Why do people support Dean?

[mikehiggins]

I know this has probably been asked before but maybe after this Gore thing it might be a good idea to ask it again.

If Dean is a fiscal conservative (as he has said) and a centrist (ditto) and is amazed people consider him a liberal, why on earth do so many people on this board support him so fervently?

What is it about Dean that makes people think he is the best possible candidate to face the Bush League in November?

I have looked and read and watched and listened and I just can't grok it at all.

Obviously I support Clark (that's what that avatar is about) but I am backing him because I think he is clearly a candidate who can lure disgruntled conservatives and disgusted independents to join the democratic base and vote AGAINST Bush. To me Clark's value is to give these people who would ordinarily not vote for a Democrat an excuse for doing so.

What is your reason for actually supporting Dean?

[Pale Blue Dot]

1. What I find interesting is that

the same people who say he is unelectable because he is too liberal are the same people who say he's not really liberal.

Not saying that you've done it, I've just seen those contradictory statements a bunch of times.

[BootinUp]

14. Who said that

Clearly his campaign has presented him as quite the populist/liberal, the point is that it doesn't match his record.

[VermontDem2004]

56. His campaign does not

I can literally drag out over a 1,000 quotes where Dean calls himself a centrist, the media is trying to convince people Dean is far-left and frankly they are doing a good job of doing that.

[durutti]

16. Thing is...

He's unelectable not because he's too liberal, but because the press has called him too liberal, so people *think* he is.

[HuckleB]

19. Thing is...

That means very little at this point in the process. In fact, it could very well work wonders for Dean in getting press that may help with swing voters, when the press "discovers" that he's "not so liberal," as they will when they try to divide us themselves next Fall.

[last_texas_dem]

22. The way I see it

A Dean candidacy unfortunately has to deal with the "baggage" of being portrayed as too "liberal" (a perjorative term to most Americans these days; not to me, I proudly call myself one) by the media simply because of Dean's vocal anti-war stance and the fact that many of his supporters are liberals, possibly largely because of his anti-war stance. However, Dean's platform isn't particularly liberal, and at least in my view, would not do any more to advance progressive causes in office than any of the other major candidates.

I'm not a Dean supporter, but don't consider myself a "basher" or "hater" of Howard Dean or his supporters. I simply view the race this way: Dean has an uphill battle in a general election race against Shrub b/c he will have to deal w/ more of his positions being skewed, having to defend his stances, etc. as he is falsely portrayed by the media as the "liberal" candidate. If I believed Dean were a truly a strong liberal I would get behind him and fight for him to be our nominee, uphill battle (in the general election) or not. However, I do not believe this is the case with Howard Dean. I see other candidates as both more electable and more liberal than Dean. I would like to have a Democratic President elected in 2004, preferable a more liberal one. This is simply what I believe.

ON EDIT: Just wanted to clarify that if Dean IS our nominee, I will fight as hard for him against Shrub as I would for any other candidate we might nominate. My convoluted writing style tends to make my points unclear at times.

[onebigbadwulf]

2. Dean has no ties to corporations

which is the complete opposite of Bush and most other democratic candidates.

Of the candidates who owe no favors to big business, Dean has raised the most money and gained the most support.

It's better to throw your weight behind him now than trash him and vote for him later.

[Warpy]

21. There are a couple of reasons Dean stands out

The first one is that, although he's conservative enough to be electable, he's a DLC outsider who has no use for their brand of corporatism.

Second, as a DLC outsider, he's had to go back to grass roots organizing. The brilliance of it is that he stumbled on the net as the best way to coordinate such an effort.

I'd prefer to see somebody who would push for a return to a progressive tax structure, withdrawal of corporate charters for those corporations that have proven themselves damaging to the community (against every corporate charter in the country), offer us a Canadian style single-payer health insurance program that completely eliminated the insurance industry from health care, and several other pet desires. I also know I am not going to get them this time.

Dean's not a bad compromise. After all, the prize is unseating Bush and sending him back to his Hollywood prop of a ranch in Crawford. Dean is intelligent, articulate and presentable. He may be just the man to do it.

