Three Things That Concern Me About Dean

[clar]

This is the second in a series of posts delineating my concerns about the candidates I consider most likely to get the nomination. I am doing this alphabetically. Now on to Dean.

Dean's electablility is my greatest concern. I'll break those concerns down.

1. He's from one of the smallest, most liberal states in the Union. I don't worry about the Rove team jumping on him for being too centrist, a widespread meme here at DU. I do worry about the Vermont thing. Rove can run against Leahy ( hijacking the jucicial confirmation process), Jeffords, the great turncoat, and Sanders, the socialist, as well as against Dean himself. Also, Jeffords, Leahy and Sanders all voted against the war.

2. Dean has contradicted himself a number of times. Yes, I know they all do, but Dean has a way of sticking his foot in his mouth that can be quite disconcerting. He's good at recovering from this stuff. Is he good enough?

3. Dean has no foreign policy experience and no military background. I think it's naive to assume that this won't be hammered into the American psyche. In addition, I think the exemption from serving due to a bad back, then went skiing thing is a liabiliy.

None of the above concerns mean Dean can't win in the general. I support him, albeit with some reservations.

[vi5]

1. I tend to agree on all the counts you listed....

He's still my candidate for now but I refuse to put my head in the sand when it comes to those issues. They worry me and they worry me a lot.

But by the same token the same thing could be said about a lot of the candidates and the fact is that each one of them is going to get smeared for something so we can't sit around and wait for the 100% unsmearable candidate.

[liberalmuse]

2. I agree...

He is the one I am supporting, but I have reservations about him like I had reservations about Gore. The one thing that bothered me about Gore was his unwillingness to take on the GOP lie machine. Dean is willing to do this. He's a fighter. We know the GOP lie machine is going to say these things about Dean whether he is guilty or not. Dean just needs to get his platform down pat, and stick with it. It's almost like he throw's things out there, and then he later thinks about what he said, and then he tries to re-shape it. He should shape it or define it before he throws it out there. It would just be better for him and his supporters in the long run, though I've done a lot of reading on him, the good and the not-so-good, to ensure I know what I'm getting into, and frankly, I don't worry about his leadership once he becomes the President as much as how he appears to prospective voters.

[Brucey]

3. I'm most worried about the

electoral college. It is difficult for a Northern liberal to get enough electors... Like Gore, could win the popular vote, but not the electors.

[deutsey]

9. Perhaps I'm a crank, but I believe Gore won the electoral college

Florida should've gone to Gore and probably would have, from what I understand, if a state-wide recount had been done.

Of course, there are those tens of thousands of people who didn't even get to vote, most of whom would probably have voted Gore.

[Brucey]

11. You are correcto!

[liberalnurse]

4. Here is my take on things....

1. Vermont can be viewed as a test model, and a successful one at that. It provides a strong base to build upon. For example, healthcare. The Clintons had the right passion and idea but the lobbyist killed the plan....It was too big to start off with. The lesson learned is don't go for the whole package but make small gains and build upon a firm foundation.

2. Dean is very cerebral. He responds to the question based upon how the question was phrased. We see how trip-up questions work by watching the news-tv pundants. I say look at the bulk of the message and don't micro-dissect.

3. Dean has global exposure and excellent comprehension of the world affairs. He has the ability to negociate....thats half the job. Think of how a physician speaks to a family, deals with insurance companies and ego-driven colleages...He has the skills, believe me. They are transferable skills.

Looks at transferable bases of his experiences. Look at his message and I think you will see how we all can work together to make changes.

[AP]

8. My take on your take

1) Why wasn't Arkansas a test ground for the Clintons, according to the same logic? The Clinton's problem was that they thought they be able to talk right to the people and over the heads of the incredibly wealthy interests who wanted to make huge profits off of the health care industry. The underestimated the power of the dollar in buying public opinion. The Clintons spent, I think, $300,000 for commericials supporting their plan. The health care industry and the republicans spent millions (and got millions more in free time from Rush, et al).

Coming from VT doesn't do anything for you in that regard. Either you take on the monied interests with a well-funded, well-argued battle, or you don't, and you're guarateed to lose if you don't, regardless of the state in which you perfected your chops.

2) I'm not sure what you're saying, but I would like to take on this notion that Dean is cerebral, because I don't see it. I know he appeals to a lot of people who think they're cerebral. However, I think Dean's appeal is based on emotion to a degree which I think is unusual for a Democrat, especially in comparison to the lack of logical coherence in Dean's message.

