Howard Dean

[Julien Sorel]

I was checking out Dean's impressive website, and it seems that much of his campaign is based on glitz and contrived accomplishments: 'The world's largest conference call,' and so on. It sounds cool, but how many people is that sort of stuff going to actually reach? The average voter doesn't care about 'the world's largest conference call,' or anything like that. Lost in the array of glitzy accomplishments and firsts is what should be the most important part of a campaign: the message. It's almost as if Dean's campaign is more about the campaign itself than it is about politics -- it's Marshall McLuhan ('the Medium is the Message') gone wrong.

Dean and his supporters are now saying that Dean's campaign is about 'restoring power to the people.' The immediate implication here is twofold: first, that people are out of power -- that America is no longer a democracy. I'm aware of 2000 like everyone else; however, even given the events of 2000, it's a debateable assertion. The other, and more important implication, is that supporting Howard Dean's candidacy will somehow empower people. How is that going to happen? What exactly would President Dean do that would 'empower people?' I've seen two of his speeches now, start to finish, and he never says. He talks about 'Ken Lay and the boys at Enron' a lot, and uses vague language about special interests -- but he never gets around to identifying which interests he will act against, and what he will do. It's rhetoric, and all politicians have anti-special interest rhetoric as part of their normal speil. What, specifically, is Dean going to do to remove special interests from politics? How will he shake things up? He doesn't say -- and that should be crucial in a campaign whose theme has now become shaking things up. Your money is going to elect him, based on the notion that he will change things; how will he do it?

The secondary implication of Dean's current campaign theme is even more interesting: only Dean. Why Dean? Dean's supporters are saying that 'only Dean' can shake things up, and that the very act of his campaign is somehow shaking things up. That last is true -- campaigning will never be the same after this year, and that's a good thing. However, since Dean himself offers no specific program for change, one has to ask: why is Dean the proper messenger? Why not Kucinich, who has some radical ideas for change, and has been quite outspoken about them? My own observation is that the only thing unique about Dean is his campaign itself -- and that's like a suit of clothes that anyone should be able to wear, or perhaps a role that any actor could play. Why Dean?

A couple of thoughts in passing. This is not a bash of Dean, but a series of observations and questions. The overall tone is not a ringing endorsement of the man, but neither is it a harsh criticism. Thoughful replies are appreciated; personal attacks, or one liners like 'you just don't understand,' or 'only someone connected with Dean's campaign can understand,' are begging the question. Dean's campaign has lost some momentum recently; some well-reasoned answers might help to get it back.

[pruner]

1. if Dean's campaign is based on glitz and contrived accomplishments…

then what the hell is Clark's campaign based on.

he doesn't even have an issues page on his official website.

[Julien Sorel]

11. Red Herring.

[ibegurpard]

144. May be a red herring but considering your support for a candidate

who has thus far shown even LESS substance than Dean, I am very curious as to why you would be asking these questions?

[Pale Blue Dot]

2. About Dean's confernence call

I am undecided about who to support. But doesn't the conference call, and his whole campaign, show his ability to motivate people, and to get them to accomplish his goals? Isn't that the type of person we would want in the White House?

Thanks to Dean, a lot of Democrats, who were positively defeatist several months ago, do feel "empowered".

No matter who you support, I don't see how that can be a negative thing.

[Evanstondem]

8. Exactly right Finnfan

Billy, if you're a Clark fan why don't you help him motivate his backers instead of complaining about what Dean has accomplished?

[Julien Sorel]

14. Excellent point. So he can motivate people.

I'll chalk that up in the plus column. I'm not sure he's a better motivator than some of the other candidates, who do not focus on accomplishments of this type, but I think this is still a valid point.

[Nicholas_J]

20. Mobilize to what.

Even a cursory examination of Deans record as governor and the statements he made about Medicare and Social Security, BEFORE running for president are a clear indication of where Deans affiliations lie.

No, just motivating and moving people to support you is not enough. Does he actually intend to DO what he claims in order to convince people to vote for him. His record on this is VERY poor.

There is only ONE campaign promise Dean has ever kept, and that was to balance the budget.

And even then the first balancing was done as a result of a program started but the governor before Dean, a tax increase on the wealthy. Which Dean rolled back as soon as the budget balanced. After that the ponly means Dean used was to cut social programs to the poor, the blind, and the elderly.

At the same time providing government givaways in construstion projects that were done to favor large coporate interests.

In Germany in 1933, somone who could mobilize the masses was also swept into power.

Just mobilizing isnt good enough. It is what the candidate has done and said in the past that makes the real difference.

[pruner]

21. congrats Nicholas_J… you're the first to compare Dean to Hitler

in this thread.

[regnaD kciN]

101. Time to invoke the "Hitler rule"...?

Said rule states that, whenever someone in a debate compares the "other side" to Hitler and the Nazis, the debate is over and that poster's side loses.

[bhunt70]

132. Godwins Law

Thats what that rule is, and I agree that people are quick to make the comparison.

[Pale Blue Dot]

30. This is disgraceful, Nicholas J

I have said I am undecided on which candidate to support, but I am totally clear on this: ANY poster that I see, who compares ANY Democratic candidate to Hitler, goes on instant ignore. As lame a threat as that is, I'll stand by it. ANYONE who makes that claim is totally one-issue and completely ignorant of the situation our country is in RIGHT NOW.

[artr2]

55. Congrats Nick

you just made my ignore list

[prolesunited]

39. Are you serious?!?!

:wtf:

I'm still on the fence, but how intellectually dishonest can you be? Dean=Hitler. That rates right up there with the comparison of Dean to Jim Jones the other day.

The people here are NOT the enemy. Whoever gets the nod is going to need the support of the other candidates' followers. If you insult them and tear them down day after day — no matter who's camp you are in — how do you think they are going to react when you turn around in a couple of months and need their help.

Perhaps it would help if people focused more on our long-term goals here. Sure, you want to see your candidate win the primary, but ultimately, isn't it far more important that we are able to work together at some point to defeat Bush. He is the enemy.

[bitchkitty]

61. You on crack?

What a sick ridiculous thing to say, I don't know whether to laugh or vomit.

[TLM]

83. That's really disgusting... and sadly typical

Welcome to ignore.

[Name removed]

118. Deleted message

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

[KaraokeKarlton]

121. Because he does it all the time and has been for months

And he's clearly said that if Dean is the nominee he won't vote for him. In fact, he's on a one man mission to destroy Dean. Not only is he probably the most ignored poster on DU, but he's also a very big part of why we need the new rules because he instigates so much negativity with his constant anti-Dean diatribes. People react to it and it spreads all over the place. He also likes to criticize Dean using opinion pieces written by Greens and third party members who don't support Democrats and help defeat Democrats. And he has, on many occassions, compared Dean to Hitler and Dean supporters to Nazis, albeit in a passive aggressive way most of the time. It's quite disgusting, in my opinion.

[XanaDUer]

143. I'm on a mission to see that Dean is not elected.

last time I checked that was not against the rules. Actually, there are a lot of people who cannot stand Dean and don't want him elected.

I find your posts kinda disgusting, too. Nick is allowed to post, within the rules, whether you like it or not.

If you would read, you would notice that he is not comparing anyone to Hitler, simply stating that any politician can whip people into a frenzy, which does not necessarily mean they are the best candidate for the job.

I watch you fill this board (as is your right) with your opinions on Dean,with no back up.

Or, you self-source from deanforamerica.com. That's Dean talking about how great Dean is. Not proof.

Passive-agressive? Where did you get your psychology degree from?

[KaraokeKarlton]

145. Actually, I self-source myself since I live in Vermont

and I know Dean's record first hand, from the perspective of someone who has lived under his leadership. If that doesn't qualify me as a good source of information then none of us know what we're talking about when we say how horribly Bush sucks.

Frankly, LibertyChick, I can read. I also have a pretty good grasp on English Comprehension. I also have a very good memory. The poster in question has been very caustic toward both Dean and Dean supporters, moreso than probably anyone else on this site. He has posted some of the most misleading and false "information" I've ever read. As someone who lives in Vermont, I happen to know an awful lot about this state. As someone who personally took part in most of the social service programs here in Vermont, I can say with confidence that I know a hell of a lot more about those said programs than the aforementioned poster.

I happen to think that first hand experience living in Vermont and taking part in those social services is a much more reliable source of information than regurgitated, butchered information posted by someone who hates Dean courtesy of the Green Party and Vermont's Progressive Party (NOT Democrats, and even further radically left than the Greens). If you take issue with that, Ms. Chick, then I would strongly suggest that you utilize the ignore feature, as that is what it's provided for.

Next...

[ima_sinnic]

134. only a desperate Kerry supporter could come up with that crap

You imply Dean fans are mindless cultists who will unquestioningly march the goosestep and drink the electric kool-aid if told to. Au contraire, for the first time in my approximately 40 years of voting I feel *engaged* in the process. I feel that a President Dean will mean government of, by, and for THE PEOPLE--something desperately needed. So your candidate is remote, holding his pinkie out while he sips tea on Beacon Hill, networking with the aristocracy. Too bad, so sad, he just doesn't have a clue but neither apparently do you.

[maggrwaggr]

3. "This is not a bash of Dean" uh ....... yeah ...... right .....

then what is it? You're telling us that something which obviously IS a bash of dean is NOT a bash of Dean.

Isn't this what George W. Bush does?

What's the point of your post?

Listen, I like both Clark and Dean and really don't understand why there are posts like this. Especially on DU. It just doesn't make any freaking sense.

Don't you have anything better to do with your time?

[WilliamPitt]

6. "Isn't this what George W. Bush does?"

THAT is a bash, and THAT is some bullcrap, and THAT is why we have these new rules. Thanks for the help.

[newsguyatl]

12. what's happened to you will?

it's painfully obvious now how anti-dean you are.

at the very least, stop pretending you're not - it's insulting to those of us who know better...

and you're right, good thing for these new rules... it'll be more constricting on everyone, and i DO mean EVERYone, will.

[Ohio Dem]

25. Pitt is right.

The original post was not a bash. I hate bashes, and I know them when I see them. The original post was critical, but not a bash. Comparing the original poster to W is much closer to bashing than the original post.

[janekat]

38. Yeppers - agree w/you

[absolutezero]

119. i'm a deaner

and i totally agree, it wasn't a bash, just normal criticism. nick j, however is now on my ignore list because if any of the candidates resembles hitler it's whistle ass

[janekat]

35. what'd he do that was so wrong?

You WERE a little testy. Guess we all are for that matter.

[ModerateMiddle]

52. I get the feeling that Will is where I am...

...if Dean gets the nomination, we'll work as hard for him as we would for any of the other candidates, but Dean isn't who he'd prefer to have as President of the choices.

[WilliamPitt]

81. I'd love for Dean to be the nomine

for a lot of reasons...rapidly, the #1 reason is coming to be the fact that a Dean nomination would temporarily and blessedly silence the monommaniacal, wanna-be-victim, overbearing, obnoxious, idiotic, underwhelming, whining, crybaby, pissant breed of Dean supporter I have seen all too often on this forum.

