(WP) Dean Sparks Debate On His Potential To Remold Party

[pruner]

Despite Successes, Some Fear General Election Rout

By Thomas B. Edsall
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, October 20, 2003; Page A07

Howard Dean's success raising money and mobilizing voters has provoked a growing debate among Democratic and Republican strategists over whether the former Vermont governor has the potential to become a "transformative" political figure, altering, for better or worse, the financial and constituent base of the Democratic Party.

Although assessments of the Dean campaign run the gamut, they generally fall into two camps.

The first, and most favorable, contends that the former Vermont governor has found a way to compete with Republicans for money under the new rules of the McCain-Feingold law; that he has far outpaced rivals in both parties in the use of Internet technology, the newest tool to rally supporters and raise cash; and that he has broken new ground for voters to participate in campaigns. It also maintains that he has built both voter and fundraising momentum without depending on the special interest groups that have played major roles in picking nominees in the past.

The second, more jaundiced view is that although Dean has found a way to mobilize a liberal, activist base, capitalizing especially on the ease of credit-card contributions through the Internet, Dean's nomination could lead to a repetition of the crushing general election defeats the Democratic Party suffered under George McGovern, Walter F. Mondale and Michael S. Dukakis.

<snip>

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50652-2003Oct19.html

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

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

[pruner]

2. thanks for your OPINION

n/t

[dobak]

3. Agreed!

I like Dean, but the moderates and conservatives will be turned off by his stance against the war and his lack of military/foreign policy experience.

With the voting population just about evenly split between Dems and Repugs, we need to get the moderates and a few conservatives.

[cprise]

6. Absurd

That's like saying a person with Clinton's credentials will turn off voters.

In contrast, Clark has no political experience.

http://atlblogs.com/republicansfordean/

[NewYorkerfromMass]

30. It's absurd to say he has Clinton's credentials too

Dean is no Clinton. nor is he a Jimmy Carter. Get off these deluded comparisons.

[Skwmom]

34. In addition, would Clinton have won the election if there had been a 9/11

before the 1992 election? I think the Repub charges of Clinton being a womanizing draft dodger might have carried the day if there had been a 9/11 prior to the 92 election.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

39. Yep. Post 9/11 has really altered the field

although I think Clinton may have had the intelligence and political savy to overcome this particular handicap. Things Dean just doesn't have in his arsenal.

[Hep]

41. how do you know

that 9/11 has changed anything? This is the first presidential election since the attack.

[Skwmom]

42. True. Clinton has smarts and political savy in spades. e/o/m

[DemocratSinceBirth]

62. Thank You...

I mean this with all due respect but some folks need to crack a history book or read about American politics...


Jimmy Carter brought the entire south with it's bonanza of Electoral Votes to the table.... That' no mean feat...


Carter carried every southern state cept Virginia in 76.....

[NewYorkerfromMass]

64. and this racially charged remark helped Carter carry the south:

1976- April 3: Answering a question about public housing, Carter says that people should be allowed to maintain the "ethnic purity" of their neighborhoods. Despite the controversy which ensues and the anger of many in the black community, Carter sticks by his wording over the next few days before apologizing for his remarks on April 8.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/carter/timeline/

[DemocratSinceBirth]

66. I Think White Folks In The South Knew

Carter was progressive on the race issue besides that slip....


Funny thing the south which was so solid for Carter in 76 was almost as solid for Reagan in 1980....


Carter carried GA in the South and little else... He might have carried West Virginia....

[mzmolly]

14. I disagree. Dean will appeal because of his great fiscal record.

In addition, my inlaws are very conservative and they are very dis-illusioned with the Bush administration. Heck even Scarborough says Bush spends like a "teenager with a visa card."

Dean has the best chance, screw the DLC. I hope Dean proves everybody wrong, and the first thing he does is change campaign financing so the corporations no longer 'own' America.

[newyawker99]

17. Hi mzmolly!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[ozone_man]

74. Well said mzmolly,

It's true, Bush's wild deficit spending is worse than any Democrat and this is turning off many Republicans.

Nothing would please me more than to see Dean win without the help of the DLC and transform the party.

[Mechatanketra]

16. It's just this simple ,,,

There's a word for people who, at this point in time, with the case of an Iraqi threat to American security and the promise of a quick and easy "liberation" both absolutely disproven, still would be turned off by an anti-war stance: "The enemy."

The qualities required to not "turn off" these people are directly opposed to the qualities required to prevent this country from spiralling into utter disaster even if the Republicans lose. We don't just need to slow the bleeding Bush has caused, we need someone capable of reversing it, someone who can start repairing the damage done. And the first test to identify that someone is, were they either gullible enough or morally bankrupt enough to not recognize the Iraq war for the atrocity it was? If so, that ain't the frickin' guy.

[Mike_from_NoVa]

20. It the judgement stupid

Wisdom and judgement have become almost foreign concepts in today's political discourse. Dean inspires hope that he has such qualities. He openly took unpopular stands and hindsight has proved them correct.

With his sound judgement and ability to cut through political bull, Dean appeals to a voter's inellligence. Ironically, this quality makes him most attractive to me, but is probably going to be his downfall in a general election, if not the primaries. We have witnessed the wholesale Barnum-isation of American Politics in which "nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people." Can Dean reverse this trend? Stay tuned I guess. I'm sure keeping my fingers crossed.

[Skwmom]

73. I don't get how Dean appeals to one's intelligence.

I've talked to several people who view him as a "carny" salesman who will say anything to get elected. I think there will be a case study written on this one day along the lines of Howard Dean: the manufacturing of a presidential candidate. He's being packaged like a product but once the wrapper comes off I don't think very many people are going to happy with what they find.

[ShimokitaJer]

29. How do you figure the voting population is evenly split?

Are you using the 2000 election as a benchmark? That's hardly an accurate picture of the present. Are you relying on declared party affiliation of registered voters? That ignores both independents and those who don't necessarily vote the party line (a surprisingly large number). And does "voting population" mean "registered voters," "those who traditionally vote," or "those who have voted in the past?

I think the point of the article is that Dean is bucking the trends of the past, both in his fundraising and in his support base. I have never bought into the idea that we need to "try to get" conservative votes by choosing middle-of-the-road candidates and I think it is particularly inappropriate as an argument here. G.W.'s position against "nation-building" wars and lack of military/foreign policy experience during the campaign didn't seem to bother the Repubs too much then, and when the war in Iraq is so obviously failing, I don't see why you think it's going to hurt Dean now.

