Bill & Hill Push for 'Anybody But Dean'

[ELVIS]

Time will tell...

[FORD]

Why Dean should take charge
With his passion and populist appeal, Howard Dean is exactly the leader the Democratic Party needs right now.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Mark Hertsgaard



Jan. 24, 2005 | Florida Democrats' decision to unanimously back Howard Dean as the new chairman of the DNC (Democratic National Committee) shows two things: first, there are still some Democrats out there -- including in the supposedly hopeless South -- who have brains and guts and aren't afraid to think for themselves; and second, Dean now has a real shot at winning the DNC job and launching a much-needed makeover of the Democratic Party.

Political and media elites in Washington are at once horrified and dismissive of Dean's quest. They insist that Democrats would be crazy to pick a raving liberal like Dean as their next party chairman. But as is so often the case, this inside-the-Beltway conventional wisdom is based on dubious "facts" and assumptions about how ordinary Americans relate to politics. Dean is exactly the leader Democrats need to become relevant again.

The Florida Democratic chairman's statement to the New York Times reveals just how out of touch the Washington establishment is: "I'm a gun-owning pickup-truck driver and I have a bulldog named Lockjaw," said Scott Maddox. "I am a Southern chairman of a Southern state, and I am perfectly comfortable with Howard Dean as DNC chair."

And the reason Florida Democrats like Dean?

"What our party needs right now is energy, enthusiasm and a willingness to do things differently," Maddox added. "I think Howard Dean brings all three of those things to the party."

Maddox isn't the only prominent Southern Democrat backing Dean. On Tuesday, the state chairman from Mississippi and the vice chairmen from Oklahoma and Utah announced that they too were endorsing the former Vermont governor, leading ABC News' influential The Note to declare that Dean "is now emphatically the front-runner" for the DNC job.

A year ago, Dean was jeered off the national stage by television's nonstop coverage of his "scream" speech. And it must be admitted that he showed some undeniable weaknesses as a presidential candidate in 2004, including a tendency to speak first and think later. But Dean is running for party chairman now, not president. The chairman's job is to rally and organize the party faithful to do the unglamorous but vital grass-roots work that will expand the Democratic base, reach out to new and uncommitted voters, and win future elections. As Maddox said, Dean fits that job description perfectly. He inspires grass-roots enthusiasm and his time as governor of Vermont grants him the necessary executive and administrative skills.

What's more, in the wake of the Democrats' loss to President Bush in November, Dean's political message, and especially the way he delivers it, looks better and better.

Dean, after all, was right about the central issue of the 2004 election -- the Iraq war. Nowadays, a majority of the American public believes that attacking Iraq was a bad idea. Dean was saying this -- and being criticized for it -- in the fall of 2003.

Dean was also right when he said Democrats should be the party not only of urban liberals but of "guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks," another comment he was derided for. But in view of how many centrist voters chose President Bush over John Kerry, even though Kerry's economic policies would have benefited them more, Dean's call to reach out to culturally conservative voters was prescient.

Above all, Dean was right that Democrats would win only if they told voters exactly what they stood for and why. Kerry never did that, especially on Iraq, where his reluctance to call the war (and not just its prosecution) a mistake let the president off the hook on his most vulnerable issue.

By contrast, Bush never shrank from saying what he believed. Like Dean, he understood a basic fact of American politics: voters value plain-spokenness in a politician much more than agreement on specific issues. Bush was even clever enough to steal one of Dean's signature lines: "You may not always agree with me, but you'll always know where I stand."

All of the news stories reporting Dean's decision to seek the DNC chairmanship repeated the standard rap against him: He's too liberal. But that charge doesn't reflect reality so much as it reflects the Washington establishment's version of reality. Dean was labeled a liberal by the media essentially because he opposed the Iraq war. Never mind that he was also a deficit hawk who opposed gun control, gay marriage and universal healthcare, or that many conservatives later embraced his criticism of the war. In the post-Sept. 11 mood of false patriotism, the media assumed that anyone who criticized an apparently successful war had to be a liberal, and that was that.

This mischaracterization has led observers to miss the real source of Dean's appeal to a jaded electorate: He knows what he believes and he's not afraid to say it plainly enough for ordinary people to understand. His vision for Democrats is not about moving the party to the left; it's about Democrats standing for something that resonates with ordinary Americans -- a task that current party leaders have manifestly failed to achieve.