[TLM]

84. Just a bit of advice....

Might be a good idea not to whine about "monommaniacal, wanna-be-victim, overbearing, obnoxious, idiotic, underwhelming, whining, crybaby, pissant breed of Dean supporter" in a thread where a Kerry supporter just compared Dean to Hitler.

Oh and way to not bash, Will.

[WilliamPitt]

138. Yes, I control all the Kerry people on DU

:eyes:

[KaraokeKarlton]

124. That's not fair...

And Dean isn't the only candidate with supporters who behave that way. We've all seen plenty of that behavior to go around pretty evenly.

[bearfartinthewoods]

154. amen brother!

can an agnostic say amen?

i guess so but i'm not sure :grin:

[Pavlovs DiOgie]

159. I used to respect you

but wow...that was pretty uncalled for.

[WilliamPitt]

80. Oh you're breaking my heart

I'm anti-dean. :eyes: Get over your bad self. 'Isn't that what Bush does?' Play friggin victim? I love Dean. A lot of his supporters on DU make me want to vomit on myself.

[Upfront]

137. Here Is A Mop Bucket

so you can clean up after your self. You will here from Dean supporters all the way to the Whitehouse. Oh, is it just Dean supporters that are so bad. Nick J makes blimp ball look fair in comparison.

[KaraokeKarlton]

123. I don't think Will is anti-Dean at all

In fact, I've seen Will defend Dean several times in the past few days. I do think there have been times where he has misunderstood Dean and said so, and that's okay. Then someone explains things and clears his concerns up. That's productive discussion and valid questioning and we, as Dean supporters, should welcome the opportunity to clear up valid concerns. Let's learn to separate the wheat from the chaffe.

[maggrwaggr]

15. hey, just calling it like I see it. Say one thing, mean another

I mean, the guy's post was a bash. But he says it's not a bash.

THAT's bullcrap, dude.

I like both Dean and Clark.

[regnaD kciN]

106. Oh, yes, that's why we have (?) new rules...

THAT is why we have these new rules

You mean, so that no one can attack your candidate?

Give me a break.

You used to be a sensible writer, Will, whose work was worthy of respect. But it seems like Clark is having the same effect on you that Ahnuld is having on far too many Californians -- or, as I said before, like Ross Perot had on a lot of people in mid-1992.

:-(

[bearfartinthewoods]

152. give it up Will.. it probably won't help

this morning i got jumped for asking why Dean quit medicine.
this post will get the poster schredded. even if he makes some sense.

[Julien Sorel]

18. A bash would be an out and out attack.

These are legitimate questions about Dean's campaign. I didn't say he sucked, accuse him of being a crypto-Republican, impugn his electability -- none of that.

[maggrwaggr]

33. so .... what's the point? What's that have to do with anything?

Really, I don't get it. I think you're in denial here. You criticize his campaign, like who gives a shit? Criticize what he stands for, criticize things he's said, criticize his record, discuss his "electability", but who are you to criticize his campaign?

I mean, unless you're for him, which you're obviously not with your Clark-Bill on the bottom, you're using your post to be negative about Dean for no apparent reason.

If you were a campaign manager who had run campaigns in the past or were running one now, it would make sense, then you would be qualified to criticize the way a campaign is run. Are you?

So I'm calling you on it and calling your post a bash. Oh, it might be a nice, quiet bash but it's still a bash.

Don't you have better things to do with your time?

[janekat]

41. Whaaa - you can't criticize someone's campaign now? You all are

waay too sensitive. Clark is called a "war criminal" (and that's one of the nicer things) and I don't see half the outcry that I see with some of you about a web site for crissakes.

[maggrwaggr]

69. it wasn't about his website. It was a veiled bash of Dean

and what pissed me off is that he said "this is not a bash".

Which is why I responded "yeah .... right"

You can say anything you damn well want to, just take responsibility for it. Don't be a weasel

[FubarFly]

62. Definitely not a bash.

I applaud your effort to enhance discussion in a civil manner.

:toast:

[pansypoo53219]

64. if anybody is a crypto Retardican

its Clark and lieberputz.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

4. Come on Billy, at least his web site has issues addressed and at

least he was not foolish enough to appear at a debate and say"give us some time" which is another way of saying, "I have no fucking clue about the issues"

[Julien Sorel]

22. Another Red Herring.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

34. NOpe...your candidate showed up to the debate entirely unprepared

one has to wonder why his handlers were so foolish as to let him appear when he could NOT discuss policy..the only RED HERRING is the blind support for someone incapable of discussing policy.

[Julien Sorel]

85. I don't think you know what a Red Herring is.

Can you answer my two simple questions, or are you going to continue attacking Clark on a Dean thread?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

92. I do know what a red herring is..this thread is one

[FDRrocks]

36. Yes, red herring...

candidate revising thier 'views' after he announced his candidacy.

You can be sure he is truthful about his goals! Definately.

[FDRrocks]

5. I'd pick Dean over Clark

and I'm probably left of Kucinich, who I support.

Dean has popular support, that is the deal. George W. Bush is, bar none, a SHITTY president. Naturally the electorate will swing back, and I do not think a centrist is the limit, but Dean has the numbers to get the party nod.

Popular support, that is a good thing. Much better than having "Gen." before your name. I am skeptical about the changes Dean will make, and sometime think of him as a second Clinton (at best).

Dean has shaken things up. I know much of his electorate realizes what they support, alot of people are about ABB.

Many politicians mask thier intentions during campaigns. FDR said none of what he planned to do in the 1932 election, and did campaign as a moderate.

I just hope Dean will realize Dennis would make a great AG.

That said, Clark has 'views' with no record on politics. He has said he would be a Republican if Rove called him, and some of his wartime deals seems to be questionable, from what I've seen on this board.

I would take Dean, and, even though I would fire up my car in the garage and choke to death before I voted for him, Lieberman, over Wesley.

Peace

edit: I take for granted in my post that there will be an election, this BBV issue is at the forefront of my mind.

[janekat]

45. OMG!! a second Clinton.... Heaven forbid!!!! n/t

[FDRrocks]

48. Yes heaven forbid

More outsourcing w/o a lucky economic boom. God forbid a centrist who caused no leftist change and only gave way to a far right president who dragged shit over to thiers side.

They are playing hardball and pulling shit further right, that has been the hard fact since 1980... another Clinton would be horrible.

God forbid.

[pansypoo53219]

67. if anything

he is a better clinton(on issues if not charm). Dean is way closer to my non-bleeding heart rational socialistic heart than Clinton was, without all the smarmy shit.

[Julien Sorel]

87. This post answered neither question.

[CMT]

7. I would say that what may seem to be contrived or glitzy

is actually a way the campaign has (very successfully) motivated its supporters. They like to make it fun which is a wonderful thing. They also release on the site all of Dean's major press releases, speeches, and positions. So it is both informative and fun.

[Julien Sorel]

24. Motivation has been covered.

But it still doesn't address the two core questions.

[LoZoccolo]

9. Why the world's largest conference call?

It keeps him in the news. Our news is based on /events/ a lot more than /issues/, so you have to stage an event to get into the news. Then when people pay attention and look more into him they can find out the issues. But you've gotta get your foot in the door.

It's like when he ran an anti-Bush ad in Texas. Sure he does it to win the primary there, but doing that while Bush was on vacation got him into the news because it was kind of funny, and subsequently he gets more press in all 50 states.

[eileen_d]

10. I'd like to see someone address the original post

rather than say "At least he isn't Clark." The criticism in the original post are similar to some of my thoughts.

Edit: well, by the time I posted, some people had. But I encourage more!

[FDRrocks]

13. I believe I did well...

May have well adressed one or two points in my above post.

[eileen_d]

17. Yes, you did

Sorry, I was experiencing "post lag" ;)

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

29. Why address what is really pointless shit picking?

First off I am NOT in Dean's camp and am NOT against Clark. If I HAD TO choose a candidate right now, I would vote for Graham in spite of the fact that he has NO SEX appeal since he is actually one of the FEW that is TRULY qualified to run this nation both as a matter of the fact that he has run a LARGE economy with a MIXED population unlike Vermont and the fact that he has ACTUALLY been able to govern by consensus UNLIKE Dean... in addition to his position on the Senate Intelligence committee and his NO vote on the war.

As regards BB's first paragraph..one has to have their head in the sand or another DARK SMELLY place to undermine the effect of the MOVEMENT Howard Dean created when he made use of the internet. He took the entire Dem field by surprise with his organization skills and ability to mount an effective campaign. This is something Clark did NOT do but only accmplished the appeareance of.

As regards his second paragraph, I am unclear of what DEAN will do but am FAR LESS CLEAR OF what Clark would do. Perhaps it is because he too has NOT addressed the issues and perhaps it is because he showed up at the debates ENTIRELY UNPREPARED to discuss policy.

as regards his third paragraph...fine words coming from a cult that believes only Clark can win.

as regards his last paragraph, cloak it however you want, but BB has no credibility when he says it is not a bash...he has squandered that one basically from day one.

[eileen_d]

46. Well, I guess I'm lacking some context

I don't know the original poster's "history" as far as Dean-bashing, guess I haven't been paying attention.

Of COURSE I credit Dean and his campaign and his supporters for their use of the Internet, the grassroots fundraising, etc. But when it comes down to it, I hear a lot more about Dean's innovative campaign and its success than I do about Dean as a candidate. What I do hear about him as a candidate is mixed.

As for all of the comparison to Clark, I really do NOT give a shit about Clark. I defend him on this board because I don't like the relentless bashing of any candidate, and he's the flavor of the month. But comparing Dean to Clark ultimately doesn't tell me anything ABOUT DEAN, just as Dean's admirable public criticism of Bush et. al. does not tell me anything ABOUT DEAN, who he is and what he stands for.

Yes, I know I need to do my own research, but I was hoping for a little bit more enlightenment from people who are Dean supporters here. I guess I'll look elsewhere.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

50. Sorry..I guess I would have to be a Dean supporter to enlighten

you more. I'm not..I just admire that which he has done in terms of campaigning and organizing.

I really meant no disrespect to you and am in the same court as you when it comes to candidate bashing.

What I fear after last week however, with the blind support of Clark is a candidate winning our primary then showing up to a debate with BUSH unprepared as Clark did last week.

[eileen_d]

51. I didn't mean disrespect either

I was glad when Clark entered the race but have been disappointed with his lack of preparedness also. It actually encouraged me to look at Dean more (I had been a Kerry gal), so that should make the Dean campaign happy. I just haven't taken the time to do it, and I guess GD is kind of a silly place to start.

Who knows -- if I'm the only Sharpton voter in the Montana primary, do I get a prize ;)

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

57. Are you sure you aren't the only DEM in the Montana primary?

Actually I know that isn;t true...we have a few really great Du'ers from Montana and Wyoming.

[eileen_d]

63. Yeah, I've seen some of my other "compatriots" around DU

I think that living in a largely conservative Montana town has just made me very cynical about who to support, even for the primaries. I think Montana is one of the very last primaries anyway. But we'll see. I've got to tear myself offline now, good night.