[CMT]

55. new Zogby poll out today

has Dean doing no worse than Clark against Bush, infact, marginally better. Dean loses to Bush 47-39 and Clark loses to Bush 46-37 percent. I think they all have a good chance of beating Bush.

[Skwmom]

75. Keep in mind that the poll reflects Clark taking a repeated

beating in the media (with lies, half-truths and distortions which I think can be easily refuted once the proper resources are put in place). Dean; however, has been given a real pass for the most part.

[Pastiche423]

4. That "war hero" image

is turning against whistle ass quicker every day.

[dobak]

5. true....

But if things improve... or appear to improve (thanks to the so-called liberal media) then Dean's stance on Iraq could work against him

[cprise]

7. So Clark isn't against the invasion now?

Did I miss something?

[Pastiche423]

13. Hey! Keep up!

He said he was against it, said he was for it, said he was against it, said he was for it, said he was against it...

[JohnKleeb]

15. I dont care what he says

Ive said on a numberous occasions why I feel uncomfortable.

[pruner]

8. Dean's position is that Iraq posed no imminent threat

how could that stance work against him if things get "better" in Iraq?

and even if things do get "better", that will not change the fact that hundreds of US troops have been killed, and thousands maimed, for no good reason.

[mzmolly]

11. Isn't Clarks stance the same? He is critical of the war... NT

[JohnKleeb]

9. Bush a war hero lol

According to a certain someone I know he couldnt even be a bricklayer's aide.

[madfloridian]

10. A whole lot of people are tired of war and war hero images.

I am terribly afraid that the Democratic base is buying into this fear thing too much. Maybe for a while that was true, and there are still some who are needing a savior figure. I know that because of the churches in our area propagating it.

But now, in this VERY conservative area, someone in a store will just pop up with something like....well for example today...."that damned fool is ruining our country."

This was in Circuit City in the TV section. Some guy saw Bush on the screen and let it rip about him. Instead of getting jumped on, most hooted with pleasure. That was a rare thing for this area for a while. Now things like that happen regularly.

This image stuff, I fear, is part of the tactics they are using on us via the media. Please don't let it work.

My neighbor, a lifelong Republican who is greatly disillusioned now with the Bushes, said he would never vote for Clark. I said why, I thought you were for the war stuff. He said do they think we are stupid? He said he thought they (the Clintons) were putting him in at the late date to draw Republicans.

It very well could be that this fear factor has been overdone.

[JohnKleeb]

12. damn straight on war images

The human side of war, now call me a pacifist I may or may not be one but thats one of the things I was thinking on why I opposed, I thought about the troops, the civilians, and the suffering they would have to go through.

[JNelson6563]

19. Well said!

I agree that too many Dems are fearful of their perceptions, which IMO are incorrect.

Bush is not viewed as the war-hero by anyone but the most blindly-loyal of followers or those who have much to lose by his downfall. Too many are speaking out and, if that's not encouraging enough, the CIA is certainly waiting in the wings to see how Ashcroft's "investigation" into Wilsongate goes. I beleive with all my heart that when Johnny-boy fails to get to the bottom of it he will get much unsolicited aide in the form of helpful (to us) leaks and various other sorts of revelations.

Then, figure in the mess Iraq is, Afghanistan, the economy etc. and we are talking loss by a landslide.

I don't believe any of our frontrunner candidates would lose to Bush, quite the contrary.

Julie

[blm]

50. a whole lot, but, not enough to beat the media AND the GOP

owners of the media.

[madfloridian]

80. The media does not care what we look like. It does not matter.

If we change one way, they will attack another.

[KaraokeKarlton]

18. So many people STILL don't get it

It's not the "liberal activist base" anymore. Dean has changed that. There are going to be just as many new primary voters as there are going to be those "liberal activists" this time around. Dean's support is very widespread and covers almost all of the political spectrum other than the radical left and radical right. Dean will absolutely crush Bush as long as Democrats who voted for Gore votes for Dean. As long as that happens, you add all the new voters and all the gun rights people who only vote Republican to protect their gun rights and there is NO WAY IN HELL Bush could ever beat Howard Dean. All it takes is being aware of what Dean's support base REALLY consists of (they are NOT all liberals, not by a long shot) and using common sense to figure this out.

[salin]

23. Interestingly.... sounds like From

has changed his tone a bit... might be getting your first point - or at least taking more of a wait, watch and see approach - regarding just who - when it comes to the polls - shows up. This suggests that while he may not agree with your assessment of this broadening of the base, he (and others?) are at least willing to stop sniping and see what happens in the primaries.

If Dean is not the candidate who wins the primaries - I hope that whoever does win starts to take notice of the Dean campaign - and copying its more decentralized approach that recognizes the importance of motivating people - not just to vote - but to become active. The other aspect of the Dean fundraising approach - that I have seen little comment on, but those in nonprofits should be well aware, is that for each little donation - the level of commitment to the cause (and willingness to act on behalf of the cause) is ratcheted up.

In the end - with a huge disparity in money (any guesses how much of an advantage W will have over ANY democrat???) - and one sided media coverage, the only way any democrat will win - will be to have an incredibly motivated "work force" of volunteers on the ground - who go out and find opportunities to work one-on-one, person to person, to counter the disinformation from campaignW.

[salin]

21. when to question 'democratic' analysts.... (as I now do more closely)

when a source for the story says things like:

Charlie Baker, a Democratic operative based in Boston, said Dean has succeeded in finding a way for the Democratic Party to address the "huge alienation that is out there, more on our side than their side." And his effective use of the Internet may suggest that "in this post-broadcast age," spending on television ads is no longer as effective as it used to be. But he said he worries that Dean's appeal may not extend beyond a core group of alienated supporters and that a campaign tailored to win primaries could fail in the general election in the grand tradition of Mondale, Dukakis and Al Gore.

So according to this Democratic operative.... Gore was a "failure of a 'grand tradition'."

Even under the most critical read (ie granting Bush Florida and presuming he would have won without Supreme Court intervention), Gore won the popular vote. But he is lumped in with Mondale's and Dukakis's "grand tradition" of failure in the general election?

I am coming to be more skeptical of the 'whys' behind certain analysts that are used to construct specific positions. In this case either the person has an ox to gore (so to speak) - and has their own agenda to promote by framing their analysis in a particular way... Or the person is among those self-defeating democrats who have concluded that there is no way for dems to win (and thus they read "Gore" as a "collosal failure" - though the race was the most contested/controversial in more than 100 years). Why do I say this? Because of the use of the falacy within the argument. Had the analyst stuck to "McGovern, Mondale" and even Dukakis... might have bought it.