[durutti]

34. No ties to corporations?

First of all, the willingness of candidates to do the bidding of the ruling class goes far beyond campaign contributions. Howard Dean is himself a member of that class. He goes to the same parties, sends his kids to the same schools, etc. as the other members of that class. Furthermore, subservience to that class is built into the system itself -- but that's another story.

And the idea that he hasn't accepted campaign contributions from corporations is just false. See: http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/contrib.asp?id=N00025663&cycle=2004

[eyesroll]

45. From that very page

HOW TO READ THIS CHART: This chart lists the top donors to this candidate during the 2004 election cycle.The organizations themselves did not donate, rather the money came from the organization's PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.

From the summary page:
Total contributions from business PACs: $1,000 (out of $25 million)

So, argue that Dean accepts contributions from corporate officers. That's true. But he's accepted, at most, $1,000 from corporations. The rest are from single-issue PACs (and only a few thousand dollars at that), and individuals.

[Zomby Woof]

58. So how do you explain

His up-to-5 digit contributions from the likes of AOL/Time Warner, Microsoft, and IBM? Those aren't exactly PACS.

If Dean were honest, he'd just ask how far to spread, and who else brought some Crisco?

[eyesroll]

62. Again.

The organizations themselves did not donate, rather the money came from the organization's PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families.

Since we've already established he has minimal PAC money, these all came from individuals. (Companies can't legally donate, might I add.)
He did not receive these contributions from AOL/TW, MSFT, IBM. He received them from employees of AOL/TW, MSFT, IBM. Some of those are probably executives (and you might have a legitimate beef with too many executive contributions, but I don't have time to research the corporate officers of said companies and find out who gave to who). Some of those are probably just regular people who gave $250 or more -- these are huge employers, remember. There's likely to be lots of donors from AOL, et. al., simply because there are lots of people who work there. (It's similar to the complaint that huge numbers of Candidate X's contributions -- or votes -- come from California and New York. Well, that's where lots of people live.)

[Jacobin]

52. So, does that mean you had a big problem with FDR?

[Sean Reynolds]

64. And guess what....

PACs make up 0% ($15,500) of his funds. Compare that to other candidates:

Kerry: $48,084 - 0%
Edwards: $0 - 0%
Gephardt: $364,651 - 3%
Lieberman: $173,163 - 1%
Clark: $7,000 - 0%
Kucinich: $16,000 - 0%
Braun: $13,250 - 4%
Sharpton: $2,000 - 0%

Out of all of them, Edwards is the only candidate to NOT receive money from corporate PACs.

[Donna Zen]

44. Not True

Dean has accepted money from AOL, Vermont Power, and Halliburton.

[TorchTheWitch]

50. what?

Corporate money from Halliburton? Seriously? I've not heard this before.

[eyesroll]

68. One person, a retired airline executive who sits on Halliburton's board

has given Dean money.

He has received zero dollars from Halliburton PACs.

Halliburton proper is NOT allowed to give $.

[blm]

69. Since when?

And, btw, Kerry never took corporate pac money in all of his Senate races. Dean seeded this campaign with energy dollars. Where do you get your information?

You really think his files are sealed because of concern for patients?

[mrgorth]

3. Are you going to debate

or can we just tell you what attracts us?

[mikehiggins]

17. no debate

just trying to understand.

I'll keep my fingers off the keyboard.

[Tatiana]

4. Well I don't support Dean.

But I recognize that he does something, his campaign does the same thing that Clinton's campaign did in '92.

He gives people hope.

After all that we have been through in this country, after all the trauma, the violence, the lies, and the heartbreaking disappointment, we need some hope. I thought about that as I drove past a home on my block this morning with a "Dean for America" sign on the front lawn.

The fact that he gives people hope is a good thing. We need hope. We need to be energized. So, I don't begrudge Dean that at all. I'm thankful that he brought in so many newcomers to the political process.

[Demobrat]

5. I support him because

my thoughts have a tendency to come out of his mouth.

[HFishbine]

6. How succinct

Yeah. What he said.