[Eloriel]

66. There's an awful lot of information right here at DU

and an awful lot of information on his official website:

http://www.deanforamerica.com

And his blog, which you can access from the official website.

A lot of us are too tired fending off bashes, almost bashes, faux bashes, lies, mischaracterizations, distortions, etc., to also spend 20 or 30 minutes writing everything else we know about him when it's so available on his website. It takes no more time to read the information there than here, aside from the time required to access his sites to begin with.

Eloriel

[maggrwaggr]

74. read Eloriel's post further down. n/t

b

[ModerateMiddle]

59. It's not a "movement"

you said, "MOVEMENT Howard Dean created when he made use of the internet"

It's not a movement if it's ALL ABOUT DEAN. As soon as anyother candidate started to do any of the things Dean did on the net, there were HOWLS of copycat.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

65. Yeah but who cares about that

But for a few people who were stupid enough to say it and a few people that got HOOKED that they did.


If Kerry or anyone else makes their money by CONNECTING WITH THE PEOPLE and inspiring them, more power to them. If they FEIGN a movement by organizing a VERY FEW people to spam the internet but really get their support from corporate cash..then that is NO MOVEMENT at all (BTW I am NOT referencing Kerry in that..I am simply pointing out what distinguishes a movement with grassroots support from a dog and pony show made out to look like a movement with grassroots support)

[ryharrin]

70. Its not just about Dean, we're also dedicated to helping local dems

get elected also. I think that'll be a major step in the right direction if we want to take the house and senate back.

[Julien Sorel]

88. You are continuing to focus on Clark, on a thread addressing

Dean. At least you admit you don't know what Dean is going to do. Neither do I -- at least with regards to 'shaking things up.' That's why I made this post, not to bash. But continue believing what you will. Just don't be surprised or think you've won some kind of victory when I don't reply, because you seem totally unable to address the issues.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

91. Sorry, your thread is cloaked in "this is not a bash"

When in fact, your issues are NON issues. I DID address the manner in which he "shook things up" and did address much of your post. You didn't like the answer.

Your statement that you were NOT bashing was less than genuine.

Oh and by the way, I recalled that I had seen Dean on the AFLCIO debates after I had posted. I went to their site and found the answer to your questions. I suppose they might be too vague and unspecific for you given that Clark could not even state his policies the other day. I sure hope he has something memorized when he has to confront Bush in a debate...and remember....I am NOT in Dean's camp..frankly I lean more towards Kerry or Graham if I WERE to have to choose today.

http://www.aflcio.org/issuespolitics/politics/candidates_dean.cfm#corporateaccountability

Is this NOT specific enough?
The recent catastrophic events at WorldCom, Enron and Global Crossing have focused public attention on the abuses of particular companies and the people who ran them. As President, I would address the shocking lack of effective corporate governance that permitted such abuses in the first place.

The Sarbanes-Oxley legislation adopted in response to these abuses was an important first step. But in my view Congress did not go far enough to address the underlying issue, namely the failure of boards of public companies to meet their obligations to the shareholders who own these companies. I favor further steps to enhance the independence and effectiveness of public company boards.

The first thing I would do is require that elected worker representatives serve as trustees on penion funds and worker savings boards.

The independence of board membership on many large public companies is compromised by obvious conflicts of interest when vendors and customers serve on each other's boards. The ability of management to provide perquisites to board members can also create obstacles to independent action by directors. I would support legislation and SEC regulation to mitigate such real or apparent compromise of director independence.

There are various ways to make strengthen board accountability. For example, the nomination committee of public company boards should be required to formally solicit shareholder input when considering nominations to the board; there should be term limits for membership on public company boards; and the board should be required to issue an annual corporate governance report to shareholder describing all governance issues that have arisen during the year and how the board resolved them.

[Julien Sorel]

100. You finally have something substantive to say.

That is useful, although I don't see how it is 'empowering' people all that much. This:

The first thing I would do is require that elected worker representatives serve as trustees on penion funds and worker savings boards.

Is the only really 'empowering' thing in it, having a worker representative sit on the board of pension funds. Many pension funds already do this, so it isn't anything earth shaking. On the real issue of empowerment, corporate power, he treads quite lightly, only talking about increased shareholder influence on the boards. This will not change in the slightest the influence those corporations themselves have, however, which is what Dean's supporters seem to be looking for.


Because most of your posts have been bile I have no desire to subject myself to again, I will address one of your repeated charges here: my thread starter was a 'bash.' To 'prove' this, you say I have a 'record of bashing' and 'no credibility on the issue of bashing' or words to that effect. This is, again, a weak bit of reasoning on your part: either the thread starter was a 'bash' or it was not; my putative past as a 'basher' has nothing to do with it. If you objectively look at my thread starter as a bash, then there's not much I can do about it, or for you, for that matter.

As for my record as a 'basher,' I will make you the same challenge I made someone else: show me these 'bashes.' You have the search function; use it. Because if I'm such an outrageous basher, it should be easy to prove with thread after thread that I've started where I bashed poor Howard.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

103. I don't need to search, you just did it again

where I bashed poor Howard

Not to mention it is extremely HUMOROUS to see your objections when your candidate does not yet even have a stand formulated on these issues that you seem so concerned about.

One would think of you were sincere in your curiosity, you would start with being curious about the policies of the candidate YOU are supporting.

BUSTED!

[Julien Sorel]

105. In other words, you're going to continue to call me

a basher, but you refuse to back it up. Sarcastically referring to Dean as 'poor Howard' is a bash? You have got to be kidding me. But now I remember: I called the Deanies 'Deanies' once, and you said that was a bash. I think I see the problem now.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

108. Go read the bottom of the thread

this is a waste of my time and yours since your are blind to your own behavior and aren't going to be seeing any insights any time soon.... yeah..one can bash in a word or two....that's why it isn't legal to say FUCK OFF on this board to another poster and mean it.

[sendero]

126. I'd say...

... it's been backed up about 50 times, but you can't seem to see that. You are fooling no one but yourself.

[salin]

129. This has been a rather amusing interchange...

but you are killing me.

Where is the proof of the bash?

Need look no further than the originating post. A bash isn't always a single word. A tone and attack embedded in an entire post is a more effective bash. An artform used all to frequently. Hint - code words ala: "I am not racist, but".... are: "This is not a bash, just..."

Go to threads that YOU think are bashing your guy. Bet that you find variations of that statement in almost all of the threads.

Try this little test:

1) If the new rules pass in GD - would this thread fly or be locked?

2) Are you personally in favor of, or against the new rules in GD?

3) If you are against the rules, why do you think so many people have expressed an interest in new rules in the past month?

Excerpting a few words from Elvis Costello: "Deep, dark, deep dark truthful mirror..." Perhaps it is time for those doing the bashing that they claim isn't bashing, that everyone else reads as bashing, and is apparently believed by the authors not to be bashing solely because they wrote the magic safety cloak of "this is not bashing, but..."

Thanks this thread... for contributing to what has made GD a place... that is so vaccuous at times and ugly.. that the community has strongly requested some kind of action to reign it in.

[Forkboy]

158. BB seems awfully defensive about this not being bashing

for someone who considered a couple of my sarcastic comments to be "downright hostile" to Clark.

[JanMichael]

16. Sort of a one trick pony, eh?

Ever post any issue threads?

[eileen_d]

26. This is an issue

for me anyway. Maybe it's not yours, but "Clark voted for Lincoln in 1860" wasn't an issue for me either.

[JanMichael]

27. I should have added "Other", my horrible bad.

Later.

[eileen_d]

32. I didn't mean to offend

I just don't see this post as a bash, is what I meant.

[Orangepeel]

19. The campaign has ALWAYS been about empowerment

it isn't something that they are just now saying.

If Dean doesn't thrill you and make you feel empowered, then so be it. To each his own. However, it would be silly to deny that he does make thousands of others feel that way (e.g., all the meetup supporters who are willing to write letters of endorsement to perfect stangers, among other things, all the people who show up to his rallies, and the people how called on more than 3000 phone lines to listen to him answer questions tonight).

"Only Dean" has captured the ability to do this. So far, "only Dean" has been able to motivate a grassroots army.

I have been involved in multiple campaigns in the past and this one is very, very new. It is not top down. It is not hierarchical. The campaign listens to suggestions of volunteers, which makes us believe that President Dean would listen to the suggestions of the people.

[JasonBerry]

23. BASHING! Let The Record Show.....

Let the record show that one of Clark's biggest DU supporters - always angry when facts are presented that put the empty-suit, impostor in a negative light - has resorted to a little of the same tonight.

Dean's actions as a candidate are not NEARLY as important as Clark's pro-war, pro-Republican agenda that he's been pushing for 35+ years. His registration as a Democrat just two-weeks ago is FAR more of substance than analyzing Dean campaign strategy.

Hypocrisy from the Clark bunker tonight.

[Julien Sorel]

28. A Red Herring feeding frenzy.

I have to step out for a bit. How many Red Herrings will be here when I get back?

[JasonBerry]

37. Red Herring? What a cop-out.

For someone who's been bitching about the "bashing" threads, you boldly post one bashing Dean......and then when someone points out the hypocrisy - it's a red herring?

Weak, my friend, very weak.

You Clark worshipers can't even take a little pounding on the ISSUES without complaining to Admin to have DU change the rules to protect your thin-skinned, uninformed, PHONY-to-the-core candidate.

Pretty funny, Mr. Bunter.

[Julien Sorel]

89. Obviously, you don't know what a Red Herring is. Where's

that guy who always pops up on threads posting links to logical fallacies?

[janekat]

47. Yikes!!! and you're upset with HIM for bashing????

[JasonBerry]

68. Uh.....no......Just pointing out the hypocrisy

I never said I was upset by his "bashing" - only pointing out that he is one of the ones who thinks writing ANYTHING about Saint Wes that isn't in a positive light is "bashing" that is uncalled for. Yet, here he is "bashing" over silly campaign tactics. Clark's past (which is ALL we have to judge him by) is of FAR greater importance; especially when it shows him to be a phony opportunist who is out to HIJACK the party he only joined TWO WEEKS ago! Argghhh.

[w4rma]

31. Extremely massive information dump on Gov. Howard Dean, M.D. (v2.0)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=41214

Click on "On the Issues" on Dean's toolbar for his message.
Also, use the search tool to search the website for keywords.
http://www.deanforamerica.com/

[w4rma]

60. Also, I'll try to give some answers

I was checking out Dean's impressive website, and it seems that much of his campaign is based on glitz and contrived accomplishments: 'The world's largest conference call,' and so on. It sounds cool, but how many people is that sort of stuff going to actually reach? The average voter doesn't care about 'the world's largest conference call,' or anything like that. Lost in the array of glitzy accomplishments and firsts is what should be the most important part of a campaign: the message. It's almost as if Dean's campaign is more about the campaign itself than it is about politics -- it's Marshall McLuhan ('the Medium is the Message') gone wrong.

Showbuisness is important in politics. It gets otherwise uninterested folks to look in your direction. Some of those folks might then listen and agree with what your saying. And some of those folks might then volunteer their time and money to the campaign to enlist more voters, supporters, volunteers and contributors.