Also worth noting in the item is the change in tone in the rhetoric of From. Even he is now taking a wait and see position - which, imo, is the wisest thing to do with all of the front runners.

[salin]

22. my point... pay attention to the rhetoric

here and everywhere. Even promoted by "democratic operatives" and "democratic analysts". It is subtle - and at times used to whack each democratic candidate. And it will be recycled in the general election against whoever our candidate is.

If we get wise to it - and to other deceptive techniques - we will be much better able to combat it in the future.

[WilliamPitt]

24. Can someone explain why Dean wouldn't be an AWESOME gen.election candidate

It's a mystery to me.

My chief worry for Dean is that the power of white liberal online political dorks like us will hit a ceiling before the primaries are done, but that worry as yet has no basis in fact.

Dean strikes me as being an OUTSTANDING general election candidate. His NRA positioning defangs the NRA in the South and West, he was right on the war and becomes more right to John Q. Public with every new body bag, he is an avowed centrist in about every way and this plays to the Great Wah of America very well.

Explain how he wouldn't be AWESOME in the general election. I don't get it.

[Mike_from_NoVa]

25. Well I don't know what the the Great Wah of America is

But I still think there's a real danger that the swing electorate has gotten so docile, so dumbed down, so "Barnum-ized" (see post above) that there is a real danger that Dean will not win the general election if nominated. He will be outspent 3 or 4 to 1. The simple gut-level Republican messages - crafted so well by Herr Turd Blossom and his fellow travellers - will be relentlessly ponded into their minds.

We have to keep making noise - like you do so well Will. Maybe it will have an effect. But I am very pessimistic.

The biggest problem, as I see it, is that there are vast numbers of the already-converted on both sides, folks whose opinion wouldn't change if their lives depended on it. That includes us AND them. Between these poles is an apathetic center, people who don't really want to put too much thought into politics.

This apathetic center MIGHT be counted on to swing an election, but they're too busy with other things and really don't want to pay attention. The side with the best one-liners will get these folks to the polls. Can Dean be counted on to dumb down his message to effectively compete? Like Gore in 2000, I'm afraid Dean may not have it in him - he's too smart.

BTW, what IS the Great Wah of America?

[WilliamPitt]

26. The Great Wah

The mushy Middle, the single-issue voters, the 80% that don't really pay attention.

All the Dem candidates will be outspent badly in this election. That's just the fact of the matter.

[Skwmom]

36. You're right that the Dems will be outspent

that's why I think it is important that the Dem's have a candidate with the least amount of negatives so they don't have to spend their limited resources defending one negative after another.

[KaraokeKarlton]

87. Just the fact that Dean makes politics interesting

to a lot of that 80% is part of why he's doing so well.

[billbuckhead]

27. Guns are code for race and southerners won't listen to Dean

about race.

[WilliamPitt]

28. Perhaps, but

There is something to be said for a check-mate. Little story:

In 1991 my father was working in the Attorney General's office in Alabama. On behalf of the Clinton campaign, he got the vast majority of Attorneys General to endorse Clinton. They had a teeny tiny press conference and that was that.

...but...

The fact that this happened check-mated the Republican's constant "law and order" refrain. How could they be the law and order party if the Attorneys General endorsed the other guy? It negated a huge issue; you never heard about it.

Ergo, if Dean's NRA rating makes it hard for the NRA to call Dean a gun-grabber, that silence will do nothing but help.

[KaraokeKarlton]

83. Here's something kind of humorous

THe NRA actually endorsed Dean over some Republicans who ran against him in the governor's race. Dean didn't pursue any endorsement, but the NRA does TRUST Dean not to try to ban guns. It's entirely possible that the NRA will choose to NOT endorse Bush if Dean is the nominee. Hell, it's even a slight possibility that they could choose to endorse Dean over Bush, especially since Dean wants to make further gun control a state issue instead of a federal one. It wouldn't be because Dean is more NRA friendly, but that the NRA might just like that "state's rights" approach, and Bush isn't saying anything, really.

There are plenty of things about the NRA to dislike, but what alot of people don't know is that the NRA also does a lot to help the environment. If it weren't for them, Dean might not have been able to protect those hundreds of thousands of Vermont acres from EVER being developed. The NRA supported him on that and helped get their membership behind Dean on that. At the very worst, the NRA won't endorse anyone if Dean is the nominee. At the best, they will endorse Dean over Bush which will effectively cripple the GOP. Whether people here hate the NRA or not, you have to admit that it would be mighty sweet if they turned tail and went against Bush. With Dean, it's possible.

[TLM]

57. What? Guns are code for race? That's just stupid.

I have family in both TX and MO who are democrats, but many of them vote republican on guns because they think liberals want to take away their guns. These are hunters and sportman, not KKK racists. These are rural folks who love their guns and won't vote for anybody they think wants more federal laws and more big government trying to take their guns away.

These folks will vote for someone like Dean who is not anti-gun.

In these states, like CO, MO, TN, etc. we only need to get 4 or 5 percent more people to vote dem to turn the states blue. Dean can easily do that on the gun issue alone.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

60. and what is "civil union" code for?

Let the gun toters chew on that and see what happens.

[KaraokeKarlton]

85. Gun owners don't give a rat's ass about civil unions

The ONLY people who oppose civil unions are the religious right who never vote Democratic anyway because they are pro-lifers. It's dumb to be concerned about losing votes you never had to begin with. Americans don't care who's boning who. Just don't call it marriage or infringe on the rights of the church and there will be NO problem over civil unions.

[madfloridian]

79. There are many "southerners" in our area listening.

We are not made from a mold. We are not robots. We are human.

[KaraokeKarlton]

86. I have lived in the south

And southerners aren't nearly as different from northerners as many here seem to think. We all care about the same things and worrying about who is sleeping with whom is just not very high on the priority list. Guns are, though.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

31. Dean will be painted as a wishy washy reinventor of himself like Gore

It seems Dean is guilty of reinventing himself and switching positions quite frequently and I think he will be skewered in the image painting department thanks to Rove. You see he has a big problem in that he likes to defy labels- is he a centrist? a liberal? a moderate? the lack of label on Dean will be a liability for people who don't feel safe with mavericks or "hard to label" people. It will actually scare people away. And don't worry, Rove will slap a label on him for us. And when Dean gets all bent out of shape and his short temper gets the best of him he will say even more stupid things and self destruct.

[RetroLounge]

40. Dean will be painted as a wishy washy reinventor of himself

and who gives a flying fuck.

You could say the same about each candidate.

