominee is -- I really hope that Dean can take or threaten to take the nomination. The party -- hell the Nation -- needs to examine what it's all about. I wouldn't be at all displeased to see Dean challenge Bush even if it was all but assured he would loose. It would be worth the price of four more years of Bush the Younger just to watch the debates. Remember, there is nothing more dangerous than a man with nothing to loose.

 

I plan to vote for Howard Dean. He says the rights things about health care and education. He seems bright, creative and interesting and has been a good and fairly progressive governor. Also, his views on the war in Iraq and the role of the United Nations and international community make a lot of sense. As our world become interconnected with high-speed travel and hi-tech communications, one countries actions affects the well-being of the members of other countries. And it's important that each individual have an opportunity to affect policy. And it's bad if some people have much more political power than others. Thus, it makes sense for the US to be a willing and eager member of the global community.

Dean has a shot at the Democratic nomination. In general, people who vote in the Democratic primaries have political views that are closer to those of Dean than to those of, say, Joe Lieberman. And Dean is engaging. I imagine he will be a good campaigner and be good in the debates.

As far the general election, it is likely to be difficult for anyone to beat Bush. Perhaps the Democratic candidate with the best chance would be Lieberman. However, perhaps it would be possible for Dean to have a shot. He would have an opportunity to win all the states that Gore won. It would be difficult. But is it doable? Iowa will be really tough. I'm surprised Gore won it, and Gore barely won it. Also, all of these states will be a challenge for any Democrat: Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota. And these states won't be easy, either: Illinois, Pennsylvania, Oregon and Washington. But aren't all of these states reachable? They all went to Gore. And on many of the key issues, it seems that the majority of voters in these states are closer to Dean than to Bush, especially on the environment, education and health care.

So then it would come down to Florida, Ohio and Missouri. Bush should be favored in each of these states. But Florida was essentially a tie in Bush/Gore.

Something I've been thinking: Democrats should be less concerned about trying to win than they have been. Winning is, of course, important. It gives one an opportunity to directly affect policy. But trying to win often should not be the consideration that overrides all others. For one thing, when one tries so hard to win, one is more apt to come across as inauthentic, which, ironically, turns off many voters. Second, by articulating a clear, liberal message perhaps the Democrats would energize registered Democrats and those voters inclined to vote for Green Party candidates. Third, perhaps a progressive message would appeal to some of those people who choose not to vote. Perhaps a liberal message is what many of these people have been waiting to hear.

Finally, over the long-run, perhaps a clearly articulated progressive message would have more effect on the direction of the country than an amorphous centrist message. If one is progressive, one might be less likely to win the upcoming election but more likely to have long-term influence on the political direction of the country and of the world. Liberal ideas would get thrust into the public debate and discussed earnestly. People would get to thinking about them. And liberalism is a good political philosophy. This kind of approach might be a particularly good idea for the Democratic candidates in the upcoming election, as it seems like it will be hard to beat Bush.

 

Why do you say this? Way too early to say. I'll say this...if the economy doesn't improve aLOT, a Bush win would mean you'd have to go back to 1936 to find an incumbent winning with such a bad economy. And the '36 economy was better than the '32 economy, so even that precedent doesn't hold.

Exactly. When a candidate makes winning such an important component of their campaign, it's like a baseball pitcher who really, really, really needs a strike. Invariably, he'll aim the ball instead of throwing it. It'll either be ball four, or a fat pitch right down the middle.