Dean and his supporters are now saying that Dean's campaign is about 'restoring power to the people.' The immediate implication here is twofold: first, that people are out of power -- that America is no longer a democracy. I'm aware of 2000 like everyone else; however, even given the events of 2000, it's a debateable assertion. The other, and more important implication, is that supporting Howard Dean's candidacy will somehow empower people. How is that going to happen?

Dean's campaign financing comes primarily from many lower and middle class folks. For contrast, Bush's campaign financing comes primarily from upper upper class folks (who give $2K in one big check) who want Bush to change laws in ways that will give them a return on their money via more lax regulations, more free trading nations to get cheap labor from, more tax cuts for the wealthy.

What exactly would President Dean do that would 'empower people?' I've seen two of his speeches now, start to finish, and he never says. He talks about 'Ken Lay and the boys at Enron' a lot, and uses vague language about special interests -- but he never gets around to identifying which interests he will act against, and what he will do. It's rhetoric, and all politicians have anti-special interest rhetoric as part of their normal speil. What, specifically, is Dean going to do to remove special interests from politics? How will he shake things up? He doesn't say -- and that should be crucial in a campaign whose theme has now become shaking things up. Your money is going to elect him, based on the notion that he will change things; how will he do it?

For one, he's already shaken them up with his new campaign tactics. Chomsky talks about how in Brazil, the left-wing uses similar tactics:

…
FLOWER: Have you picked out anybody you like for president ?

CHOMSKY: Anyone likely to come near a chance.... To tell you the honest truth, I would vote for almost anyone at this point that I could imagine running against Bush.... Of the people who have announced for candidate, the one whose program seems to me the best is Dennis Kucinich. On the other hand, there’s not a possible chance that he could win. An election in the United States, the way things now stand, is something that’s essentially bought. You have to have massive financial support, which means, as the world exists, corporate support. Business support. Or else an enormous popular movement, massive popular movement, which can make up for the lack of business support -- like in Brazil, for example , which is in many respects a much more advanced democracy than ours. Huge and very effective popular movements were able to compensate for their lack of elite business support and actually elect a quite remarkable president. But we’re nowhere near that.
…
http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/09/1645315.php

Special interests:
Dean talks specifically about big corporations in many speeches and how small corporations stay in the country and need our support. Whatever he gets done will be incremental, IMHO. For context, it took 4 terms + Truman's term for FDR to take back the country from the big corporate special interests. And even they weren't able to go far enough.

The secondary implication of Dean's current campaign theme is even more interesting: only Dean. Why Dean? Dean's supporters are saying that 'only Dean' can shake things up, and that the very act of his campaign is somehow shaking things up. That last is true -- campaigning will never be the same after this year, and that's a good thing. However, since Dean himself offers no specific program for change, one has to ask: why is Dean the proper messenger? Why not Kucinich, who has some radical ideas for change, and has been quite outspoken about them? My own observation is that the only thing unique about Dean is his campaign itself -- and that's like a suit of clothes that anyone should be able to wear, or perhaps a role that any actor could play. Why Dean?

IMHO, Dean has the charisma to succinctly explain complex policy to folks. Dean's policy positions are, while moderate, an improvement on most every issue over current implemented policies. Dean is a *very* hard worker as is shown by his schedule and resume. Dean is a proven politician, he's run many successful campaigns and has never lost a race. Dean is a fantastic political organizer with a supurb staff. Dean has built *the* best campaign organization I've ever heard about, anywhere. Dean is a fantastic public speaker and motivator. He routinely draws crowds to his rallies/speeches that the other candidates can only dream of.

Btw, these are good questions that you've asked, IMHO.

[RichM]

40. Yeah, I guess yer right. Let's nominate a Republican militarist instead.

I'm especially glad you pointed out that This is not a bash of Dean... I mean, if you hadn't reassured me about that, I mighta gotten worried. I was beginning to think it might be a bash. Whew!

I hope everyone looking at this POS you posted will see just how the Clark Brownshirts do business. Also - that $20 bill with Clark's puss on it -- you probably think it's way cool, but it's actually kind of vulgar. He looks like Dracula, and WTF is it with putting his puss on MONEY? Is that supposed to lure in the "We worship US currency" crowd?

[pruner]

42. I've been wondering about the $20 Clark bill too

I find it equally as disturbing as money counterfeited with Bush's face.

[maggrwaggr]

73. I like Clark, but his supporters here are REALLY disturbing me

They're constantly in attack mode, and with this post, which I feel is the most insidious one yet that I've seen, they're really trying to hone some sort of propaganda that is anti-other-candidates. It smells of right-wing tactics, I don't care what Will Pitt says.

I really don't get it.

I actually LIKE both Clark and Dean! Hello?!

Talk about something constructive, even argue, that's GREAT, I love to argue, but this?

[Skwmom]

128. I suggest that Dean supporters take a hard look at their own actions

before they comment on Clark supporters.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

148. exactly what the Dean team did here for six months

the Clark people are just copying the tactics that made Dean the frontrunner.

[maggrwaggr]

151. uh, I don't think that these tactics made Dean the frontrunner

here or anywhere else. This is DU, not the world. Get over it.

[TLM]

86. Yeah that does have a real creepy feel to it...

[not systems]

98. In Gold Coin

What the %#$^# is that crap!!!

I like Clark but his partisans are very weird.

I mean in a weird way not a good way like I usually
use the word.

How real is Dean's crowd $13.5 million ways real, baby.

Go Dean 2004... If this is Dean doing it wrong I
can't imagine what it would be like if he gets it
right.

[prolesunited]

43. LOL!

"Is that supposed to lure in the "We worship US currency" crowd?" :D

[sfecap]

44. Actually, Clark ought to be on a 3 dollar bill...

..it would be much more appropriate.

[zeemike]

77. I have been wanting to say that

About the twenty with Clarks face on it but I guess after the new rules that would be bashing a Clark supporter and it would not be allowed.
But I do think it shows something important about the person that has it.

[pansypoo53219]

49. i wish more people would have listened to dean on Talk of the Nation

this afternoon. anybody with half a brain would REALISE THAT WE NEED THIS man to be THE ONE to take away the last years of the Bushit regime. i came away a bigger deannie baby than EVER. a pox on the DLC.

[whirlygigspin]

99. Voila!

http://www.npr.org/programs/totn/index.html

talk of the nation link

[artr2]

53. Oh gee you think at all those people ...

who were at the house parties arn't going to go out and campaign for him? That they are not going to raise lots on NON SPECIAL INTEREST MONEY for him? That we are going to have a canditate who's special interest is US? I am proud that I am part of a movement that is taking back politics for me.

We will see shortly where all of the other canditates money comes from. More than likely it will be the same special interests that have come to own the government. This is where the rubber meets the road. You can say all you like that your canditate is different,but let's see who is paying the bills. I know that my man is getting his money from me and thousands of other people like me who are pissed off about the way things are going in this country.

How do you think that will play in the general election? Contrast * that raised 200+ million of special interest money or People Powered Howard who's money came from me. I think that gives Howard Dean a tremendous advantage.

[Eloriel]

54. You're missing it completely

I was checking out Dean's impressive website, and it seems that much of his campaign is based on glitz and contrived accomplishments: 'The world's largest conference call,' and so on. It sounds cool, but how many people is that sort of stuff going to actually reach? The average voter doesn't care about 'the world's largest conference call,' or anything like that.

This wasn't necessarily to reach new people, it was a fundraiser and the addition of the Guiness record added more interest. Contrived? Of course. But also great fun. It was quite likely an idea that bubbled up from the grassroots. (More about this later.)

Lost in the array of glitzy accomplishments and firsts is what should be the most important part of a campaign: the message. It's almost as if Dean's campaign is more about the campaign itself than it is about politics -- it's Marshall McLuhan ('the Medium is the Message') gone wrong.

Au contraire! There's plenty of message. In fact, he's coming up with new messages all the time, like his excellent statement that Bush should hold people accountable for the horrific national security breach re Valerie Plame.

Dean and his supporters are now saying that Dean's campaign is about 'restoring power to the people.' The immediate implication here is twofold: first, that people are out of power -- that America is no longer a democracy. I'm aware of 2000 like everyone else; however, even given the events of 2000, it's a debateable assertion.

I disagree with that quite a bit, but you're entitled to your opinion. There are plenty of people who know that our voices have not been heard, who know that the monied fat cats' voices DO get heard. Etc. Dean's campaign is changing that. He's currently in the process of raising probably $15 million this quarter, almost entirely from grassroots supporters -- right this minute there have been almost 155,000 individual contributions, and the quarter ends at midnight or so on the 30th, and his "contrived" world record conference call house party extravaganza isn't over thru all the time zones yet.

The other, and more important implication, is that supporting Howard Dean's candidacy will somehow empower people. How is that going to happen? What exactly would President Dean do that would 'empower people?' I've seen two of his speeches now, start to finish, and he never says.

He's already demonstrated that. For one thing, it will be tremendously empowering of ALL the people (as a group here, not as individuals) to have someone in the White House who doesn't owe big business anything if he can continue building the grassroots.

For another thing, speaking of the grassroots, this is NOT a top-down campaign. Through MeetUps and other Get Local events, the grassroots makes their own plans and organize themselves.

For yet another, it's the first Open Source, Iterative Presidential Campaign in our history. We're not merely supporters, we can get on the blog, follow the campaign day-to-day, post comments (our personal stories, our ideas, our criticisms, our hopes and dreams), and the campaign reads every single entry AND incorporates a lot of the ideas. This means WE have a real stake in this campaign, this candidate. He and his campaign listen to us, and act on our suggestions and ideas. That's pretty powerful indeed. I haven't been spending any time on the blog myself the last several days, but I understand that many supporters encouraged Dean to come out with a statement about the Wilson affair, and today he did. Maybe he would have anyway, but it's very satisfying to know that EVERY entry on the blog gets read and weighed.

On another occasion, someone posted on the day of his appearance in Minnesota, I think it was, that when Dean addressed the crowd, he should start out by saying how happy they were there to see him on a night when the Packers (or whatever team -- I'm not a fan myself) were on TV. The campaign got that message to him, he did just that, and the crowd loved it.

These are not earth-shattering things, perhpas, but they do express what a profound difference this campaign is from every other.

I know I can post some news or other item on the blog and the campaign WILL see it. I strongly suspect that (whether you like it or not), Dean's "understanding" of Clark's very recent conversion to the Democratic Party would probably not been as quick and thorough were it not for people posting things to the blog on the subject.

He talks about 'Ken Lay and the boys at Enron' a lot, and uses vague language about special interests -- but he never gets around to identifying which interests he will act against, and what he will do. It's rhetoric, and all politicians have anti-special interest rhetoric as part of their normal speil. What, specifically, is Dean going to do to remove special interests from politics?

I think I've already answered that.

How will he shake things up?

In a lotta ways, he already has, and I've explained how.

He doesn't say -- and that should be crucial in a campaign whose theme has now become shaking things up. Your money is going to elect him, based on the notion that he will change things; how will he do it?

He's got quite a few plans. See his positions. Also see his record, which is one of accomplishment.