I listened to Dean's Bryant Park speech, and noticed a few things which I wrote in another thread. I'll repeat them here:

In that speech, Dean says something about how he's bucking the conventional wisdom and then says, "Some people say a liberal from the Northeast can't win in the south...well, I'll leave it to you to decide how liberal I am...but if it takes a liberal to balance the budget..." The crowd roars and he doesn't finish the sentence.

OK, shall we talk about the logic in that sentence? What the hell is he trying to say? It sounds like he's trying to imply a lot of contradictory sentiments, without coming to any firm conclusions ("you decide"). One thing he seems to be foreshadowing is that he's not really a liberal on all fronts. One interpretation is that he's a social liberal, and he's a vociferous critic of Bush's execution of policy, but he's not a fiscal liberal, and he might not be that big of a critic of some of the philosophical underpinnings of conservative economic theory. We now have taxes, devotion to balanced budgests (to the cost of social programs), assistance to big business in VT, the Wall St background, the Cato Institute speech, and his attitude towards Medicare to suggest a odd adherence to many of the fiscally conservative policies which more progressive candidates feel are the things we need to address to correct for America's screwing of the poor and middle class.

You'd think that his audience would demand a little more logical coherence from Dean than these incomplete sentences which leave open multiple, inconsistent possibilities. Politicians like Bill and Hillary think and talk in full sentences, and make book-length arguments in coherent paragraphs. I wouldn't say that Dean is even thinking in full sentences.

Immediately after the line above, Dean say's, "Some people think a guy from the Northeast can't win the south. Well, I can because, nobody else is talking about race to white audiences." (I'm paraphrasing.) The second part of that statement has gotten a lot of attention. However, the first part of that statement makes me wonder if Dean took some of the same logic classes as Bush at Yale. Does Dean really think that a guy from New England has a hard time winning in the south because he or she won't talk about race to white audiences? Was that Dukakis's problem? Was that Mondale's problem? He has a lot to learn about regional politics (and, I think, even more importantly, class politics) in America.

Another thing that's crazy about Dean's stump speech is that he opens with about 15 minutes of statements, each one, mentioning Bush's name. So he totally defines himself in terms of Bush for a long time into the speech. Then he says, something like "they say" you can't win unless you tell people what you're for, so here's what I'm for"...and then he talks about one or two of his programs in VT (home visits for new parents, which is barely federalizable, and insuring 99% of the kids), and then he goes right back into criticizing Bush for most of the rest of the speech.

That's a very confusing moment in the speech. You're not sure if Dean is being sarcastic about the need to tell people what you're for. The notion doesn't seem to hold his interest for more than a minute or two, and he acts like it's somebody else's idea of what a good candidate does, and not one in which he sincerely believes.

I think someone else here at DU said that Dean may not have the message, but he definitely has the music. I have to say that I totally agree with that sentiment. If you listen to the Bryant Park speech, I think you're left with the impression that there's a lot of energy and excitement, but if you think to hard about what's being said, you scratch your head in confusion.I don't know if this means that Dean, the man, isn't cerebral. However, I definitely wouldn't say that his stump speech is the height of logical, persuasive rhetoric.

3) Your argument is a little confusing. You say Dean has 'global' exposure, but the example you give is from the examination room. I'd say that patients talk to doctors all over the globe, but that doesn't mean you have global experience if you've done it. In any event, I think 'international experience' or whatever, is a little bit of a red herring. If this were a sine qua non requirement for the presidency, only former presidents and Secretaries of State could ever qualify to be president. Take a look at Lula down in Brazil. He's quite the international leader -- Brazil lead the group of 20 or so developing nations which just told off the rest of the developed world in Cancun, and which is building up a powerful liberal alliance in South America. He didn't even go to college, and he worked in a factory almost all his life before becoming a trade union leader. What matters is where your heart is, what political philosophies drive your policy-making. The "experience" part of the equation is given too much weight.

[BushGone04]

10. Transferable skills?

Because Dean explained medical situations to a family, he's capable of managing the foreign policy of the most powerful nation on Earth? Because he dealt with insurance companies, he can defuse a situation like the one in North Korea? Handling a colleague with a big ego qualifies him to move the peace process along in the Middle East?

No offense to Governor Dean, but I'll take 20 years on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee over several years working with the medical bureacracy any day.

[liberalnurse]

16. It is the skill that sells.....

He has also traveled globally as a govenor to South America, Asia and Europe meeting with heads of state. He has the ground work well under his belt. Understanding cultural affairs and communication is half the battle. His views and plans on Foreign Policy are well documented which I will secure if you request.