Dean believes the Democratic Party's allegiance to big donors and cautious incrementalism has alienated many of its logical voters. Alone among prominent Democrats, he recognizes that the party has little future if it cannot connect in an authentic way with the extraordinary grass-roots energy that propelled his own presidential campaign (and that later nearly got Kerry elected, despite the Kerry campaign's many shortcomings).

In 2004, Dean rewrote the rules of presidential campaigns by using the Internet and local "meet-ups" to raise small donor money. But Dean's real secret was to give supporters real influence within his campaign and thus hook them on continued political participation. The idea of meet-ups, for example, came from the grass roots, not from campaign headquarters.

The Bush campaign tapped into similar grass-roots energy among conservatives and thereby expanded Republican turnout enough to gain the president a second term. Democrats must do more of the same in the years to come, and Dean is the leader who best understands that imperative. Dean, after all, is a populist. And his populism is not the brand espoused by President Bush -- a millionaire who shills for billionaires while talking like the common man. Dean's is the real thing. Which is why Republicans privately fear him.

Another part of the media consensus on Dean is that he only wants the DNC job to grease his run for president in 2008. For his part, Dean has declared he won't run if he gets the DNC job. Of course, he could change his mind. But it's worth remembering that presidential candidate Dean always said that Democrats must first reform their party and its approach to politics if they want to win the White House.

Dean is now traveling around the country telling his supporters that remaking the Democratic Party is a long-term project that could take 20 years. His first hurdle comes on Feb. 12, when 447 largely unknown party officials from around the country will vote for the next DNC chairman. The Florida and other Southern Democrats' decision to back him will, of course, be enormously helpful to Dean's prospects, but it also figures to call forth still more "anyone but Dean" efforts from the party establishment.

Everyone agrees the Democrats have to remake themselves; they just lost to perhaps the most vulnerable incumbent in history. The DNC vote will give the first hint of how they plan to proceed. At a time when America has never needed an effective opposition party more, let us pray Democrats can rise to the challenge.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

About the writer
Mark Hertsgaard is the author, most recently, of "The Eagle's Shadow: Why America Fascinates and Infuriates the World," and "Earth Odyssey: Around the World in Search of Our Environmental Future."

[BigBadBrian]

Here's a cunt-n-paste job for you to tear apart, Dickyfresh.

[academic punk]

FORD -

Clearly your political views are in direct opposition to the rest of the country at this time.

If Dean had been the candidate, the margin of Bush's victory would've been larger. Deal with it.

as to the Dems being dead, horseshit. 50,000,000 ain't dead. and the push that took W over the top was the extreme religious right. Trust me, the country will not kow-tow to them any further than it already has.

My belief is that what the Dems need more than anything else is a new CAMPAIGN STRATEGIST: Bob Shrum lost it in 2000, he had no business being the man again in '04.

What brought the oval office to clinton in '92: Perot taking away a significant enough portion of George HW's vote and the machinations of James Carville. What brought w victory in 2000: Nader taking enough potential Gore votes and the min of Karl Rove.

Carville and Rove may be less photogenic, and maybe less interested in the political stance of their candidate, but they understand and know how to win the votes of the COUNTRY's population.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Here's a cunt-n-paste job for you to tear apart, Dickyfresh.

Where Blunder?

[ELVIS]

Originally posted by FORD
Why Dean should take charge
With his passion and populist appeal.

Populist appeal ??

By Mark Hertsgaard

Liberal BS writer...

"What our party needs right now is energy, enthusiasm and a willingness to do things differently," Maddox added.

This can be interpreted as what happens when a liberal starts thinking with his brain and becomes a conservative republican...

A year ago, Dean was jeered off the national stage by television's nonstop coverage of his "scream" speech.

I think his goofy Hagar scream was acceptable and displayed a certain amount of passion, it was actually genuine...

The thing that jeered him from the national stage is his general awkwardness, and his tendency to be nevernous on camera...



And it must be admitted that he showed some undeniable weaknesses as a presidential candidate in 2004, including a tendency to speak first and think later.

The first bit of truth in this article...:D

But Dean is running for party chairman now, not president.

I hope he wins. It will be a disaster, the liberal party will be divided, and Hillary will never be a presidential candidate...