The secondary implication of Dean's current campaign theme is even more interesting: only Dean. Why Dean? Dean's supporters are saying that 'only Dean' can shake things up, and that the very act of his campaign is somehow shaking things up. That last is true -- campaigning will never be the same after this year, and that's a good thing. However, since Dean himself offers no specific program for change,

Again, he's offered quite a few things. I'll just refer you to his official website and encourage you to look at his positions, his speeches (substantive ones, since you've seen the stump speech), his press releases, etc. If you're being objective, you'll probably see that Clark has borrowed, adapted or outright stolen a lot of Dean's ideas.

one has to ask: why is Dean the proper messenger? Why not Kucinich, who has some radical ideas for change, and has been quite outspoken about them?

Well, are you supporting Kucinich? He's got some great ideas, but they're probably too radical for this time and age. I think they'd be far more acceptable after a Dean presidency which will help heal a great deal of the divisiveness in the country and pull it considerably left of where it currently appears to be under Bush.

My own observation is that the only thing unique about Dean is his campaign itself -- and that's like a suit of clothes that anyone should be able to wear, or perhaps a role that any actor could play. Why Dean?

Well, I wrote a thread once with the title, "It's not about policies anymore." My point was NOT that policies are unimportant, but so many DUers have pledged "ABB" which is itself an admission that policies aren't that important. Further, if you line all the guys and Carol up, there isn't really THAT much difference between them in toto. A few differences here and there, some positions starkly different here and there, but from the overview there's more alike than different.

But I've already explained the absolutely revolutionary thing he's doing, his campaign and supporters are jointly doing, which is revitalizing the democratic process itself. No other candidate can do that. In fact, Clark was put into the campaign expressly to stop this process because when The People have as much power as they have with Dean, THEY (Washington insiders, the DNC, the DLC, the Clintons) lose a good bit of their pwoer and influence. Can't have that. And of course, corporations would similarly be pretty unhappy about it too.

So, no other candidate CAN or WOULD do what Dean is doing/facilitating within his campaign. I say "facilitating" because Dean is at once allowing it and standing at the head of it, but this grew up around him because of his leadership, and he's definitely running with it.

I haven't myself heard him say it, but a new friend of mine (fellow Dean supporter) tells me he has said, "When we're President ...."

And of course, many people who haven't perhaps spent all that much time with him and his campaign and are cynical in general (as am I) can pass all this off as just so much rhetoric. But as I've pointed out, Dean has already shown his commitment to taking the country back, which means far more than just winning in 2004.

A couple of thoughts in passing. This is not a bash of Dean, but a series of observations and questions. The overall tone is not a ringing endorsement of the man, but neither is it a harsh criticism. Thoughful replies are appreciated; personal attacks, or one liners like 'you just don't understand,' or 'only someone connected with Dean's campaign can understand,' are begging the question. Dean's campaign has lost some momentum recently; some well-reasoned answers might help to get it back.

I'm not so sure the campaign has lost momentum, especially when you consider that tonight they reached the goal of 450,000 people signed up for his campaign -- something I thought they would NOT be able to do beause in August when they announced the goal it was going to require something like 3000-3500 people PER DAY to get there; or when you consider all those individual contributions and the possibility that they're going to make their $15 million goal from mostly small contributors, far surpassing Clinton's 3rd Qtr record of $10.3 million AS AN INCUMBENT PRESIDENT; and the fact that the blog comments are running so much higher in number these days than they have been. I'm seeing over 300 comments per blog entry (on some, not all), which is phenomenal.

The lost momentum you see has been a dent in TV coverage because of Clark's entry into the race recently.

And while you apparently don't like to hear it, the way to really understand Dean's campaign is to spend some time on the blog. Listen to some of his other speeches -- I heartily recommend at least reading the June 23 Restoration speech, and when you read it, open your heart and believe, if only just for as long as it takes to read it, that it's not just rhetoric to him. Not in any way.

I'll say this too: that new friend I mentioned? Her doctor grew up with Dean and their families have spent summers together. My friend asked her if he was what he seemed to be: honest, straightforward, a man of character and integrity. Her physician said he's one of the most principled and honest people she knows.

I only know this. Until Dean came along, every day was one atrocity after another from Bush, relentlessly, with no escape. Oh, that's still true enough, but at least every day there's some glimmer of hope, some joyful new thing, some FUN (however contrived it might be), some excitement and enthusiasm, and most of all, as I said, hope. A lot of people can't bring themselves to believe he's the real thing. I'm sure he is.

Far from perfect, and absolutely insistent on not allowing himself to be "handled" so that he might avoid some of the rhetorical traps he sets for himself -- which is one of the main things we supporters appreciate about him (that he tells the truth and sometimes it's "I don't know, I'll have to think about it, and maybe I'll think about it outloud") -- he at least IS the real thing. As authentic as the day is long. God, what a breath of fresh air. What a blessing in a dark and terrible time when Orwell lives, with a vengeance. The TRUTH. What a precious commodity. I think Americans are starving for the simple Truth to be spoken, fearlessly, perhaps peevishly at times, but thrown right out there for the world to see.

All of this is (and more) is why I support Dean.

Eloriel

[eileen_d]

58. Thanks for the post.

Very detailed and very positive.

[maggrwaggr]

72. thanks, Eloriel, you rock as usual.

although I really don't think the poster deserved all that effort you just put into that. But i'm glad you did it anyway. :)

[Mechatanketra]

75. Whew! Exhausted, Eloriel?

I can't tell you how many times I read through a thread like this just gritting my teeth, thinking, "It's been 90 posts already, dammit, when does Eloriel show up with the bottom line?"

Once again, you've put things into place better (and more importantly, faster) than I ever could. One of these days, tho, I am going to get there first, durnit. :-)

[zeemike]

78. I do believe you answered it all Eloriel

That was impressive. And I want to say that I am one of the ones that donated to his campaign and to tell the poster that for me that was a big deal because $100 is a lot of money to me.
And it is not a trivial thing that many like me do this.

[Julien Sorel]

90. This is a long post, but it doesn't entirely answer the questions.

Q: How will he shake things up?

A: In a lotta ways, he already has, and I've explained how.

Actually, here is the section of your post where you say you explain how:

He's already demonstrated that. For one thing, it will be tremendously empowering of ALL the people (as a group here, not as individuals) to have someone in the White House who doesn't owe big business anything if he can continue building the grassroots.

For another thing, speaking of the grassroots, this is NOT a top-down campaign. Through MeetUps and other Get Local events, the grassroots makes their own plans and organize themselves.

For yet another, it's the first Open Source, Iterative Presidential Campaign in our history. We're not merely supporters, we can get on the blog, follow the campaign day-to-day, post comments (our personal stories, our ideas, our criticisms, our hopes and dreams), and the campaign reads every single entry AND incorporates a lot of the ideas. This means WE have a real stake in this campaign, this candidate. He and his campaign listen to us, and act on our suggestions and ideas. That's pretty powerful indeed. I haven't been spending any time on the blog myself the last several days, but I understand that many supporters encouraged Dean to come out with a statement about the Wilson affair, and today he did. Maybe he would have anyway, but it's very satisfying to know that EVERY entry on the blog gets read and weighed.

On another occasion, someone posted on the day of his appearance in Minnesota, I think it was, that when Dean addressed the crowd, he should start out by saying how happy they were there to see him on a night when the Packers (or whatever team -- I'm not a fan myself) were on TV. The campaign got that message to him, he did just that, and the crowd loved it.

These are not earth-shattering things, perhpas, but they do express what a profound difference this campaign is from every other.

I know I can post some news or other item on the blog and the campaign WILL see it. I strongly suspect that (whether you like it or not), Dean's "understanding" of Clark's very recent conversion to the Democratic Party would probably not been as quick and thorough were it not for people posting things to the blog on the subject.

OK, you say he will be more receptive to you as a result of your donations. It hasn't yet -- his policy positions remain as cautious as everyone else's -- but we'll see. It is certainly a possibility. But all candidates for public office are reponsive to supporters. By the way, it will be much easier for him to raise money the old fashioned way, which would dissipate that influence.

Again, he's offered quite a few things. I'll just refer you to his official website and encourage you to look at his positions, his speeches (substantive ones, since you've seen the stump speech), his press releases, etc. If you're being objective, you'll probably see that Clark has borrowed, adapted or outright stolen a lot of Dean's ideas.

Actually, as the thread opener indicates, I've been to his website and seen his policies. They are hardly different than any of the other candidates'. This actually reinforces my point: if Dean's positions are so easily stolen, what makes him unique? What is he going to do that is empowering? He's going to be elected by a grassroots campaign, and then? He's going to enact the same policies as everyone else would. I don't see the empowerment here.

But I've already explained the absolutely revolutionary thing he's doing, his campaign and supporters are jointly doing, which is revitalizing the democratic process itself. No other candidate can do that.

Why not? That was one of my questions in the thread opener. You've said why Kucinich can't (I could make some arguments, but it isn't the point here), but not why anyone else can't. Why is Dean so unique? Lots of folks are direct and honest. CMB is direct and honest. Lieberman is more than direct and honest -- to judge by people here, he's too


So the two questions: 1) What is Dean going to do to 'empower the people'; and 'Why is Dean the only one who can do it' remain partly unanswered.

[Eloriel]

146. You had to work real hard at trying to find some things

that you can claim weren't answered. Frankly, I don't think you succeeded.

OK, you say he will be more receptive to you as a result of your donations. It hasn't yet -- his policy positions remain as cautious as everyone else's -- but we'll see.

I wouldn't call his policies "cautious." I'd call them pragmatic and doable, and not crafted because they're the right thing to do (in his estimation), not for some other reason, like sellability. Too, I don't think that Americans are looking for wild gyrations in policy, which is one reason I don't think Kucinich is electable -- it's too far a stretch to go from where we are now (the appearance of a rightwing country) to a solidly very liberal one. My question for YOU is -- why are you looking for big "shake-ups"? And why is that a benchmark for you? And how does Clark, who doesn't even have positions really, satisfy that? I spent a lot of time very respectfully answering your questions, now I'm turning the tables and it's your turn.

It is certainly a possibility. But all candidates for public office are reponsive to supporters. By the way, it will be much easier for him to raise money the old fashioned way, which would dissipate that influence.

No, other candidates pander to their supporters. And it goes without saying it's easier to raise money from corporations -- but he's not doing that now, and frankly not likely to.


But I've already explained the absolutely revolutionary thing he's doing, his campaign and supporters are jointly doing, which is revitalizing the democratic process itself. No other candidate can do that.

Why not? That was one of my questions in the thread opener. You've said why Kucinich can't (I could make some arguments, but it isn't the point here), but not why anyone else can't. Why is Dean so unique? Lots of folks are direct and honest. CMB is direct and honest. Lieberman is more than direct and honest -- to judge by people here, he's too

I've already answered that, but apparently you're not getting it. I'll try again. No other candidate can do it because this "revolution" is a synergistic phenomenon between Dean and his supporters. MeetUps found Dean -- the campaign didn't start that effort. BUT the campaign was smart enough to take advantage of it. Then, Dean was smart enough to tell Trippi that they had to decentralize the campaign -- ALLOW and ENCOURAGE the grassroots to do their thing -- organize, develop events and outreach efforts, etc. 450,000+ signed up as supporters, 117,000+ signed up for MeetUps.