[Demobrat]

30. She

:)

[HFishbine]

37. So sorry

I should have known from your perfume.

[musiclawyer]

7. Because he had the courage to say the emperor has no clothes

Most Deanies will vote for Clark if that's how it has to be. Actually I think most Deanies want Clark as the VP. Heck, anyone but Bush. But's it's a real visceral thing. If it wasn't for Dean leading the charge against Bush, Bush would be on a fast track to a second term. Dean made it possible for politicians and regular people to rage against the machine. For that he gets blood loyalty from a lot of people, notwithstanding with his gaffes and waffles. He comes across authentic.

[depakid]

15. He does indeed come across as authentic

and for many, it's more than a visceral thing, it's a rational thing. The guy talks sense and advocates responsible and doable public policy.

[Walt Starr]

8. I've liked Dean a lot, he's hard hitting on the BFEE

he was against the war. Those things drew me to Dean even though he's much farther to the right than I am.

In the final analysis, the Gore endorsement put me over the top. I'm now a Deanie and will remain so. If Howard is good enough for President Gore, he's good enough for me.

9. started some time ago

I saw something on C-span about a year ago where Dean was talking about health care and I came away with the impression that he was not engaging in the usual rhetoric about it, when asked questions he was answering them in a straightforward way like someone in a diner.
This sparked my interest.
I felt that a lot of what caused Gore to do badly against Bush was his speaking style, the perception that he was arrogant & that in terms of style (which unfortunately does have bearing in elections) Dean would be very effective against Bush because he would not back down or cede points the way Gore did. For example, every time Gore tried to raise points of substance in the debates, Bush would refuse to engage on substance and instead would say that the rules of the debate were being breached by Gore. I sensed that Dean would not allow such shenanigans in a debate.
This has been confirmed since then.

on edit: also what musiclawyer says in his/her post.

[GreenArrow]

31. Remember back in one of the 2000 debates

where Gore came on very aggressively and the press lambasted him for it? How do you think the press will paint Dr. Dean if he comes off as "over aggressive" to the media?

42. not sure, here's some thoughts

In the debate before that, Gore seemed kind of passive (the one where he sighed). Then he seemed too aggressive.
My reading on it at the time was that Gore had fallen into a trap of not understanding how intelligence/intellect is perceived in the country. He was used to a style of dialogue where you can state positions very strongly and it is not assumed that you are a know-it-all and that you believe that you know more than your opponent. Both his passivity and his aggressiveness gave this impression. Bush played this like a violin (which is one of the reasons I think he's smarter than people give him credit for). Clinton, although easily as smart as Gore, did not give people this impression. I think this is becasue he was aware from his upbringing about how intelligence is perceived and knew instinctively how to compensate for this. Gore didn't, which got him in a lot of trouble.
I think that Dean has a similar understanding to Clinton's regarding this. Witness the whole Confederate flag flap. It gives evidence that Dean is aware that there are different layers of discourse in the society and that arguments need to be phrased in ways to bring the "non-elite" into agreement.
Regarding aggressivity, it's in how you play your aggressivity. I don't think Dean will let Bush get away with the kind of rhetorical tricks he used before (the poor little me, aw-shucks persona, Bush used against Gore) & that he won't back down on his aggressivity. I think Gore felt a little ashamed about being aggressive & thus the press was able to tar him with it, I don't think Dean will.

Don't know how organized my analysis is here. Hope it makes some sense.

[dansolo]

10. Perhaps it's because I am a fiscal conservative and a centrist

I have no delusions about Dean's positions. I have read his information and I have heard him speak, and he is very consistent with my own personal views. He was also a person who was willing to attack Bush even when it looked like that was political suicide. I respect Clark a lot, but he did manage to sit back and wait until things started to go bad for Bush before jumping into the fray.

[lastliberalintexas]

11. Well,

Independents give 39% of their support to Dean, with Kerry, Lieberman, and Clark in a three-way tie for 2nd at 9%.

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=763

Dean is the favorite of both Democrats (27%) and Independents (21%)who intend to vote in Iowa’s primary.