*bush and Clinton had limited foreign policy experience as well. Especially *bush, he went in under his fathers reputation. Clinton has communication and negociation skills....look where it has taken our country before *bush.

Physicians have to negociate continually throughout their day, balancing choices which vary from life threatening to the irritating mundane, ignorant insurance examiner....they communicate orders on the fly ...all skills that are transferable to communicating effectively and negociating foreign policy. You just have to know your audience, their views, culture and goals.

Additionally, as a nurse I can hang in quite easily in many enviroments. I can function in legal litigation hearing such as workers com, personal injury; interact with inmates at a jail or prison ....there is a vast diversity of culture there and negociation skills are a must, attend to heathcare of many cultures Native American, Asian, Middle-Eastern, African, American-ethnic cultures etc....Yes, understanding the cultural values are imparative to successful healthcare delivery. Global negociating skills are thus developed. These are transferable skills our Howard Dean excels.

[BushGone04]

18. Foreign policy as a former governor

Although it may not be the most popular position to take on this site, it's worth noting that Clinton made some MAJOR foreign policy blunders in his first few years after taking office with no foreign policy experience. The absolute debacle in Somalia would be the most obvious of these. In any case, the last two Presidents have proved that former governors coming in with so little experience in foreign affairs tend to have problems in this area, especially early in their terms.

Clearly Bush's foreign policy has been a disaster, and, as Kerry put it, Bush is proving that the Presidency is a bad place for on-the-job training in foreign relations. Although Dean's meetings with foreign heads of state are somewhat impressive, I'll still take Kerry's 20 years on the Foreign Relations Committee over Dean's very limited experience in this area.

[liberalnurse]

19. Foreign Policy is really not like rocket science.

It is essentially cultural awareness that gives one the edge. Look at the *bush quagmire in Iraq. They never did understand the culture. Thinking they would dance in the steets. No a clue of the fundemental internal dynamics of the people. They choose to look at it from their own views and try and slam it down their throats....

One has to connect to the culture to be succesful.

[BushGone04]

20. It's not easy either

It's not like foreign policy is the easiest thing in the world. It takes many things, and foremost among them is experience and competence. Dean has no experience, and, while he may be competent in this area, there's simply no way to really know how competent and how good he would be, particularly early in his term. Kerry, on the other hand, has YEARS of experience and a great deal of skill in foreign policy, which, again, is a VERY complicated art and science that many otherwise solid presidents have had very big problems with. You don't learn how to create and put into effect a good foreign policy simply by visiting other countries, and you certainly don't learn it by negotiating with insurance companies.

[MrPeepers]

21. Yes, it is!

The reason the Bush administration is bogged down in Iraq cannot be entirely pinned upon cultural ignorance! Not even mostly! I won't even get into it, but it has a hell of a lot more to do with inadequate planning and the grand international failure that is the Bush Administration's rejection of the UN than anything to do with ignorance of Iraqi culture. Not that Dean's experiance as a Doctor gives him any indication whatsoever as to the nature of Iraqi culture, but anyway... Yes, Foreign Policy IS rocket science! It is an incredibly delicate and complicated art, crafting an effective foreign policy. How can you deal with North Korean issues without then taking into account the effects on South Korea, Japan, and China? It IS rocket science to correctly estimate what reaction the Japanese government will have to any American move in North Korea. For instance, if we cause the North Koreans to play up the threat of their military, will the re-armament movement in Japan build up steam? If so, how will the rest of Asia respond to that? There are so many factors to consider, so many variables to include in any decision, that basing foreign policy on knowledge of the areas culture is completely idiotic. Dean does not have the Foreign Policy nessicary to deal with these situations. Period.

Peepers

[ProfessorPlum]

26. As complicated as foreign policy can be

it can often be made much easier by the application of some simple guidelines, like:

Don't proceed with arrogance
Respect the people you are dealing with
Try to understand others' points of view, even if you don't agree with them
Find common ground, and work from there
Wash your hands after you go to the bathroom (oh, sorry, that's just another good sense thing to do, but not necessarily about foreign policy)

Is it any wonder that, even though foreign policy is complicated, some individuals have a wonderful touch with it, just because of the kind of people that they are? People like Jimmy Carter, Bill Richardson, Bill Clinton, Richard Clark?

As much of an intellectual exercise as it can be, succesful foreign policy is often the result from the right emotional pose, as well. This can be applied by people who haven't studied it for decades, and very effectively, too, especially if they are smart enough to use the experience of veteran diplomats wisely in the mix.