This is not the kind of phenomenon that can be directed or engineered from a top-down campaign. Ir requires the involvement, participation and most of all initiative at the grassroots level PLUS acceptance and interaction on the part of the campaign. I've been quite amused that the Clark campaign has apparently been busily DIScouraging and dismantling its own so-called grassroots effort.

Kucinich might be capable of doing this, but where are his numbers? Where is his broad appeal

So the two questions: 1) What is Dean going to do to 'empower the people'; and 'Why is Dean the only one who can do it' remain partly unanswered.

Not in my book, but with this post I'm fresh out of patience with you.

Eloriel

[Julien Sorel]

157. you're making incorrect assumptions.

My question for YOU is -- why are you looking for big "shake-ups"? And why is that a benchmark for you? And how does Clark, who doesn't even have positions really, satisfy that? I spent a lot of time very respectfully answering your questions, now I'm turning the tables and it's your turn.

My candidate isn't the one claiming to lead a revolutionary campaign. Clark and his supporters aren't out there calling other people 'DLC whores' and 'Repub-lite,' and 'Bush-lite,' when in fact, his policies, what he will do in office are essentially the same as all the rest of the candidates. Dean is. If other candidates are 'Bush-lite,' and 'Repub-lite,' how is Dean different? Oh, his campaign is different. It 'empowers the people' to elect someone they like, who will go to Washington and ... do the exact same things the rest of the candidates would do. The loop is re-entered: Dean is different because his campaign is different, and this is important because Dean's campaign is different. It makes no sense.

Unlike the Deanies, I don't expect Clark to 'shake things up,' simply make them better. He hasn't made any grandiose promises about 'empowering people' which imply he will shake things up. So the question doesn't apply to me, because I'm looking for different things out of Clark than you say you are out of Dean. Table unturned.

No, other candidates pander to their supporters. And it goes without saying it's easier to raise money from corporations -- but he's not doing that now, and frankly not likely to.

So other candidates 'pander,' Dean listens. If that was actually a supported argument, you might have something there, but you just stuck it out as your opinion. I don't think anyone actually accepts that except yourself and your fellow Deanies, but as the statement is impossible to prove anyway, I'll leave it at that. It does go, however, quite a ways towards explaining some of the comments folks have made about Dean's supporters.

I've already answered that, but apparently you're not getting it. I'll try again. No other candidate can do it because this "revolution" is a synergistic phenomenon between Dean and his supporters. MeetUps found Dean -- the campaign didn't start that effort. BUT the campaign was smart enough to take advantage of it. Then, Dean was smart enough to tell Trippi that they had to decentralize the campaign -- ALLOW and ENCOURAGE the grassroots to do their thing -- organize, develop events and outreach efforts, etc. 450,000+ signed up as supporters, 117,000+ signed up for MeetUps.

This is not the kind of phenomenon that can be directed or engineered from a top-down campaign. Ir requires the involvement, participation and most of all initiative at the grassroots level PLUS acceptance and interaction on the part of the campaign. I've been quite amused that the Clark campaign has apparently been busily DIScouraging and dismantling its own so-called grassroots effort.

Kucinich might be capable of doing this, but where are his numbers? Where is his broad appeal

You basically re-enter the loop. OK, Dean decentralized his campaign, encouraging grassroots support and so-on, and then you mention Kucinich, saying he doesn't have broad-based support, so he can't do it. I addressed this issue in another post way down below with NSMA; it's circular reasoning at work.

Not in my book, but with this post I'm fresh out of patience with you.

Darn.

[WilliamPitt]

149. Excellent post

[Ellen Forradalom]

56. Good thoughts.

Why are so many lined up with Dean? Because he asked them. And yes, even though we do live in a democracy, we have become so inured to the 'Who cares what you think?' attitude of the Bush White House that to be asked to participate seems a breath of fresh air. There is a resemblance to the 'Stone Soup' folk tale, but even though the first ingredient of the soup was a mere stone, the result is no less magic.

The glitz you refer to, and the frenetic pace of fundraising, are related to the end of the quarter. The press will be watching and will rank the candidates in part based on fundraising (and attention-getting) results. And at this point gaining name-recognition does have political value.

The Dean campaign hasn't so much lost momentum as lost its relatively easy ride during the summer. The campaign began in earnest on Labor Day with the start of the debates, and Wesley Clark has grabbed his fair share of the spotlight.

I agree, I do hope the campaign will better balance substance and style after the quarter is over, but things are crazy right now.

[Julien Sorel]

111. Your reference to 'Stone Soup'

tells me you get it exactly, and you communicated it with clarity -- I never would have thought of it that way, yet I think that story was in the back of my head when I was trying to get my mind around Dean. Should Dean win, I sincerely hope it works out the same way it did in the story, which was one of my favorites as a child.

[fabius]

71. Dean supporter here. I don't believe that "only Dean" can do it...BUT

I think any of our top candidates can do it. I'm talking Dean, Clark, Kerry, maybe Gep, maybe Edwards.

Kucinich is great and he can shake things up but can he win? CMB is great and I love her in the debates. She says things that need to be said. Likewise Sharpton. Graham's solid but not real exciting.

That is one difference this time, there is a real debate about what the Democratic Party ought to stand for. I haven't seen this since 1968 really. All the candidates contribute. I'll vote for Lieberman if he's the nominee, but I ain't gonna be that excited. Honestly I wasn't that excited about Dukakis, or Clinton. A little more about Gore, but his was clearly a "top-down" operation like they've been for decades. That's why he failed to win by a theft-proof majority. Also why he lost the Greens.

OK I started out a Kucinich supporter, but I believe Dean has got what it takes to win. Better yet he's getting people excited about politics. I haven't seen this since 1968 either. It's starting to feel like the '60's in a good way. Dean's blog is kitschy but who cares? It's about getting people interested and maybe making them stick around. The official website has plenty of meat on positions - just look, it's all there. I was kind of skeptical about Dean until I read his foreign policy speech that came out in about April or so. He's really got substance. This is not to take away from the other candidates who also have good ideas and good experience.

I have to say that ANY of our candidates would wipe the floor with Bush in a debate.

Clark looks like he also has considerable grassroots excitement, but has a lot of catching up to do. Let the best man or woman win. Then let's get behind our candidate and use all the tricks all teh candidates have learned.

The reason Dean raises a lot of money is that 150,000 or so different individuals have given him money. Not big money but as much as they can afford. That means more to me than any number of million dollar Bu$h fundraisers.

[Eloriel]

79. Oh, YEAH! I forgot!!

I forgot to mention how many people he's bringing in that are new to politics -- 50% and sometimes more of a lot of his appearances.

AND people from all over the political spectrum -- Greens, Dems, Independents, Republicans. Both of these are pretty big news too.

Thanks for reminding me.

Eloriel

[FubarFly]

76. Good questions.

"I was checking out Dean's impressive website, and it seems that much of his campaign is based on glitz and contrived accomplishments: 'The world's largest conference call,' and so on. It sounds cool, but how many people is that sort of stuff going to actually reach?"

First off, the "glitz" translates in to money, and money is needed to fight b*sh. Dean has been been very successful at fundraising. Props to Dean.


"Lost in the array of glitzy accomplishments and firsts is what should be the most important part of a campaign: the message. It's almost as if Dean's campaign is more about the campaign itself than it is about politics -- it's Marshall McLuhan ('the Medium is the Message') gone wrong."


Why do you think it's gone wrong? The unique thing here is that Dean is listening to people. He is taking our good ideas and turning them into policy. Dean does have a comprehensive platform at this point. But he is open to change- his positions will evolve along with new information or ideas. This is what people who accuse Dean of flip-flopping don't understand. It's tricky to fight this accusation in the media, but Dean does an excellent job of getting his message out and explaining his positions.


"Dean and his supporters are now saying that Dean's campaign is about 'restoring power to the people.' The immediate implication here is twofold: first, that people are out of power -- that America is no longer a democracy. I'm aware of 2000 like everyone else; however, even given the events of 2000, it's a debateable assertion. The other, and more important implication, is that supporting Howard Dean's candidacy will somehow empower people. How is that going to happen?"


An awakened, involved citizenry is more effective and truer to Democratic principles, then a dormant, docile one. Dean is awakening many people out of their torpor. He is making people feel like they have a voice in the process. He is taking even minor concerns seriously. The conference call, the bat, and all the other "glitz" illustrates Dean's commitment to getting people involved. This is empowering, whether you understand it or not. I'd be happy to elaborate.



"The secondary implication of Dean's current campaign theme is even more interesting: only Dean. Why Dean? Dean's supporters are saying that 'only Dean' can shake things up, and that the very act of his campaign is somehow shaking things up. That last is true -- campaigning will never be the same after this year, and that's a good thing. However, since Dean himself offers no specific program for change, one has to ask: why is Dean the proper messenger?"


Because Dean thought of it first. Because he opposed the Iraq Invasion while it was still popular. Because he won't back down from a fight, but can still admit when he's wrong. Because time and time again he displays the qualities of true leader- in the best sense of the word. That's what it boils down to in a word: leadership.

I hope my POV is helpful to you. Thanks again for being civil.

[Julien Sorel]

93. --------------------

Why do you think it's gone wrong? The unique thing here is that Dean is listening to people. He is taking our good ideas and turning them into policy. Dean does have a comprehensive platform at this point. But he is open to change- his positions will evolve along with new information or ideas. This is what people who accuse Dean of flip-flopping don't understand. It's tricky to fight this accusation in the media, but Dean does an excellent job of getting his message out and explaining his positions.

The only flip-flopping I've seen Dean do is in reponse to criticism from the traditional power structure -- the same thing his campaign is supposed to make him immune to. If you have examples to the contrary, please share them.

An awakened, involved citizenry is more effective and truer to Democratic principles, then a dormant, docile one. Dean is awakening many people out of their torpor. He is making people feel like they have a voice in the process. He is taking even minor concerns seriously. The conference call, the bat, and all the other "glitz" illustrates Dean's commitment to getting people involved. This is empowering, whether you understand it or not. I'd be happy to elaborate.

First, I'm not so sure Dean is really doing this. I've seen his meetup participation ratio in my own city, and it was quite low -- it's easy to get people to sign up, a lot harder to make them participants. This is one of those things people can say, and use anecdotal evidence to support, but more concrete data are non-existant, so it generally goes unchallenged. As for what is 'empowering,' I have a couple of different ideas about what the word means, but am always open to another. My own revolves around influencing policy -- everything else is just rhetoric. But perhaps that falls under the rubric 'or not.'

[FubarFly]

136. .Some quick answes

Point 1: I don't think Dean is perfect. He is a politician, albeit a good one, and he has the same flaws most politicians possess.
I am not naive about the more manipulative aspects of Howard Dean.


Point 2: If you really want to find out more, try attending a meet-up.
That will answer your questions far better then I can. You can watch empowerment with your own eyes.