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=762

(With credit to HFishbine for the cite and info on the independent voters.)


I've yet to see any real information indicating that Clark is in fact drawing disaffected repubs to our side. I've seen this assertion many times on DU, and it might be true, but no one ever backs it up. I think that Clark could probably beat Shrub in Nov- just as I think Dean, Kerry and Edwards could probably beat Shrub in Nov. However, one of the things I like about Dean is his ability to draw in independent voters.

I don't think I'll ever really convince you to support Dean pre-primaries, so I'll leave it at that. I just wanted to de-bunk the meme that ONLY Clark can draw in these new Dem voters.

[poskonig]

12. Several Reasons.

I jumped on board back in March, got iffy and was looking at Clark and Kerry during the Confederate Flag deal, and have settled back with Dean since. Kerry has been weirding me out lately by trying too hard to demonstrate his bluecollarness, and Clark's various statements have done little to assuage my fears about where he is on the issues.

On the issues, I'm very liberal socially, center to center-left economically, and center-right on foreign policy. Dean seems to be the best fit for me here.

Personality-wise, I like Dean's no-bullshit style. Sure, there's an element of politics in everything, but Dean does a good job keeping the Washington-speak to a minimum.

For the general election, I like his strategy. Many think we can beat Bush by looking as moderate as we can, but I'm skeptical of this, given the 2002 disaster. Dean wants to organize a shitload of grassroots supporters, and I think this is the way to go. Plus Dean lets me help him in different ways, while other candidates have a "leave it to the pros" attitude.

[vi5]

20. Isn't that almost the opposite of Dean...

You wrote:

"On the issues, I'm very liberal socially, center to center-left economically, and center-right on foreign policy. Dean seems to be the best fit for me here."

Isn't Dean more center-right on economic issues and center-left on foreign policy?

This isn't a bash, it's just how I interpret his stances on these issues. I happen to agree with him but it's interesting to see different interpretations.

[poskonig]

25. No, I think you're right.

Historically when we look at Dean, anyway.

[fallow]

13. i can tell you why i dont support him

I dont think he can beat bsh. I think he has some good positions on the issues but for those same reasons, he wont beat bush. I honestly think, and yes, I am dissapointed, but Kerry is the only one who can stand toe to toe with bsh on foreign policy... that is the key. Gore's support might help Dean but right now, kerry is the man.

[Hep]

18. I support him because he's right

He's intelligent and honest. His policies reflect a resistance to toeing the line. He doesn't care what the NRA thinks of him. He blieves what he believes and lets other people deal with it. Most importantly, he says what I say.

[DuctapeFatwa]

23. His unconditional support for ariel sharon is a big selling point

not only with AIPAC and its various co-PAKS, with the voting classes as well.

It is true that earlier in the campaign, Dean misspoke, but he was talked to and wasted no time in making a personal visit to sharon to make his position clear.


"...the former Vermont governor declared that, while the United States should become more engaged, he did not have any fundamental objections with President George W. Bush’s policies...

When asked by the Jewish newspaper Forward late last year as to whether he supported APN’s perspective, Governor Dean replied "No, my view is closer to AIPAC's view."..

He also rejects calls by APN and other liberal Zionist groups that Israel’s requested $12 billion loan guarantee be linked to an Israeli freeze on constructing additional illegal settlements on confiscated Palestinian land, arguing that such aid should instead be unconditional...

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0226-04.htm

[RPG-7]

28. That's what everyone says

There is literally no relationship between what a candidate says in a campaign and what they do once they are in office. Reagan and Bush I's campaign position on Israel was identical, however Reagan's administration was the most pro-Israeli in history and Bush's was the most anti-Israeli since Eisenhower.

[Hep]

57. Had you left "unconditional" and "sharon" out, you would have been closer

n/t

[DuctapeFatwa]

63. his interview speaks for itself

It is freely available for anyone to read.

If you disagree with him on this issue, fine, but his unconditional support of sharon's policies are one of the reasons he has gained both popularity and money.