The chairman's job is to rally and organize the party faithful to do the unglamorous but vital grass-roots work that will expand the Democratic base, reach out to new and uncommitted voters, and win future elections.

Cue the infamous scream...:D

What's more, in the wake of the Democrats' loss to President Bush in November, Dean's political message, and especially the way he delivers it, looks better and better.

What message; war bad, Bush bad, oil bad ??

Hahaha...


Dean, after all, was right about the central issue of the 2004 election -- the Iraq war.

I was right, "war bad"...

Nowadays, a majority of the American public believes that attacking Iraq was a bad idea.

That's a load of crap!


Dean was also right when he said Democrats should be the party not only of urban liberals but of "guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks," another comment he was derided for.

FORD, are you sure this article is in Dean's favor ??

LMAO!


But in view of how many centrist voters chose President Bush over John Kerry, even though Kerry's economic policies (Tax cut repeals, socialized healthcare, and military cuts) would have benefited them more, Dean's call to reach out to culturally conservative voters was prescient.

I have no idea what a "culturally conservative voter" is...

Above all, Dean was right that Democrats would win only if they told voters exactly what they stood for and why.

That would require telling the truth, and the minority vote would become 90% conservative...

By contrast, Bush never shrank from saying what he believed.

Amen!

Like Dean, he understood a basic fact of American politics: voters value plain-spokenness in a politician much more than agreement on specific issues. Bush was even clever enough to steal one of Dean's signature lines: "You may not always agree with me, but you'll always know where I stand."

I thought George Bush was supposed to be stupid !?!

All of the news stories reporting Dean's decision to seek the DNC chairmanship repeated the standard rap against him: He's too liberal.

No, he's too radical...

Dean was labeled a liberal by the media essentially because he opposed the Iraq war.

No, it was the radical way he stated such opposition on the campaign circuit and media talk shows...

The people didn't buy it...


Never mind that he was also a deficit hawk who opposed gun control, gay marriage and universal healthcare, or that many conservatives later embraced his criticism of the war.

Name one conservative who "embraced" Dean charging the Bush administration with misleading us to an illegal war...

He knows what he believes and he's not afraid to say it plainly enough for ordinary people to understand.

I agree, most people know to stay away from this guy...

His vision for Democrats is not about moving the party to the left; it's about Democrats standing for something that resonates with ordinary Americans -- a task that current party leaders have manifestly failed to achieve.

And they will continue to fail...

I believe there's a good chance we will never see another Democrat in office in our lifetime...

How about those apples, FORD ??



Alone among prominent Democrats, he recognizes that the party has little future.

Take a deep breath, FORD 'ole buddy...


The Bush campaign tapped into grass-roots energy among conservatives and thereby expanded Republican turnout enough to gain the president a second term.

More of that Bush stupidity ??

Dean is now traveling around the country telling his supporters that remaking the Democratic Party is a long-term project that could take 20 years.

That must be encouraging for a democrat to hear!

Imagine having a candidate ready for 2025...

No way is this article in favor of Dean...:D


Everyone agrees the Democrats have to remake themselves; they just lost to perhaps the most vulnerable incumbent in history.

The first part of this sentence is true, and your party should take the advice, especially you, FORD...

But, George Bush vulnerable ? You liberal pukes terrably underestimated the President...

Notice the link conveniently left out of this article...

[FORD]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by academic punk
FORD -

Clearly your political views are in direct opposition to the rest of the country at this time.

If Dean had been the candidate, the margin of Bush's victory would've been larger. Deal with it.

I won't deal with it, because it's a bunch of horseshit. Kerry and his wishy-washy, souless flip=flopping Internationalist House of Waffles was forced upon us by the DLC, with a little help from the whore media and KKKarl Rove, who knew exactly he wanted up against the Wonder Chimp.

Kerry couldn't beat an IDIOT who not only destroyed America's economy, but also this country's standing in the world. Even Al Sharpton could have beat Half Assed Monkey Boy with the right message. Which he didn't have. Howard Dean DID. Judas IsKerryot had NO message. Add a little help from Wally O'Dell and Ken OREOwell, and you get the Bush "win". With Dean, it never would have been close enough to steal.

as to the Dems being dead, horseshit. 50,000,000 ain't dead. and the push that took W over the top was the extreme religious right. Trust me, the country will not kow-tow to them any further than it already has.

