|
In the very early stages of the democratic field, there was a bit of confusion in each camp on what direction to take to beat GW. My shortsighted, knee-jerk reaction was the following.
Lieberman touted himself as the natural person to win with a ho-hum attitude and a "you would all be stupid not to vote for me" message.
Militaristic KErry edged close to a GW for the democrats. A severe lack of enthusiasm made you wonder if he wanted to be president or not.
Gephardt tried really hard at getting excited about it, and told everyone how he's really going to sell the midwest. As far as I could tell his enthusiastic followers were imaginary.
Carol Mosley Braun brought in refreshing intelligent discussion into the debates. I think the country might have faired well with her as president. But I think we aren't going to see that for a few years yet.
Edwards had a slow start, not saying much but definitely had the positive "WE can do this, and WE will" attitude. It was a nice change in the flavor of what had dominated past political banter.
Kucinich also brought intelligent and well thought out messages that entertained my brain. Definitely someone you'd value their input on something.
Now to keep this short. Here's where Dean came in and gave his biggest contribution to the party. From the viewpoint of a young voter newly interested in the political process, you saw everyone treading oh so lightly on matters of war, diplomacy, healthcare, and homeland security. Not so much Kucinich, Edwards, and Braun who were saw as sideliners, but with the old-party view that Kerry, Lieberman, or Gephardt, they were so careful of getting bad press or maybe being called *gasp* unpatriotic by GOP giants that their platform was weak, uninteresting, dull, and lacked heart.
Then you saw dean who wasn't so angry as he was passionate about being an american democrat who opposed GW, the war, GW's policy, upset how GW has been getting his way in congress, with the utter lack of diplomacy. He yelled out to everyone, "Can't you see what he's (GW) doing to us?" and called for action even utilizing a new tool that brought countless new recruits to the democratic party. It was a serious kick in the pants to the people of this country that we better get energized for this or we won't have a hell's chance of winning. Nothing will change unless we make it happen, and with dean getting media coverage, and with surprising fund raising figures, local meet-ups, it brought a renewed sense of participation back to the political process as a whole. I was energized by this small state man who showed no fear in pushing on GW and his ways. I remember countless critics who said that his unpopular stance on the war will get him nowhere.
"Unpopular" just because the GOP tells us something we shouldn't believe it.
What I've been trying to say is that whether Dean wins is not critical. I think his attitude, vision, and message has sparked new enthusiasm in the party as a whole that we will all benefit from. Even though the mud was thrown, I still feel that the Democratic party is united and we all know that Kerry, Edwards, or Dean will be a better president than GW will ever tell us he is.
and for dean's campaign, his choice of rebuttal to the attacks wasn't the best. I think instead of criticizing the critics, he should have let most of it slide and stood tall, staying above the mud. I think the american people don't care at all if someone is able to pull two words from an hours speech to take out of context and distort. If he would just ignore the critics somewhat it would've strengthened his message, and shown that we as a party won't stand for this age-old tradition of mudslinging. That we'd rather see an educated eye take it at face value and present what's real.
aight i'm wicked hungry i need to fix dinner..
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