[unfrigginreal]

24. My main reason is that I think he's the only one that can beat Bush

He's shown throughout this campaign that he'll be no shrinking violet when Rove and his machine throw out attacks. He's highlighting the contrasts between himself and Bush in all policies both domestic and foreign affairs. He's drawn a massive army of supporters that aren't afraid to put their money where their mouth is. And he's not running in the "play it safe" mode that I've become accustomed to from Democrats over the past decade.

As far as where he is on the political spectrum, it's really not that important to me so long as I find his policy positions credible. I would have put myself to the right of where Al Gore was in the 2000 campaign. I wrote a note to him this morning thanking him for making me feel more secure about my decision not to back an establishment choice this time, a first btw. I get the impression that Gore see's a need for change in the party and so do I.

I did at one point toy with the idea of supporting Clark, but I'm unimpressed with his campaign and I've learned some things that don't set to well with me. I was never inspired by any of the other candidates. So the bottom line is that I believe that Howard Dean is the only candidate that can beat Bush.

[farmbo]

26. His southern strategy: economic & educational equality and...guns

...regulated by the states, according to local needs.

[LuminousX]

27. He is constantly evaluating..

It is the Dr. mentality. You diagnose and you treat. If that treatment doesn't work, you try something else. He doesn't come at problems with a preconceived notion and he is willing to allow his opinion to be swayed. That is critical for me. We don't know what Iraq is going to be like in January 2005 so making promises on what will be done is a bit ludicrous. Ditto for a lot of things. I'm supporting a mentality and a methodology. Dean has shown openess, humility, willingness to have his mind changed, and the ability to listen to people.

He is willing to take risks. That is also critical. We are in crisis mode and we need a risk taker. He is willing to attempt something new. I'm personally tired of the same old same old that has become Washingtonian politics. I'm not saying he is going to turn the city on its ear, no one has that much power to overcome centuries of inertia, but he will at least be pushing in the right direction.

[deutsey]

29. Nicely put

:-)

[thebigidea]

32. his uncanny powers to cloud men's minds

[Gringo]

33. He didn't wuss out during the war buildup like the others did.

Dean was there, back in March when most of us democrats who KNEW this war was a scam, and a sure-fire disaster waiting to happen, but were left twisting in the wind by our own party. He gave voice to what we all knew was true at the time, even though nobody was listening.

Clark's fine military record aside, where was he when it mattered? Oh yeah, he was whoring it up with the CNN warmongers, lovingly describing for the war-crazed masses just how wonderful our weaponry and troops are, and NEVER publicly made a peep about what a bad idea this war was.

Good for you Dean, we're behind you.

[w4rma]

35. Primarily because I think he has the best shot in the general election and

because, IMHO, he articulates his policy proposals the clearest and best.

"best-run campaign we’ve ever seen"
http://www.msnbc.com/news/974339.asp
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=52916

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

[thebigidea]

36. the free buffet on thursdays

[wryter2000]

38. First...

First, thank you for a reasoned discussion, not a bash.

For me, Dean was the first one to say that we were in danger of losing our country under W. Up until that point, our candidates would disagree with this or that policy, or worse...some seemed to go along with W's policies but thought he was doing a poor job of them. (See Lieberman's stance on the war for an example.) Even Kucinich, who has my admiration and will have my support if he gets the nomination, didn't seem to have put it all together that the Emperor was starkers.

I could easily go with Clark, although I think it's quite possible that only Dean's success suggested to him that Bush was beatable. But so far it seems to me that Dean has put together the best campaign. That's based on a couple of things -- his money raising ability and the excitement he's generated in a lot of people. We're going to need both of those things in huge supply if we're going to beat Bush, and I think (as does Al Gore) that Dean has the best chance of winning.

As to his non-liberalism, I think our ship of state is in such bad repair that right now we have to haul it out of the water and plug the holes. Later on will be time for needed improvements. We can't lose this election by being ideologically pure, imho. We'll lose everything.

[SeattleRob]

39. this sums it up....