My belief is that what the Dems need more than anything else is a new CAMPAIGN STRATEGIST: Bob Shrum lost it in 2000, he had no business being the man again in '04.

And that's the DLC's doing. One might begin to think they're throwing the game on purpose. But they wouldn't do that unless they were really working for the ........ Republicans


What brought the oval office to clinton in '92: Perot taking away a significant enough portion of George HW's vote and the machinations of James Carville. What brought w victory in 2000: Nader taking enough potential Gore votes and the min of Karl Rove.

Carville and Rove may be less photogenic, and maybe less interested in the political stance of their candidate, but they understand and know how to win the votes of the COUNTRY's population.

Sure Rove is a "genius" in the same sense that Adolf Hitler and Ted Bundy were geniuses. And Carville's got his talents as well, but he took a TV job which kept him from doing anything for Kerry. Not that Judas would have listened anyway. I don't entirely trust Carville though. He's gotta big mouth, and considering he literally sleeps with the enemy, that's a liability.

In any event, we not only need a better strategy for 2006 and 2008, we need some new blood involved in plotting that strategy. Kicking the Clintonista/DLC team out of the pilot seat is a damn good first step.

[academic punk]

Well, I think a large part of that strategy is not taking Bush's intelligence for granted. He's stupid as a fox. It always amazes me how everyone seems to agree he can be manipulative, and then call him unintelligent. A synonym for manipulative is "savvy"! True, he may not be the most articulate president ever (in fact, he may well be the MOST inarticulate), but it's something he knows, appreciates, and jokes about.

Also, the name calling. "KKKarl Rove", etc. That to me is somehting that desreves to be dismissed as readily out of hand as the right calling Dean a "east coast sushi eating volvo driving liberal". Come on, FORD, you've got a worthwhile POV to share, make it worth hearing and listening to. At the least, rise above the level you obviously so despise. (now as far as Sammy name calling, go hog wild)

So we agree ultimately: Shrum out, new blood and perspective in.

Oh, here's some things I'm sure you're already aware of re: this last election, but enjoy anyway:

the youth vote was overwhelmingly in the dems favor

the greater education level, the more apt you were to vote dem

the greater the income, the more apt you were to vote dem

Still think the party is dead? I'd say the last four years (and the next four) have created an incredible number of people who will never vote republican in their life. people thought the republican party was dead when kennedy won...the tide'll always shift back and forth.

[ELVIS]

Has anyone ever considered that Bush's seemingly poor command of the english language is put on ??

Listen to an interview from when he was running for Governor of Texas...

Listen to his inaugural speech, it was generally flawless...

[academic punk]

those are REHEARSED, sweet balls.

Bob Woodward spent many hours interviewing him (who admires him and wasn't terribly critical of him in his two books). I was essentially quoting him.

[ELVIS]

"Essentially quoting" is an oxymoron...

[academic punk]

I'm going to refrain from the obvious retort.

(BTW, in addition to being well-rehearsed, the inaugural address was also WRITTEN by his speech writer)

Though worthwhile story: his speech writer (whose name of course escapes me) was told that - by BUsh - that he wanted a speech about "freedom". As it turns out, as the writer was working on his initial draft, he had a "heart-related episode" a month or so back. When Bush called him at the hospital while he was recovering, Bush said, "I'm not calling to see how the speech is doing. I'm calling to see how the guy who's going to write the speech is doing."

So Bush DOES have a wit about him (and, clearly, he is quite charismatic). BUt it also displays that Bush is adept at reading between the lines. With those words, Bush reassured his writer that he still had his job, no matter what, and that the chance of a lifetime (that this writer has worked his whole adult life towards) has not been lost due to circumstance.

So Bush DOES have - in addition to intelligence and wit - a sense of loyalty, fraternity and rsponsibllity.

(though some would call this cronyism)

[ELVIS]

I'm familiar with that story...

Cool post...

[academic punk]

For the record, I voted for Kerry, but that by no means makes me believe that Bush deserves any equation WHATSOEVER to Hitler.

As someone who has a great-aunt (my grandmother's sister) with a serial number tattoo on her arm, I know from this shit.

[ELVIS]

Hmmm...