Clark = Republican -> Democrat. etc...

Kucinich with his Pro-Life flip flop..

Quit running scared of the Repugs and learn to counter.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

44. He will and Dean will have to defend himself on it

because it's true. That's the problem with a candidate so relatively new to politics and who has in fact spent a lot of time just in the primaries trying to explain past positions. Dean is a novice and it shows.

I'm just anticipating the most damaging charge which may be thrown at Dean and this is it: He is trying to evade description and labeling, and he has scant record to establish himself as a tangible figure in the public's mind. Bush will be sold as the more "safe" product. And even though a lot of folks in this country want change, they will NOT risk it on a relative newcomer like Dean.
Clark and Kerry have far more substantive accomplishments from a much longer career in public service, and the national polls already prove this so. I'm sorry, but they will not trust Dean over Bush.

[Hawkeye-X]

88. Excuse me?

Who is Clinton? Who is Dean?

I would rather to have someone with EXPERIENCE of governing the state successfully than a Senator who, as a matter of fact, listen to their consitutents about 20-30% of the times on issues. Dean, however, listens to many people ALL over the country and formulates a policy based on what the people wants to see. Sure, some policies are bad, but most of them are quite good. This shows that Howard Dean is capable of governing the United States and I'm willing to place my trust in him and my vote in place for Howard Dean. I don't care if his family is life-long Republican. As a matter of fact, Dean's mother is changing her party affiliation to Democrat, and that's saying something.

That's why I'm not interested in any Washington insider. Period. They can't govern themselves, why should we place our trust in somebody like that?

That goes for Kerry, Edwards, Lieberman, and Kucinich (sorry to say). Washington insiders are not to be trusted. Period.

Hawkeye-X

[Skwmom]

76. You mean even dumber than calling members of Congress cockroaches?

Yeah, that man has some judgment all right.

[Skwmom]

32. Awesome is a strong word.

For the following reasons I think Dean would be a very weak candidate in the general election:

1) Dean does nothing to refute the perception that Democrats are weak on defense and national security. I think this is the main weakness the Repubs will target after the Democratic primary is over. They will paint Dean as a Draft dodger who let some other poor bas*ard take his place (yeah I know they tried to do the same to Clinton and it didn't stick but these are different times and the manner in which Dean evaded the draft are different). In addition, if there is another attack after the nominee is picked (one which would be very hard to prevent) terrorism will once again take front and center regardless of the state of the economy or anything else. I think the neocons will stop at nothing to see that their puppet Bush retains control in 2004. If things look bad for Bush I don't think they will hesitate to either let an attack happen or to orchestrate one.

2) Once Dean's record starts being compared to some of his rhetoric (which the media and Repubs will be more than happy to do if Dean wins the nomination), I think the wrapping will come of the package, leading many of his followers to become disillusioned (feeling angry and had - seeing Dean as just another phony politician) and tune out in the general election. (In addition, I don't think Dean has what it takes to get out some of the core Democratic base (for instance the black vote).

3) They will paint Dean as the angry little man who puts partisan politics above doing what is right for the country. I think there is more to Bush I giving Kennedy an award then meets the eye (it makes Repubs look more willing to be non-partisan). I can already see signs of this strategy with the article coming out recently on the Dems "unreasonable" hatred of Bush. He can also come across as arrogant and stiff and I think the media would highlight this if Dean was the nominee.

The stakes are really high in the next election (I believe the window of opportunity is closing to set things right - endless wars, bbv, control of the media). We need to put the best horse in the race, sorry but I don't think Dean is the person.

If Bush wins in a landslide, I think the Democratic party might very well implode. In addition, the media and Repubs will paint the Dem party as out of touch with the average voter and the loser party. The Repubs are trying to capture the growing hispanic voter base - but how many people will feel energized to get behind such a losing party?. It plays to the needs of the average person to join a winning (not a losing) team.

Finally, even if Dean could somehow get elected, I don't think he could govern (for many reasons) but I'll leave that for another post.

[Skwmom]

33. I'd like to add:

I know some people have argued that if Dean picks a VP with strong national defense credentials, it will negate the whole "Dems are weak on defense" argument. However, I think the media and the Repubs will constantly drive home the fact that it is the pres who is the commander in chief (charged with making the final decision on what actions to take) not the VP.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

35. Yep Dean/Clark is a ridiculous and thoughtless fantasy

and Clark would never pick a showboat like Dean as his VP.

[Skwmom]

38. Dean's ability to compete with Repubs for money.

Somehow I'm not seeing the logic of this argument. What's to keep the Repubs from using the internet as effectively as Dean to raise campaign funds via the internet (in addition to the boatloads of money they already raise in the traditional manner)?

[sangh0]

45. Good analysis Skwmom

Foreign policy and national security are going to be important in this campaign, particularly if the Dems put forward a candidate that can't negate this issue. Dean is particularly weak in both of these, and his opposition to the Iraq resolutions is not going to help him. Contrary to DU wisdom, I think it's going to hurt him, even amongst those who, by the time of the election, have come to oppose the occupation.

In addition, Dean record doesn't match his rhetoric, and Dean is going to have to be EXTREMELY careful to make sure that he doesn't shoot his mouth off in a way that contradicts his record.

[salin]

56. the degree to which this aspect will help or hurt Dean in the general

election, depends upon the aggressiveness of the media on the one hand, and the blind arrogance of members of the administration on the other.

Bush is down in the polls for economic reasons, and for a growing lack of contentment around the Iraq situation. The public support for going to Iraq (different than support for being there now) is below 50% (on the question of :was it worth it). The point is there is growing skepticism, and news that has been in the international press is starting to trickle into the US media.

But, the press is not aggressive, and I don't think that it is likely to get aggressive. Unless... coupled with additional egregious arrogant moves of the administration.

Whether or not the administration will let its neocon hawks push any of the actions they are hankering to take on (Iran, Syria, NKorea, and... perhaps Cuba?), might change the press behavior - not to aggressive (don't see that happening) - but to more questioning. The rhetoric from this administration is really hard to follow (in part due to their own internal power struggles), but some of the precursor rhetoric for action has been picking up in speed. To a sane mind, it is insane to think they would pursue more military action. But to sane minds in the spring of 2002, to pursue Iraq when the public was against unilateral action (support for unilateral action was around 30%) - and when the world coverage was so harsh and it appeared that beyond Britain there would be no support, was insane. But this ideologically blinded, arrogant administration went ahead. Why do I raise this? Because public skepticism has been climbing, and the signs indicate that there is a good chance that the loonies will push some kind of insane action.