To understand why I support Dean, I would direct you to today's "Daily Howler Column. (12/9)

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh120903.shtml


The right wing, has been like rabid pit bulls, spewing lies and misinforation for years. The Democratic establishment and the so-called liberal good guy press people (Michael Kinsley is a great example) have been letting them get away with it. It's an attitude like "Yes sir. May I have another?"

Look at the crap the Bush got away with over the last 3 years and he didn't even win the popular vote! He's been bullying Democrats and they've been taking it.

Along comes Dr. Dean and he tells it like it is. He struck a chord with people around the country because it's obvious to us that what is happening in Washington DC. Meanwhile, too many Democrats have been putting aside their principals in order to not offend anyone.

The Daily Howler is a great website because it documents all the shit that has been happening.

[Scott Lee]

40. He's the Grim Reaper for the Statist Democratic Establishment

This is one of the main reasons I support him, although there are many more.

[HuckleB]

41. He looks like my grandfather.

Mike: Sorry, to be cynical, it's just that I've written this out so many times that I am at the point where I just can't bring myself to do it anymore. Dean is my candidate. However, I will support the nominee, whoever that is, fully and completely. And that includes money and volunteer time. I am ABB, and that is the most important thing in my opinion. We have a very strong field of candidates, after all.

[Eloriel]

43. Here's something I posted in another thread

snip

What I don't understand -- and this applies to a LOT of DUers -- is why you aren't seeing something actually much bigger going on with the Dean campaign -- something that can get you to where you want to go and farther: a resurgence in the whole democratic process.

Dean is revitalizing democracy itself. I say "Dean" but it's not him alone -- it's him and his campaign supporters.

* He has already revolutionized the contemporary campaign by running the first Open Source Iterative Campaign in history (and the internet tools are a big part of that).

* He has empowered supporters to organize from the grassroots up. An awful lot of campaign work gets down out here that was never thought of, never imagined by the Campaign heirarchy. That's revolutionary too. It's revolutionary JUST in the fact of not controlling the message, but the organizing and events and outreach and so on take that quite a bit farther.

* He has revolutionized campaign finance. He's being criticized by some of the other candidates and some DUers for opting out of matching funds and spending limits, but the ONLY reason he can even contemplate doing it is because it's overwhelmingly The People who are financing his campaign. This takes all the special interests -- ALL of them -- completely out of campaign finance. That's absolutely nothing to sneeze at, and I'm surprised it doesn't get a lot more positive play on DU.

* His supporters who are newly empowered and energized are not only running his grassroots efforts out here in the various states, they're getting involved in the Democratic Party. When he says, "We're going to take our Party back," he means that too. And the Party will be completely revitalized as a result (and boy, isn't it time for THAT?).

* Those of us who have drunk deeply of this new style candidate (authentic, blunt and honest -- occasional warts and all), this new empowerment, this new energy, this new hope and promise are NOT going to be interested in "settling" for being uninvolved, disenfanchised, alienated and apathetic any longer. Whoever gets the nomination (and I think it'll be Dean) and whoever wins (and I think, barring the voting machines) it'll be Dean, are NOT going to be satisfied being passive onlookers ever again. He's promised a White House blog, for example. A small thing, but still. What other candidate is reaching and engaging the electorate like Dean is?

Clark comes closest, but he and his campaign haven't caught on to the right way to capitalize on this new, 21st Century campaign style and structure. Kucinich has grassroots support, but it is small, splintered, and basically going nowhere.

My God. The campaign finance issue alone is HUGE. But add to that the interaction and involvement of Dean with his supporters -- it really is a movement as much or even more than a campaign.

So I just don't get it why people who want dramatic, revolutionary change in this country aren't picking up on the potential.

For the entire time I've been on DU, and it's been a while now, we've ragged and bitched and moaned about how UNresponsive our elected leaders are -- and rightfully so. It's been scandalous how unresponsive they are. Finally, along comes someone who is everything we ever dreamed of and MORE in the responsiveness department, and few people can actually see it, and fewer still appreciate it.