[BushGone04]

34. Let's look at those guidelines

1. Don't proceed with arrogance: Um... I think it would be fair to state that humility is not Dean's strong suit.

2. Respect the people you are dealing with: Good call.

3. Try to understand others' points of view: Frankly, I really don't think Dean does this either. He basically makes his points and is very strong and unequivocal on them, which, although it can be a strength, would seem to be detrimental to his foreign-policy efforts.

4. Find common ground and work from there: Fair enough.

So I really don't think Dean would have the right "emotional pose" for foreign policy- he's a bit too arrogant and a bit too off-the-cuff, which sometimes leads to saying very damaging things. Picture a US president calling Hamas terrorists "soldiers," and how much that would (understandably) alienate Israel and thus hurt the peace process.

One more thing. I wouldn't exactly call Jimmy Carter a master of foreign policy. He was a very nice guy, but wasn't the best foreign-policy president we've ever had.

[ProfessorPlum]

36. Ok, I'll grant you

that I was mostly using people who were very good at getting entrenched enemies to negotiate with each other. Your point about Carter's foreign policy is valid.

Dean's Hamas soldier thing is a stupid issue - everyone knew exactly what he meant (except Fox News), and I think the problem with Dean on I/P is that if anything, he would be too much of an Israel hawk.

I've heard Dean speak in person about engaging productively with the other nations in the world, and it was very positive, very common sense, very realistic, not arrogant. Your mileage may very.

[BushGone04]

62. I'd agree that...

...Dean's comments about Hamas, in of of themselves, are not that big of a deal. But I think it's an issue to have a candidate (and possibly a President) who speaks from the hip so much that he's often making mistakes like that- we don't want our president spending all his time trying to explain away what he just said.

Additionally, when mentioning that Dean seemed arrogant, I wasn't referring specifically to his foreign policy positions, just the general impression I get from the guy. And I think this sense of self-righteousness would also be likely to get him in trouble as president, simply because I imagine he'd manage to offend and alienate people quite regularly.

[liberalnurse]

30. Foreign Policy most certainly has legs.....

But to stay on focus, the President heads the team he is not all encompassing. The job of Sec. of State takes the post position under the direction of the President. Its a team effort. Dean can pick his team. read his stance on Foreign Policy from his web site. He can delegate this just fine.

www.deanforamerica.com

[DrFunkenstein]

33. Will He Ask Gary Hart?

Sorry. Couldn't resist.:evilgrin:

[MrPeepers]

51. Of course

a President heads a team. My issue with this is that Dean has no real experiance with Foreign Policy. He would have people there to advise him, were he President, but if he cannot grasp the problems himself then we have a serious issue. The President, if merely the figurehead of a team, would suddenly become a yes-man for the people in the back pulling the strings. A President has to make his own decisions and be his own man, and so it dosn't matter that there is a team to help him out. The President is a person with such power that he cannot afford to depend on others, nor can the Nation. Otherwise, we end up with a Reganesque yes man, and look how well that worked out for us.

Peepers

[ProfessorPlum]

25. Sorry, what was Clinton's debacle in Somalia again?

Was it leaving our troops there, since Poppy Bush sent them in before Clinton got to office?

Was it letting Colin Powell, the chair of the Joint Chiefs he inherited from Poppy Bush, and Les Aspin, decide whether or not to send more armor to Somalia?

Or was it deciding to pull out of Somalia, despite the political fallout from that decision, when it became clear that Americans were dying for no good reason, thanks to Bush's crappy policy?

Please, PLEASE, do not fall for the GOP talking lines about Clinton in Somalia. He did the right thing.

Though I do agree with your assessment that there was a bit of roughness about Clinton and foreign policy early on.

[BushGone04]

35. The third one

It's not so much the political fallout that was the problem with pulling out. It was that it reinforced two negative perceptions of the US: First, that we don't care about the plight of African nations; and second, that we have no stomach for casualties. The first of these perceptions is very detrimental to our efforts at peacekeeping and stabilizing in Africa (to say nothing of the massive humanitarian crisis that we seemed to have no interest in), and the second generally looks bad for us in the world because it emboldens enemies by making them believe we can't take 13 casualties.

In this case, although the casualties were unfortunate, it makes us seem both uncaring and weak to pull out, and so it was a mistake on Clinton's part to do so.