In that scenario - the press is more likely to be a bit more questioning, especially if the rhetoric is similar to what was used in Iraq. To not question it, when most media outlets have covered stories in the past three months raising questions about the bush admin rhetoric, makes them look dishonest in their post war questioning. In short, some in the media may have created a little bit of a box for themselves.

If the admin pursues such overreach, then Dean's skepticism plays very differently to the general public. Ironically (and believability in image - we have learned from bush - isn't an indicator of whether it works or not), the appeal of bush as a "honest speaker/straight shooter" - transfers to Dean (were he the candidate) when compared to the administration.

I don't think this is likely to play out with the soft media coverage of today, unless the administration foolishly ramps up rhetoric and positioning towards another invasion. And with any other administration I would guess that the odds of that happening would be very low. But this administration... they really appear to be (imo) nuts.

I don't say this to suggest that other candidates could not also benefit from such a scenario. Just laying out a possible plot line (one that the admin appears to be testing out), and how that changes the saleability to the general electorate of resistance against the Iraq invasion.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

58. And I'm saying Dean fails the "honest speaker/straight shooter" test

no matter what happens the next year, electing Dean will be portayed as giving the reigns to an inexperienced flip flopper with no consistent record in anything. Straight talk isn't just about being angry- you need a record (Dems do anyway) to back it up.

Suspend belief for a moment and forget about "nobody could do worse than Bush" propelling Dean into the Oval office. Dean will be specifically sold by the GOP as actually "a bigger risk than Bush".
Clark and Kerry continue to be the next best choice after Bush in the national polls.

Dean is not a bad guy, he's just not the best we have to offer.

[salin]

65. You are selectively reading what I wrote.

And what I wrote was in direct response to a specific point raised before it - as to how anti-invasion rhetoric will or will not sell in the general election.

The scenario I lay out would be required for the tide of perception to turn. And it did not speak to a "any body is better than bush".

The scenario I lay out works for any who were against the war/invasion. And the aversion - given the scenario I laid out (which is dependent upon the actions of this administration in their "war on terra") turns the questioning of the war - into "straight speaking".

Regarding the perception of waffling? I have read that charge made against each candidate - and in the hands of Rove et al - it will be played. But it still doesn't impact the above scenario - and the "impression" left - and the rather funny twist it would make turning percieved straight talker Bush (and come on - if the public buys THAT image... they will buy it on anyone given the right circumstances) - into the obfuscator/(or worse); and the critic of the policies into the "straight talker."

Comeon - regardless of who that might be - and noting that my scenario is not necessarily likely - isn't just the conjuring up the image of the ridiculous image of bush/straighttalker suddenly (by their own doing) being flipped around to be used against him and for a dem - isn't that image just a little fun to sit on for a second?

[NewYorkerfromMass]

67. and I'm saying that Dean is not the one to turn it around against him

Kerry can make the charge with much more authority. No. Make that much much more authority. :)

[salin]

68. THats the beauty of the scenario

it wouldn't be Dean, or Kerry, or Clark or anyone else flipping around the public perception... it would be that slow talking mumbler... himself! :D

[Skwmom]

71. You've totally lost me on this one. e/o/m

[Skwmom]

69. I believe the issue of "straighttalker" can only be used against

Bush if the person trying to make this allegation is actually a "straighttalker." That person is not Howard Dean as the press and Repubs will be more than happy to point out (repeatedly) if Dean becomes the nominee.

[salin]

72. You are letting your blinders

keep you from seeing some obvious political realities. First - is that public perception often has NOTHING to do with reality.

RE: Bush - public perception: god fearin' straight talker veteran.
reality: insider trading; lies about past; awol.

all that info was available in the election.

The point of the scenario isn't about the "reality" as you or anyone else sees it. The point is that given a specific set of circumstances, that talk against going to war - which will play rather 'iffily' in the general election - suddenly becomes perceived to be "candor". Regardless of the messenger.

Likewise the image of the "straight talker" suddenly flipflops (by his own doing and his own adminstrations doing) into a shady/shifty obfuscator (ala tricky dick).

All of this - is dependent upon a set of circumstances that I describe above.

Some of ya'll are so blinded by your view of a particular candidate, that it is almost pointless to have discussios with you, as you are unable to do any objective analysis. Blinders, blind us, especially if we a) see them but embrace them; or b) are so blinded that we don't even acknowledge that they are there and are thus unable to compensate when doing analyses.

[Skwmom]

78. I don't have blinders on. I also realize perception is everything and

that perception has nothing to do with reality.

However, painting Dean as a candidate with candor would be one hell of a feat to pull off. There are to many instances where Dean has had anything but candor - which the other side will be very happy to point out (I can see the campaign ads now). Sorry Salin, I don't see it happening. Trippi and Dean's marketing team have been very good at manufacturing an image for Dean but once they come up against the Repub machine and the corporate controlled media, it will fall like a house of cards.

No offense, but if your a big Dean supporter I have to question what blinders you might be wearing? I'm known for being pretty analytical so I feel rather comfortable with my positions. I see the handwriting on the wall and wishful thinking on my part isn't going to change things.

[salin]

81. Again

I didn't paint Dean as a candidate with candor. You have missed the point.

I am an admirer of what the Dean Campaign (strategy) is doing, not necessarily candidate Dean - and have in many places explained why I hope that his campaign pushes other candidates to adopt nontraditional strategies - more decentralization, use of volunteers, and recognition that the online fundraising does more than raise money. Each donation steps up the level of the support from the individual and the likelihood that the individual will become increasingly involved at the local level.

I was part of the DC campaign consultants circle (on staff) in 1986 when the dems retook the senate. While we worked on four races (won two /lost two; one of our wins was Mike Espy, first African American elected to Congress from Mississippi since the reconstruction), we were hooked into a slew of other senatorial campaigns. Picked up a whole lot in that time.

Have also watched the dynamics of presidential campaigns (strategies - again not candidates) start to change on the GOP side, with little recognition on the democratic party side that there is a need to drastically shift strategy - and if possible to do so in a way that is unpredictable to the republicans to keep them a little off balance - if one is going to have a fighting chance.

So while you may not be able to see your dislike of Dean, I see the phenomenon as one of THE reasons that a democratic candidate has a chance in 2004. For any candidate to beat Dean, they will have to "out Dean, Dean" - as in the campaign will have to do this. By democratizing (which is necessary when one decentralizes some campaign activitiy - but the central campaign HAS to be willing to let go of some control to do this) the process - and increasing the level of "commitment" (big issue in nonprofit fundraising/nonprofit organizations activities - concept should be very familiar to those working in nonprofits) - one increases the type of volunteer activity and the sheer number of volunteers.