I wrote a thread a while back which was titled something like, "It's not about policies any more," and I tried to explain some of this in that thread. We can get mired down in picking and choosing among policies (and personalities as well, to a large extent), or would we really rather see something absolutely revolutionary in a completely pro-democracy way? I'll take the revolutionary pro-democracy, thank you.

I don't like ALL of Dean's policies -- but most of them are just fine, and a good many of them WoW me. The others aren't as bad as with Clinton, frankly, and I voted for him TWICE. The ONLY candidate who would be a perfect match is myself -- and you for yourself. We Dean supporters have seen him grow and change and respond as a result of OUR input. Not in a pandering way, far from it, but literally growing in understanding of what the issues are and how people feel about those issues.

If you read his June 23 speech, you'll see just that. The campaign changed HIM, he said. And I'm sure it continues to change him. And he (along with his supporters) are changing the democratic process and ultimately America -- and that will be true whether he even gets nominated or not, let alone wins.

So when I see people complain that some of his policies aren't just so, I just have to wonder, why aren't they seeing the much, much bigger picture, because that bigger picture is awesome.

Eloriel

[Justice]

59. Thank you for this Post

For me as a Clark Supporter, this was the best post I have ever seen from you and actually, the best post about Dean. Your reputation as a great contributor is evidenced by your post here. I must admit, I have read many posts from you that actually have turned me off of Dean because they are very condescending of other posters/other candidates (perhaps a bit too much "you don't get it" and not enough here is what I see).

This post says alot about Dean (and you) and I really appreciate that you posted it.

[Eloriel]

65. Thanks, Justice

It's true -- I have been very frustrated, angry and bitter about some Kerry supporters and a lot of Clarkies misrepresenting and often outright lying about Dean and I've taken it out on whoever has been around, tho most often, I think, in the perps themselves.

I am, however, trying to turn over a new leaf:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=854860

Anyway, blame me, not Dean.

[hertopos]

46. I am a supporter of Dean's campaign... not himself...

Look, we should learn by now that campaign itself is as important or sometimes more important than candidate himself. I think that was the most important part of Gore's message. Plus, we can at least change the tone of the dialogue. Let's not become mini-Greens in Democrat Party. Gore is the one remember 2000 more than anyone else!!
I don't think we can afford another Bush II for this country.
Gore's endorsement will affect a lot of undecided moderates among Democrats, that's my prediction. This endorsement may define Dean as a clear front runner.

Dean is sometimes too candid and ended up inconsistent or flip-flop. However, he is at least doesn't hide from that. That personality flaw may appeal to some hard core anti-Clinton moderate Republicans.

I repeat. I am not a Dean supporter but I like him. I am most impressed by his campaign. First of all, I will vote for anyone but Lieberman. Fortunately, with Gore's endorsement for Dean, I don't think I have to worry about the case of struggling between not voting at all and voting for Lieberman.

I am not asking anyone to endorse Dean. However, can we at least change the tone of dialogue? Make it more productive? I think it is good for Dean and his supporter to answer many questions rose about what Dean said.

I repeat. I am not a Dean supporter but I like him as a person. And maybe this is more important!! Though I love Bill Clinton, he started and perfected his era. Maybe we need someone like Dean to win.

His campaign is just amazing. The way his campaign inspires people are just so amazing.
Dean is a new type of presidential candidate. He does not have a larger than life charisma. In stead, he networks. While Clinton's charisma is like a centralized system, Dean's is a wide spread network.
Flexibility is everything.

It's a new world. Gore recognized that. Dean’s movement can counter Right wing fundamentalist Christian movement. This is something Green tried but failed before.

I am a supporter of Dean's movement or network.
Hertopos

[liberalcapitalist]

47. because he's angry, I'm angry, and independents don't like sissy Dems

n/t

[smirkymonkey]

48. I have been wondering the same thing

myself but was afraid to pose the question for fear of getting flamed.

Frankly, the guy is not, or has ever been, a liberal. I can easily see him pull a switcheroo once he gets into office. His appeal seems like window dressing and nothing more.

Other than opposing the war, I am baffled by his support on this board as well - I just don't think he is capable of effecting any great change in the way things are going currently.