I understand that we will never fully agree on Howard Dean. I respect your effort to find common ground.

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

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

[DemocratSinceBirth]

117. "Now Pitch A Tent Between My Nuts And Live There"

This is the only time I'll get in this thread....

That has to be the meanest, most retrograde thing I have ever read on a bulletin board....

If that's an example of left of center thinking we are doomed and our fate is deserved....

[haymaker]

140. Hysterical much?

I'd say yeah. And your last line is just sooooooooo obvious.

JAFT

[DemocratSinceBirth]

155. Why Did The Moderator Delete Your Thread

You told the poster who started this thread "TO PITCH A TENT BETWEEN YOUR NUTS AND LIVE THERE....."


I was offended that I had to read it....

You owe the board an apology....

It was the most offensive thing I have read on a bulletin board and I have been posting at different boards since 7/98

Why did the moderator choose to delete it?

Let it go....

And see an anger counselor

I pity you.....

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

94. OK Billy, here's some specific by Howard Dean..on JOBS

As President, I will work to eliminate tax policies that provide incentives for American firms to move manufacturing jobs offshore, and to assure that all trade agreements incorporate labor and environmental protection standards. I will propose new ways to help small businesses, especially small manufacturing businesses, access the capital they need for growth, job retention and plant modernization, so that they can compete successfully in the global economy. I will also support increased funding for workforce training.

http://www.aflcio.org/issuespolitics/politics/candidates_dean.cfm#corporateaccountability

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

95. On EMPOWERING PEOPLE

Civil and Human Rights
What steps will you take to ensure equal pay for working women?

Women still earn, on average, only 76 cents for every dollar earned by men, and minority women fare even worse. I support the pending Paycheck Fairness Act to strengthen current laws against wage discrimination and help realize the promise of equal pay for equal work. My Department of Labor will vigorously enforce wage discrimination laws.

What steps will you take to End workplace discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, immigrant status, disability, sexual orientation and gender identity?

First, I will close a gap in current law by working to enact the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would prohibit employment discrimination based on sexual orientation. Second, I will appoint an Attorney General and other civil rights officials committed to vigorous enforcement of existing workplace discrimination laws. Unlike the current Administration, my Administration will argue in court for an expansive reading of civil rights laws, not a retrenchment.

Do you support or oppose legislation to provide permanent legal status to otherwise law-abiding undocumented workers and their families who work here and contribute to their communities?


http://www.aflcio.org/issuespolitics/politics/candidates_dean.cfm#corporateaccountability

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

96. MORE on EMPOWERING PEOPLE

Workers’ Freedom to Form a Union
What specific action will you take to ensure America’s workers truly have the freedom to form unions and to preserve workers’ right to collective bargaining?

Workers rights are fundamental human rights. The right to form a union is guaranteed by the constitutional right to free association. As President, I would vigorously enforce worker protections in federal law and would appoint a Secretary of Labor who is a real friend of workers. I would appoint men and women to the National Labor Relations Board and the federal judiciary who will interpret federal labor laws broadly to protect the rights of workers.

I support a number of specific proposals to protect the right of workers to form a union:

Card Check. Federal labor law should be amended to declare that a union is established whenever a majority of workers have signed cards stated that they wish to unionize. This would avoid protracted and divisive campaigns in which employers use intimidation and coercion to block unionization.
Ban on captive audience / mandatory anti-union meetings. Under current law, employers may schedule meetings that employees must attend at which employers advocate against formation of a union. Federal law should ban such practices.
Ban on one-on-one anti-union meetings. Current law permits employers to pull individual workers off the job to attend one-on-one anti-union propaganda sessions. Such inherently coercive one-on-one meetings should be banned as an unfair labor practice.
Streamlined NLRB procedures. The process by which the National Labor Relations Board certifies unions is subject to endless appeals and delays. Employers should have only one opportunity to challenge the validity of a new union, and the process must be streamlined so that workers can form a union in a timely way.
New civil penalties for failure to negotiate in good faith. Right now there are no serious consequences if an employer ignores a newly formed union. There should be meaningful financial penalties available to federal regulators when an employer fails to negotiate in good faith with a union.

In addition, federal law should be amended to expand the number of workers who can unionize. Tens of millions of workers are unjustifiably denied the right to unionize. The ban on unions for supervisors, agricultural workers and independent contractors is too broad and should be narrowed.

I would use the bully pulpit of the Presidency to shine a spotlight on worker's fundamental rights and mobilize community pressure in support of working Americans. As President, I would be a strong ally in the fight for the rights of workers across the country.


Do you commit to contacting employers fighting unionization and urging them to respect their employees’ freedom to choose a union, without management intimidation or harassment?

My commitment to the right to organize has deep roots. As Governor of Vermont from 1991 to 2002, I stood with nurses and other employees seeking to form unions. And I signed into law agency fee protection for the state employees union, thereby providing union security for state employees. I was proud when I was recently awarded the first Paul Wellstone Award by the AFL-CIO for my commitment to the rights of workers.

Will you support or oppose measures to restore the civil service and collective bargaining rights of federal workers?

SUPPORT

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

97. And finally, the only one feigning sincerity in this thread is you

I have read your every response and have duly noted that you have ZERO interest in what you asked for.

[Julien Sorel]

102. All the candidates have similar programs except maybe

Lieberman. You are, as you have throughout the thread, mistaking having a plan or a policy, or even a set of policies, for 'empowerment.'

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

104. OH please now you are rhetorically HAIRSPLITTING!

A candidate can ONLY empower through their policies. POLICY is what HANDS power to people. FDR certainly had a few policies that did.

YOu have JUST proven once again that you did NOT start this thread to get your questions answered.

If specific polices to achieve greater accountability of corporations, increase wages and INCREASE the ability of workers to UNIONIZE against their coporate masters doesn't have ANYTHING to do with EMPOWERMENT then what is YOUR interpretation of empowerment?
Eating a can of spinach and growing great big militaristic masculine muscles like Popeye?

Once again, you have demonstrated that your questions are unanswerable because your only mission is to ANTAGONIZE not discuss.

IT's your turn NOW oh sincere and curious Billy. PROVE ME WRONG>

[Julien Sorel]

107. As I stated repeatedly.

how are Dean's policies more 'empowering' than anyone else's? They are all pushing pretty much the same thing. I'm being told that Dean is somehow 'empowering;' when I ask how, I get a whole bunch of positions shoved in my face that are virtually indistinguishable from anyone else's. That's not empowerment as the Dean people define it, which generally has something to do with taking special interests and corporate power out of the governing process, or at least reducing their influence in it. A collection of policies that are the same as everyone else's will not 'shake things up.'

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

110. And that question HAS been addressed several times over in this

thread. Perhaps those fingers you have stuffed in your ear and the loud "LA LA LA I can't hear you that you seem to be singing are getting in the way of you recognizing the answers.

Several posters have addressed how he has empowered them in their participation of the political process which is really the only place he has had the opportunity to do so since he isn't in office yet.

Finally, by taking his campaign directly to the people to raise funds in favor of BIG FAT WADS of corporate cash, I suppose you just answered your own question...gosh..maybe you knew the answer all along and didn't hear yourself with those fingers firmly pressed in place.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

112. and since I hate for you to repeat yourself in this game

I'll just save you time and cut and paste the answer you gave Eloriel since no answer will satisfy you since the questions you asked are really not designed to be satisfied but as a rhetorical exercise in antagonism:

This is a long post, but it doesn't entirely answer the questions.

Edited on Tue Sep-30-03 03:57 AM by BillyBunter
Q: How will he shake things up?

A: In a lotta ways, he already has, and I've explained how.

Actually, here is the section of your post where you say you explain how:

He's already demonstrated that. For one thing, it will be tremendously empowering of ALL the people (as a group here, not as individuals) to have someone in the White House who doesn't owe big business anything if he can continue building the grassroots.

For another thing, speaking of the grassroots, this is NOT a top-down campaign. Through MeetUps and other Get Local events, the grassroots makes their own plans and organize themselves.

For yet another, it's the first Open Source, Iterative Presidential Campaign in our history. We're not merely supporters, we can get on the blog, follow the campaign day-to-day, post comments (our personal stories, our ideas, our criticisms, our hopes and dreams), and the campaign reads every single entry AND incorporates a lot of the ideas. This means WE have a real stake in this campaign, this candidate. He and his campaign listen to us, and act on our suggestions and ideas. That's pretty powerful indeed. I haven't been spending any time on the blog myself the last several days, but I understand that many supporters encouraged Dean to come out with a statement about the Wilson affair, and today he did. Maybe he would have anyway, but it's very satisfying to know that EVERY entry on the blog gets read and weighed.

On another occasion, someone posted on the day of his appearance in Minnesota, I think it was, that when Dean addressed the crowd, he should start out by saying how happy they were there to see him on a night when the Packers (or whatever team -- I'm not a fan myself) were on TV. The campaign got that message to him, he did just that, and the crowd loved it.

These are not earth-shattering things, perhpas, but they do express what a profound difference this campaign is from every other.

I know I can post some news or other item on the blog and the campaign WILL see it. I strongly suspect that (whether you like it or not), Dean's "understanding" of Clark's very recent conversion to the Democratic Party would probably not been as quick and thorough were it not for people posting things to the blog on the subject.

OK, you say he will be more receptive to you as a result of your donations. It hasn't yet -- his policy positions remain as cautious as everyone else's -- but we'll see. It is certainly a possibility. But all candidates for public office are reponsive to supporters. By the way, it will be much easier for him to raise money the old fashioned way, which would dissipate that influence.

Again, he's offered quite a few things. I'll just refer you to his official website and encourage you to look at his positions, his speeches (substantive ones, since you've seen the stump speech), his press releases, etc. If you're being objective, you'll probably see that Clark has borrowed, adapted or outright stolen a lot of Dean's ideas.

Actually, as the thread opener indicates, I've been to his website and seen his policies. They are hardly different than any of the other candidates'. This actually reinforces my point: if Dean's positions are so easily stolen, what makes him unique? What is he going to do that is empowering? He's going to be elected by a grassroots campaign, and then? He's going to enact the same policies as everyone else would. I don't see the empowerment here.

But I've already explained the absolutely revolutionary thing he's doing, his campaign and supporters are jointly doing, which is revitalizing the democratic process itself. No other candidate can do that.

Why not? That was one of my questions in the thread opener. You've said why Kucinich can't (I could make some arguments, but it isn't the point here), but not why anyone else can't. Why is Dean so unique? Lots of folks are direct and honest. CMB is direct and honest. Lieberman is more than direct and honest -- to judge by people here, he's too


So the two questions: 1) What is Dean going to do to 'empower the people'; and 'Why is Dean the only one who can do it' remain partly unanswered.



But please do do this homework on Clark..I am bookmarking this thread with your responses to every single question. When these questions are asked about your candidate, I will save your answers and use them on you.,...oh and don't bother putting me on ignore, I'll just get somebody else to put all your questions to you on your candidate. You wanna play dirty..I can play dirty. Good night

[Julien Sorel]

114. LOL

One of the scarier posts I've seen here, but not in the way you think it is.

Have a better one.