The democratic candidate will not be able to rely on fair media coverage.

The democratic candidate will not be able to rely on a heavy media campaign - except in targeted places - while the GOP will be able saturate everywhere due to their HUGE fundraising advantage.

Thus - the place the democratic strategy has to fight - is on the ground. In the towns. People talking to people to counteract spin. The ability to communicate quickly across networks to 'learn' of the next pushpoll and locally organize against the effort.

This is a level of campaign involvement that hasn't been undertaken in a long time. It is what is needed.

There are signs from the Clark campaign that are both good, and not so good on this front. Good - is the early reliance on loose networks of people in the Draft Clark effort. Good in the creation of media buzz that propelled coverage. Bad in the 'reorganizing' that happened a couple of weeks ago that appear (but the book isn't yet written) to be adopting more centralized traditional strategies and less decentralized grassroots activities.

Meanwhile the early primary season hasn't begun. Shifts of momentum often happen and it could go in a number of directions.

If another candidate (say Edwards, or Kerry) were to build momentum, I hope that they look to the strategies of the Dean campaign (and it is MORE than the fundraising - folks are MISSING the point of what the fundraising represents) - that propelled an obscure governor, from a northeastern state, that noone outside of the region ever heard of except in whispered tones that Vt had... *gasp* passed domestic partnership legislation - into the front runner strata. Hate him all you like (and your language indicates that) but recognize the feat that was accomplished - through their campaign strategies. If said other candidate's campaign is smart - they adopt some of these strategies - to extend their momentum.

My frustration with folks here, is in their blindered state, they can not seem to recognize some very interesting unfolding things that might be happening that can benefit ALL democratic candidates. Without being able to identify these things they can not be harnessed.

Hence "front runner Joe" who had the initial money and name recognition, could never build an ounce of momentum. Spent too much time initially tut tutting others rather than having his campaign study the strategy and phenomenon - and out perform at the same methods. Now he has opted out of investing in the Iowa caucuses. With a broader based network/organization with less concentration in a few areas, it would not have to be an either or situation. GIven teh current circumstances, their campaign may be doing the right thing regarding Iowa, however had they took notice of these changing campaign realities and strategies they might not be in the situation

[sangh0]

82. I think that was brilliant, Salin

You are absolutely correct. No matter who the candidate is, they are going to have some might large obstacles put in their way. Though I'm obviously not a fan of Dean's, his campaigning has been effective, and it does point to a way for us to fight back the massive propoganda campaign that IS going to be unleashed by the GOP and their huge campaign warchest.

[Hep]

84. true

But I wonder if any candidate that's been shunning Dean's game plan can suddenly adopt it now with any success.

If Edwards campaign here in NC suddenly became efficient or participatory, I'd be suspicious.

[salin]

93. Thanks Sangha

I appreciate those words. I do hope that other campaigns are not just watching, but are taking notes and putting pieces of their own non-traditional strategies in place - lean, decentralized, and able to throw some agile surprise punches at the GOP machine. If the GOP is kept a tad off balance, we gain a small advantage.

[Skwmom]

89. Maybe I not making myself clear.

You stated "The point is that given a specific set of circumstances, that talk against going to war - which will play rather 'iffily' in the general election - suddenly becomes perceived to be "candor". Regardless of the messenger."

What I don't agree with is "regardless of the messenger." For the perception of candor to have traction I think the "messenger" has to have some candor.

You're right I dislike Dean. He's the one who started bashing the other candidates from day one (because with Dean it's all about Dean winning the nomination - regardless of what b.s. Dean tries to sell to his supporters). He's your typical,lying, phony, politican and he takes hypocrisy to the 9th degree.

With that said I believed that the internet can be used to organize and build a grassroots effort. However, I think it can be effectively used in the general election without Dean being the nominee. On edit: Dean's team has also done a great job of marketing the Dean canidacy with alot of marketing tools. I just think if you would combine this with a really strong candidate we would have a shot at beating Bush.

On edit: I'd like to add that I really respect you so can we just agree to disagree on this :}.

[Hep]

90. help me out

Can you provide some kind of evidence that Dean was the first to go negative? And is criticizing othres for voting for a war they claim to be against really that negative? As far as I can tell, he was publicly expressing the same outrage I felt when so many people voted for the resolution. And the tax cuts. And the flag burning ban. And the LTA ban.

IOW, you're faulting him for being pissed and vocal? Because that's what I and a lot of other people were looking for at the time.

It's cool if you're against Dean, but can you clarify just how THIS is the reason?

[salin]

92. Refer back to my post in response to Sangha

in post 56. There is the scenario to which I am refering. It may make the rest of what I have been saying make more sense.

We agree about it not needing to be Dean for this method to be effective. And good point about the marketing.... The other campaigns NEED to learn from this.

We can always agree to disagree. :)

[NewYorkerfromMass]

94. I have a lot of respect for your very informed opinion BUT

let's look at how the candidates themselves have factored into Dean's success:

In the beginning Kerry and Lieberman lead SOLELY because of name recognition. Dean broke through ONLY because of his vociferous anti-war line beginning in February. People then stormed into his campaign because he became the lone voice of dissent against the extremely hated Bush, and he had a message that A LOT of Democrats wanted to hear. He also has attracted a lot of people because the VERY first thing they learn about him is that he is:
A. from a progressive liberal state,
B. he is a doctor,
C. he was a governor (executive), and
D. he (possibly) represents "something new".

Those are significant introductory credentials to a candidate, each with its own set of very positive associations, and the result is that they will heavily prejudice opinion of the candidate BEFORE issues and record are scrutinized. So when we come to the part where we are supposed to scutinize candidates' records and positions, I am fairly certain that Dean has been getting a pass from a lot of liberals and progressives (because his positions are so centrist) and that Democrats of all stripes have gravitated to him solely because of his attitude and promises of "something new". And I am even more certain that Kerry has suffered because they find his personality a turn-off. Common words heard are: boring, patrician, and if you believe Dean "cockroach" :mad:

So let's not forget where a lot of Dean's success lies- and that is the open spot afforded him by the IWR vote, the anger of the "base" at Bush, and the simple dynamic of a very old story: Exciting new guy vs. boring old guy.

Re: the ingenuity of Dean's internet campaign I say "big deal". Gerry Brown had his 1-800 number and he was governor of a hell of a lot bigger state than Dean. There will always be a market for "gimmicks", especially good old fashioned populist ones.