[SeattleRob]

51. please read the above posts.....

there are a lot of good explanations listed above.

[smirkymonkey]

53. You are right on that...

I do think he has inspired more people than any other candidate and he has his good qualities - I would support him if he were the nominee, but I am just worried that he is not quite liberal enough, or powerful enough, to put the country back on the right track once in office.

[Zomby Woof]

55. I am with you

Don't be afraid of being flamed. Embrace it! No harm can come to you because you post a valid opinion on a message board. :hi:

Dean is the wrong person at the wrong time for reasons I have gotten long past having to justify. So go with it! Express your skepticism about Dean as often as you like. :-)

[mitchum]

66. and I am with both of you

not jazzed by the man's centrist record

[agingdem]

49. Because...

we're mad as hell!

[ulysses]

54. here's my rationale

from my thread over the weekend.

My support for Dean represents the first time since I turned 18 that I've supported the frontrunner in a presidential primary. Honestly, it feels weird.

Every four years, like a good liberal, I blue-sky it in the Democratic primary and vote for who I figure is the most liberal offering. They predictably lose and then I suck it up and vote for whomever it is that got enough establishment support to win the nomination (or at least I did until '96). Thus continues the rightward slide of my party with my tacit blessing.

In 1996 and 2000, I stopped sucking it up and voted for He Who Shall Not Be Named. I don't regret those votes even a little bit.

However.

Dean, I think, presents us with an option other than being overly obedient to the Dem hierarchy on the one hand and voting third party on the other. I've never thought that he was the candidate who best represents my views, and he's never, to my knowledge, pretended to be, but as Armstead said the other day, he listens to the left. (One is sorely tempted at times to hear echoes of Nader in 2000 in that willingness on Dean's part to listen, but that's probably too facile.) And he fights. Whether his anger is hot or cold doesn't much matter to me - that he fights the right is huge, as is his willingness to campaign unconventionally.

I guess they call it "incrementalism". Howard Dean isn't the Second Coming. He's not going to lead us to any kind of progressive promised land and, should he win the White House next year, I fully expect to have to keep his feet to the fire as much as any other candidate. But I think that pulling the country leftward is the work of decades, not of one election, and I think Dean's a start.

[slinkerwink]

60. I support him because we don't have swing voters anymore......

we really need to rile up the Democratic base and get them to vote, and so far Dean's doing an amazing job of riling up the Democratic base. That's what is so important in this election.

[IrateCitizen]

61. For several reasons, actually...

1. He's an experienced executive who knows how to do the kind of "face to face politics" that connects with people -- that's the way that politics is done in VT, there's no avoiding it.

2. He's got the ability to look ahead and see where public opinion is GOING to go in the future, as opposed to simply twisting in the wind with it as it stands at the moment. The best example of this is his outspoken criticism of the way that Bush handled the whole Iraq thing, and the shift in public opinion since away from support of it to disillusionment.

3. He is more than a candidate, he is a MOVEMENT. He has (somehow) found the ability to tap into grassroots support via new organizing techniques and technologies -- and he actually appears to listen to those grassroots constituencies. His campaign is a lot bigger than just Howard Dean.

4. He isn't afraid to piss people off. While he's no wide-eyed progressive idealist, he also won't hesitate to stand up to special interests. William Greider wrote of an interesting exchange that Dean related between himself and Bob Rubin, in which Rubin told him to stop criticizing Wall St. and corporate America, otherwise he wouldn't be able to secure Dean financial support from the financial sector. Dean asked him, "Well, what should I do instead, Bob?" Rubin said he'd have to get back to him, and Dean hasn't heard from him since. (BTW, Rubin is a big advisor to Clark now, which is bad juju, IMHO)

5. He is beginning to "get it" on "free trade". We see no such overtures from Clark or Kerry or Lieberman or Edwards.

Of course, I'm not a full-fledged Dean supporter -- I'm supporting Kucinich (for his ideas and contributions to the debate). But Dean is my #2 right now.

[Eloriel]

67. Well said --

You're one of few non-Dean supporters who've actually gotten it. Kewl.