[Julien Sorel]

113. I addressed this already.

Basically, people in this thread are using shifting definitions of 'empowerment' depending on the situation, or, as in your case until now, misunderstanding the concept entirely. There are Clark and Edwards and Kerry supporters who are new to the process, and feel 'empowered' by their candidate, so that's not it: as I stated repeatedly, it's a policy issue.

I already addressed the idea of non-corporate money in Eloriel's long post, and said it could make a difference, but I've seen no evidence of it yet in his actual policy positions. How or why you missed that, I don't know. It is certainly the best thing about Dean's campaign, and I can see where it would be the source of potential excitement, but until I see something specific in terms of policy, it's just potential. With such a 'people powered' campaign, one would expect to see a platform a little more differentiated from that of his 'corporate whore' competitors, but that's not the case so far.

And the 'why Dean' question remains unaswered. The logical person for this kind of campaign to spring up around would be Kucinich, as I said earlier -- he's the candidate who would shake things up, and has the policy positions to back that up.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

115. Fine but he doesn't have the numbers behind him to empower

anyone. He can't empower if he isn't polling high enough to get elected. And frankly, some women are NOT empowered by Kucinich's positions nor his past votes.

The same allegation could be made against ANY of the candidates, specifically and ESPECIALLY against the one that has NO RECORD.

[Julien Sorel]

116. That's circular reasoning:

Kucinich can't empower people if they don't empower him. If the same people who support Dean supported Kucinich, his poll numbers would rise, and they, in turn, would get a truly revolutionary platform in return. I have a hard time believing that the reason this doesn't happen is because of Kucinich's past opposition to abortion; besides, the very rationale for the Dean people is that they can control their candidate via their influence -- that should work for Kucinich as well on the issue of abortion.

I have to get going now -- hot tub, and then to bed.

Personally, I am not upset with what's been said in this thread. Most of the people who engaged in ugly attacks I had no respect for to begin with; I do, however, maintain respect for you, and in particular, your work on the CA recall -- that's my home state, and what's going on there ticks me off to no end. Whatever you think of me as a 'basher,' that wasn't the intent of this thread, and I hope you come to realize that.

As I said before, have a better one, and that, my dear, is sincere.

[noiretextatique]

109. randomuser "diamond grid" thread here:

http://democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=428332

is a good source for information on the candidates positions on the issues...including clark.

[KaraokeKarlton]

120. Dean's campaign is actually a political movement and revolution

This is what makes it so unique. And he is reaching people...not just activists but people completely new to politics. Those who aren't a part of it often have a difficult time understanding it. Not only is Dean a great candidate who is perfect for what this country needs in a leader right now, but he involves and includes his supporters in unprecedented ways. Bush has made a terrible mess of things, and whoever replaces him needs a proven ability to clean it up. When Dean became governor of Vermont, he faced a similar mess, although obviously not nearly as massive, but certainly very big by Vermont standards. He took a $65 million deficit and turned it into a $100 million surplus that he tucked away into a "rainy day" fund. This fund is what has kept Vermont's head above the water when other states are really suffering. His long term vision is impeccable. He took Vermont's bond rating from the lowest in New England to the highest. He brought insurance to people who were without it. He took steps to prevent drug companies from bribing doctors and hospitals with gifts to get them to prescribe the most expensive medicines instead of generics. He guaranteed ALL Vermonters equal rights by signing Civil Unions. He raised the minimum wage twice. He lowered taxes several times while doing all these other things. He ALWAYS balanced the budget as well. Howard Dean is a man who can tackle messes and STILL make progress for the people while cleaning up big messes. We NEED someone with a proven ability to do that this time around, and the others just don't have it.

What else is special about Howard Dean? He lacks the political fear that paralyzes a candidate from doing the right things. Like him or not, there's no denying that he has balls of steel and says what needs to be said. That kind of integrity, honesty and respect for the people is seldom seen in politics.

All in all, this is a pretty amazing package. I'm leaving out a lot of great things about Howard Dean, and only scraping the service of what he has to offer for the American people and what is so great about his campaign. He was my governor for a long time and he did a GREAT job. This man is innovative, smart, great at solving problems and he always does what he honestly believes is best for the people. He's a winner, all around.

[Spider Jerusalem]

122. ????

ANY campaign is, by definition, a "political movement". And Dean's campaign is hardly a "revolution", either. He's very very good at inspiring people to believe in him and to follow him, true, but there's nothing new or revolutionary in that. It happens to some greater or lesser degree in ALL political campaigns, and with all candidates.

[KaraokeKarlton]

125. Oh, but it is a revolution

You're just not close enough to it to see it. The people are taking the country back from those few who have had all the influence for so long. We are no longer complacent. It's OUR country, OUR flag and OUR future...and we are taking it back from the right wing and big business.

[quaker bill]

127. Dean a bit too populist for your taste?

The campaign in and of itself is a statement to his leadership style. The meetups, the world's largest conference call etc.. are concious choices in the manner of running a campiagn and state something about the values of the candidate which is more concrete and tangible than speeches and policy papers.

The apparent failure of other candidates to light such a fire says something about them as well.

You may be looking to read something profound from your candidate. Mr. Dean's supporters may looking to feel something profound from theirs.

I think Howard Dean is on to something here. The results thus far lend validity to this approach. Selecting this approach may be the strongest statement in support of his intelligence as a leader.

Go beneath the surface friend.

[Spider Jerusalem]

131. In other words...

embracing emotion over logic, "feeling" over reason, surface over depth, is good, nay, commendable, and positive results justify such an essentially shallow approach to politics, because it's just too much trouble to actually ask people to think, and rather silly to expect that they WOULD think, or even want to?

There's a name for that, you know. It's called "demagoguery".

[blm]

147. I wish he WAS a real populist, quaker bill.

He is a neuvo-populist whose conversion to populism is 9 months old. He NEVER governed or led as a populist in Vermont. He governed as someone in the mold of Zell Miller who scorned liberals. YOU may buy his election year conversion...I do not.

By ROSS SNEYD
Associated Press Writer
>>>>>>>
Many of the people who were his allies and adversaries in Montpelier over his 20-year political career have been quietly bemused by the liberal persona he’s built as he campaigns in Iowa and New Hampshire, especially through his outspoken opposition to the war in Iraq.
>>>>>
Dean kept his distance from his party’s liberals during his governorship.
"He seemed to take glee in attacking us at every opportunity and using us as a way to form alliances with more conservative elements," said former state Sen. Cheryl Rivers, a leader of the state Democrats’ liberal wing and former chairwoman of the powerful Senate Finance Committee.
Dean fashioned himself a position in the political center of Vermont politics even as the state has moved steadily to the left......back in Vermont have shrugged their shoulders as they’ve watched Dean allow himself to be cast as a liberal. They know it’s not the first time politicians have miscalculated his political leanings.
>>>>>>
Dean trimmed spending or held down increases in areas held dear by the liberals. More than once, Dean went to battle over whether individual welfare benefits should rise under automatic cost of living adjustments. Liberals were particularly incensed when he tried that tactic on a program serving the blind, disabled and elderly, which he did several times.
Dean turned often to the bully pulpit to belittle and berate them.
Last year, in a news conference tirade that was typical of his budget feuds with the Legislature, Dean lambasted the Senate. "The Senate budget is in la-la land," Dean said last May. "They’re pretending there is no recession."
>>>>>>
Rivers blames Dean for helping a third political party to flourish in Vermont that many say siphons votes from Democrats. "The Progressive Party gained some momentum during his years as governor because he was so conservative," Rivers said, although she said she still may support Dean for president.
>>>>>>>>>
Link is broken, but, I am sure many of you have seen this article. 
 Alert

[JNelson6563]

130. After reading the entire tedious thread

I come away with the feeling that one could submit volumes of "answers" and none would quite answer Billy Bunter's "questions".

Colour me shocked.

Julie

[trogdor]

133. So, how do you suggest he gets people's attention?

Sit quietly behind a podium during the debates like Joe Lieberman and hope somebody's listening? Get real.

I hope one day soon, Skinner gets really sick of all this in-fighting and declares war on divisive threads like this. I spend a lot less time in GD than I used to because if it.

[Spider Jerusalem]

135. How is this divisive?

It seems to me that it asks legitimate questions about Howard Dean and the nature of his campaign, which one can quite honestly say is at the moment more focused upon the campaign as its own justification rather than upon any specifics which will be accomplished by a Dean victory. These are, it seems to me, important questions. The Dean campaign seems to be about style over substance, form over content, process rather than results...and since Dean seems to have the momentum to get the nomination, that is rather vexing for some who require more tangible reasons for suporting a given candidate.

[Northwind]

139. Glitz and "contrived accomplishments"

Win elections.

The complaint that Dean's campaign is more about the campaign than politics or issues is hilarious. Of COURSE it is mostly about the campaign itself! That is why he is the front runner, and will remain so all the way through Election Day!

Once, I saw an interview with Geraldine Ferraro (sp?). She was discussing her and Mondale's failed White House run of '84. She was telling a story about how, late in the campaign, when it was very obvious that she and Mondale had no chance of winning, she was giving an address to a Union group somewhere in middle-America. She was frustrated at the lack of response she was getting, and at the poll numbers that showed that union people were actually backing Reagan, despite his anti-union, anti-labor stances. So she asked them, "You men know that Reagan and the GOP do not represent your best interests. You know it for a fact, so why are you supporting them (paraphrased, I do not remember the quote verbatim)?"

After a moment of silence, one man stood up real straight and said "Because we're standing tall," to murmurs of assent from his fellow workers.

Reagan had done nothing for those people other than appeal to patriotism and their pride. He made them feel like they were part of something great. And that was all it took. he did not campaign on any issue dear to their hearts. He did not promise to do great things for them. All he did was tell them to be proud of being American. And as a result they voted for him, knowingly against their best interests.

The other Dem candidates put issues at the forefront, and empowerment and "glitz" in the back. Dean does the opposite, and he is the front runner. Dean makes people feel like a part of something special. Remember people saying, "this is not a campaign, it's a movement"? The only candidate that generates that kind of feeling is Kucinich, and even he stresses issues more, and that is one reason of many that he is a single-digit candidate. And yet some people act like his campaign is somehow doing something wrong, all while the evidence that his campaign is the kind that works is staring them in the face. Issues do not win campaigns. Personalities and emotions do. Dems as a whole need to start realizing that.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

141. this line of reasoning sounds familiar

if I could only remember...

[gully]

142. You must be joking! Clark doesn't even have a friggin ISSUES page!

Dean has a comprehensive position/solution (check the search option) to our nations problems.

Here are some press releases for you to examine.

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=press_releases

Here are some on Foreign policy...

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_press_archive_foreign

You obviously didn't spend much time there.

I did notice Clarks website has links to buy his books about 'waging war' but none about the issues?

[RetroLounge]

150. Oh look, another bash Dean thread...

No it's not, just trying to help...

:boring:

[Forkboy]

153. Each candidate has a few supporters who are completely...

not worth paying attention to.They have no interest in any facts and they will look at no answers that dont fit their preconcieved notions.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

156. The fear is palpable.