[salin]

95. Not original but much more effective

first was brown's 800 number
then was McCain's internet fundraising

Dean's campaign was not the first. But the way they are using it is very different. So far, I don't think that has been replicated - though early Clark efforts showed the inclination.

Now - it could be chance that led to this 'discovery'. Your analysis of the push for Dean, esp in the capturing of the peace movement sentiment, is correct. Then there was this meetup.org thing - and the dean folks tapped into it.

Here is where it seems to be organic. The formation of local and state groups even in nonearly primary states. Groups initially spun from the internet that grew beyond. The encouragement (through the internet) of these groups to create and take local action - and to document it (the latter may be 'gimmicky' but it gets action). The combination of using the web for actual organizing with the fundraising is what has become different. Was it a master plan - or did it just sort of happen with someone savvy noting the phenomenon and tapping it? Who knows. But now the campaign goes the nonprofit mentality - a little donation - ratchets up commitment, commitment ratchets up local action, local action leads to more small donations, which increases the number of people on the ground with increased commitment etc.

Think back to Wellstone's campaign. Many gave to it when it was still a nail biter. Then Moveon got a big campaign going and as people gave through that (a sense of a "bigger movement"). The Moveon aspect, heightened the level of activity and commitment. Wellstone was pulling ahead in the race, even though the campaign rhetoric and smears from the right were picking up steam (remember the RIP postcards... sadly sent out the week before his tragic death... was a smear on the "Death Tax" vote).

But your blinders appear to be too tight to be able to step back, look at the phenomenon - see how it has grown in terms of effectiveness since the JBrown 800 number - and begin to think in terms of how these types of methods for organizing can be used by other democrats - and be made even more effective.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

97. blinders off- Dean and the internet are not one in the same

I am aware the movement may continue without the man (Dean). Got it.

[salin]

101. Point more campaigns need to be intentional....

We have got to have better campaign strategies.

Here we have a number of excellent candidates. Top flight. Many of whom would make a great candidate and a strong president (especially in relation to the dolt in dc).

Without recognizing that more can be done - in a leaner way - and that to do so requires some unconventional campaign thinking (much as was the case in 1992 with Clinton - with the *gasp* similar candidate running mates rather than geographic/age/etc diversity to carry differing areas which had been the standard for YEARS.) - these campaigns chances of beating the unsurmountable challenges of teambush go down.

Point being - you got 90% of my point. The last 10% is also important. Our party and our candidates need to take notice, adapt, and... gosh darnit... WIN! (my way of saying.. it is imperative for our campaigns to take notice - stop dismissing but learn - coopt and make more effective.)

[TLM]

100. So 10 years as gov is not experience?

"no matter what happens the next year, electing Dean will be portayed as giving the reigns to an inexperienced flip flopper with no consistent record in anything."

Bull. How is Dean inonsistant?


"Straight talk isn't just about being angry- you need a record (Dems do anyway) to back it up."

Ha unless of course you're Clark.

[gully]

37. What is the criteria for being seen as strong on defense?

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

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

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

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

Didn't mean to but in here. I'm loggin out for today...

~Peace

[sangh0]

48. Hint: The criteria is not words, speeches, policy papers, etc

It's the record, and when it comes to foriegn policy and national security, Dean's record (as compared to his rhetoric) is light.

[mzmolly]

91. Uhm, what's the Governor supposed to do?

How does a Governor prove he's strong on defense?

I'd like specifics thanks.

[Hep]

96. Let's be honest.

What can a senator do other than say he read up on it and voted one way or the other?

That leaves us with only people who have served in the military should be eligible. Which goes against the fact that governors have won a majority of the past decades worth of elections.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

98. uh....you can serve on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee

for starters. :freak:

[CWebster]

52. Ah yes

and the Republicans with their military swagger and flag-waving and nationalistic drum beating for war - have really proven to be the party strong on national security, haven't they? Yeah, they did a great job of alienating our allies and accelerating the threat of terrorism - getting us in an absolute nightmare based on a fraud and with no easy exit--just to showcase how strong they were--even if they had to conjure up the entire illusion of a threat. And we foot the bill and are forced to bear the burden financially and with our childremn's lives. So it would be in the best interests of a Democrat to imitate them? Why should we lower ourselves to compete on their turf when it is lunacy? A lifetime career in the military-industrial complex and a history of sabre-rattling at cold war foes is not the sort of demonstration that benefits our standing in world relationaships. Who else but neo-cons would be impressed?

This argument fails to see the disconnect between the dangerous foolhardiness of the military image as insurance against threats to national security and the exploitation by the Right to conjure up fear to support it.

But some people can't figure that out for themselves, they believe the Republican mantra when the Democratic party offers no counter-spin even in the face of tremendous vulnerability of Bush due to his glaring failures on every front.

[TLM]

63. Same steaming pile you've been shoveling for weeks...

and it is still just as baseless and unfounded.


1) Dean does nothing to refute the perception that Democrats are weak on defense and national security. I think this is the main weakness the Repubs will target after the Democratic primary is over.


Dean does exactly that. Dean was right about this war from the start, he showed that he had/has a better grasp on foreign policy than the whole crew in the white house now.

Dean has been to more countires and met with more world leaders than Bush, Clinton, Carter, or Reagan had when they were elected.

Bush has been nothing but a huge national defense failure... someone will have to ask how anybody could do any worse than Bush who sat by while this nation was hit with the worst terrorist attack ever.

Dean is very wise in addressing national defense from the economic and social justic fronts, and not just the "lets bomb shit" front. Dean's vision of national security is far more well rounded and not motivated by war profiteering.

Dean would absolutly stomp Bush on every fucking aspect of national defense. Dean vs Bush on national defense would be like Mike Tyson beating up a retarded 8 year old girl.


They will paint Dean as a Draft dodger who let some other poor bas*ard take his place (yeah I know they tried to do the same to Clinton and it didn't stick but these are different times and the manner in which Dean evaded the draft are different).

Dean didn't dodge shit, he went to his physical and was rejected as Y1. And to you seriously think that bush wants to open the draft can of worms, and have Dean ask about Bush's desertion.



In addition, if there is another attack after the nominee is picked (one which would be very hard to prevent) terrorism will once again take front and center regardless of the state of the economy or anything else. I think the neocons will stop at nothing to see that their puppet Bush retains control in 2004. If things look bad for Bush I don't think they will hesitate to either let an attack happen or to orchestrate one.

Even at their stupidest, the American public wouldn't buy it. If there was an attack right before the election as W’s numbers we’re hurting… it would prove W has done a shitty job of protecting this nation and it would stink of treason.


2) Once Dean's record starts being compared to some of his rhetoric (which the media and Repubs will be more than happy to do if Dean wins the nomination), I think the wrapping will come of the package, leading many of his followers to become disillusioned

More of this stupid meme… all Dean;s supporters have been duped, right? We’re all too fucking stupid to figure out that Dean isn’t some super liberal far leftist extremist? We’re only supporting him because we think he is something he is not, and when we find out, we’ll all leave.

The fact is that people like Dean BECAUSE he is a moderate, not because we’ve been fooled into thinking he isn’t.


(feeling angry and had - seeing Dean as just another phony politician) and tune out in the general election. (In addition, I don't think Dean has what it takes to get out some of the core Democratic base (for instance the black vote).

Well I don’t think that you have a clue what you’re talking about… and I think you’re talking out your ass. I’ve been to meetups, I’ve seen the way that Dean excites not only the core of the party but those who are outside of the party and the process who have seen no reason to bother, until now.



3) They will paint Dean as the angry little man who puts partisan politics above doing what is right for the country.

They’ll try, and it will backfire. Nothing W has done has been right for the country and that’s a bi-partisan position. That’s why Dean is drawing centrists and moderate republicans. Dean’s positions on bringing southern republicans back to the party is also very effective in negating that… Dean appeals to the common needs and interests of people on either side of the fence.

I think there is more to Bush I giving Kennedy an award then meets the eye (it makes Repubs look more willing to be non-partisan). I can already see signs of this strategy with the article coming out recently on the Dems "unreasonable" hatred of Bush. He can also come across as arrogant and stiff and I think the media would highlight this if Dean was the nominee.

This is pretty standard, when your side is losing the battle, simply attack the whole idea of having sides. It doesn’t work. Nobody has been more arrogant and partisan than the Bush administration, and people know it. If they try to make partisanship an issue, they’ll lose.

Especially when one looks at Dean record in VT of being able to work with the republican state legislature.

[David Zephyr]

99. Wiliam, He Will Be an Awesome General Election Candidate.

Howard Dean does not let any shit just slide by whether it comes from White House operatives, Tom Delay, Tim Russert or his very own Democratic rivals. None. He doesn't let anything just hang there suspended in public domain where a seed of doubt can grow.

Like Bill Clinton and James Carville in 1992, Dean "rapidly responds" and with conviction and always sucinctly.

While I will support any Democrat against Bush, it is encouraging to see someone who is a fighter.

Dean will be an "awesome general election candidate". There's no doubt whatsoever in my mind about this.

And believe me, if anyone thinks that going up against $500 million of Bush/Cheney money and the Republican attack machine is something a "nice" guy can handle, then they'd better think again.

[Skwmom]

43. What about Dean's potential to implode the Democratic party?

I think that is a question worth debating.

[Hep]

47. sure is

Come up with an argument and we'll debate it.

[blm]

46. I don't want the party to go so far to the right with Dean.

Clinton was compromise enough. I don't want to head further into Libertarian territory and coziness with energy providers with Dean maintaining strong centrist positions while holding the left at bay.

[Hep]

49. holding the left at bay how?

Can you be more specific? Give some hypothetical examples?

[blm]

51. No hypotheticals needed.

The first link is broken now, but, the full article has been up here at DU many times. The second is still good.
>>>>>>>>
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 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.

. . .

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.

http://www.boston.com/dailynews/139/region/Those_who_know_Dean_says_he_s_:.shtml


http://timesargus.nybor.com/Legislature/Story/43125.html


Dean raises money from energy sources

February 27, 2002

By David Gram

ASSOCIATED PRESS

MONTPELIER — When Gov. Howard Dean wanted to raise money for a possible presidential bid, he followed the example of a former governor of Texas and called on his friends in the energy industry.

>>>>>>>
“Administration actions going back some years betray an inappropriate coziness with the utilities,” said Paul Burns, executive director of the Vermont Public Service Research Group. “I am not prepared to say it’s a result of contributions given. But these contributions present the appearance of impropriety or appearance of influence that it probably would have been better to avoid.”

Dean’s close relationship with utility representatives dates back to the day he became governor in 1991. A lobbyist for Green Mountain Power and a GMP employee were among the first people Dean called in to help his transition.

A list of the Governor’s Council of Economic Advisers includes Green Mountain Power Corp.’s chairman, two company board members and a vice president, all of whom made donations to the Fund For A Healthy America. It also includes two longtime utility lobbyists.

Over the years, the governor has sided with the utilities on many of the most pressing issues, including the push for deregulation of the electric industry, and later backing away from that as a goal. Among other major decisions:

— After years of pushing for the companies to absorb the excess costs of their expensive contract with Hydro-Quebec, Dean’s Department of Public Service agreed to let ratepayers be billed for more than 90 percent of what those excess costs are expected to be in the coming years. The extra costs will be in the hundreds of millions of dollars.
>>>>>>>

[Hep]

54. thanks for the info

I know that he's fiscally conservative. And we probably differ as to whether he's pragmatic or just plain old conservative in that regard.

I've seen that article about his relationship with energy. And I asked the person who shared it with me to please give me help finding the background information about those situations. Anyone can allege anything, but I can't come to a conclusion without more information.

Thanks again for the help with what you posted.

[janx]

53. Thanks for posting this. It explains why some Dems don't

want Dean...they'll lose power and money. He is circumventing the usual channels. It's great!

[CMT]

59. new Zogby poll out today--Dean does no worse than Clark

or Lieberman and Gep. Dean runs 8-points behind Bush same as Lieberman and both Clark and Gep are 9-points down. Kerry does the best losing by 4-points, but all have Bush under 50%. I think everyone of our candidates could beat Bush.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

61. Kerry does the best!!! (Bush 45 Kerry 41)

and he hasn't even campaigned nationally yet.

[janekat]

77. I REALLY hope he can pull it off - He's our best chance in the General

Unfortunately, I don't know if he can win the primary. Kerry, Clark, Edwards and Gephardt are all splitting the votes. I think Dean's voters are more his own - or that he is only sharing voters with Kucinich.

[SeattleRob]

70. Why do so many DUer's repeat Republican Spin?

It amazes me how people simply repeat Repuke Spin Points like they are the given facts. The talk of Bush being a war hero and an foreign policy expert is a joke. What are his great foreign policy acheivements? The roadmap to peace? His alienating most of our allies?

I think Dean or any Democratic Candidate will do fine running against GW Bush and his rotten record.