[ProfessorPlum]

37. That's a ridiculous point of view

if you can't make a cost/benefit analysis of a military situation and decide that people's lives are worth more than whatever vague benefits of being there are accruing, and then get out, then you will have to stay everywhere and pour more and more resources into every quagmire.

Reagan cut and run after he got 243 Marines killed in Beirut. Good or bad decision?

As far as being concerned with humanitarian issues, the US has a LONG way to go before the use of our military is perceived as having much to do with that. I might add that Clinton was roundly reviled for his efforts to end genocide in other parts of the world, which is the opposite side of that argument.

[BushGone04]

43. No, it's not

The cost/benefit analysis in this case DID cut in favor of leaving troops in Somalia for long enough to at least begin the peace-keeping and stablization process in that country. It certainly did not favor us pulling out, leaving the situation exactly as we found it if not worse, and seriously damaging our credibility in Africa and in the world.

For an excellent example of what can happen in Africa with proper use of troops, look to Liberia. Although the situation is far from perfect, it's at least improving, whereas Somalia is still a hellhole.

[ProfessorPlum]

50. I'd have to say that Liberia and Somalia are two entirely different cases

for one.

Two, having US troops on the ground does not automatically make any situation better, for the locals or for the troops. They may be improve or devolve.

and Three, the "benefit" of having US troops was in Somalia was to try to control Aidid for the benefit of oil companies. I know there was a lot of yakking about getting food to people there, but in the end we couldn't break the hold the warlords had over the supplies, we weren't able to effectively contain Aidid, and our soldiers were sitting ducks.

Clinton saw no benefit in having soldiers get killed for the benefit of US oil interests in Africa, and removed them.

PS - Q. what is Clinton reviled for by the Right regarding Somalia?
A. Getting those 18 saintly soldiers killed in a firefight, not having the heart to care enough about our Americans in harm's way. And that's bullshit - Clinton was the only one who cared enough to take the heat for making the politically brave decision to remove them.

[AP]

5. I was listening to a speech by the author of that recent Kennedy book

He wanted to explore the reasons JFK was so mythologized. He knew it was more than the assassination because, for example, when McKinley was assassinated, McKinley was much more popular, and regarded as very successful president, whereas Kennedy had been having some ups and downs, and wasn't a sure thing for a second term.

He concluded that, when other politicians have died, people have felt that a part of their past was gone. When Kennedy died, people felt that they had lost a part of the future. It was all very interesting stuff.

Anyway, the one thing that came out in the discussion was that FDR and JFK were both regarded as centrists. When JFK ran, Eleanor Roosevelt refused to endorse him. Referring to his refusal to vote to censure Joe McCarthy (I think JFK was the only Democrat who abstained -- I believe RFK worked on McCarthy's staff, but I don't know if that had anything to do with his vote), Eleanor said, something to the effect that JFK had written Profiles in Courage about people with courage and it would have been nice if, as a senator, he showed a little more courage and little less profile. The author gave some other ecxamples of JFK's perceived moderation (eg, being an anti-communist), and, very briefly, if I remember correctly, he talked about how FDR was the same. (The point being that the perception of liberalism evolved later and that the electoral politics were somewhat of a contrast to the historical perception).

So, here we have an almost full century of Democrats who have won the white house running as centrists, and I don't think any progressive would be ashamed of the records of WW, FDR, HST, JFK, LBJ, JC, or WJC. Certainly, all have had to make unfortunate compromises, but there's nothing to be ashamed about, especially when compared to the policies of the 20th century republicans driven by the desire to shift wealth to the wealthy.

All these democrats ran as moderates and centrists to win. And Republicans do the same thing. Goldwater and McGovern are the two candidates who, it might be said, didn't run as centrists. Goldwater lost by the biggest margin in modern history.

I'm not sure of the logic that Dean can win on an attack strategy that appears to be coming from the left, but, when you scratch the surface, the Democrats looking for good liberal fiscal policy don't find much there. NIxon was an awful president. I thought Reagan was awful. I thought Bush I was dangerous. I don't know how Bush II is so much different from any other right wing president that suddenly, a candidate like Dean is able to break rules which have made sense for 100 years in presidential politics. You cloak your progressivism in moderation to win. And for Democrats, at your core is a fiscal liberalism, not a fiscal conservativism (ie, you lift the poor into the middle class, rather than help them tread water, and you dump a lot of wealth and opportunity into the middle class so that they have the economic power to stand up to wealthy corporations and/or to rise into the upper classes).

[Larkspur]

13. Dean is a centrist and his progressive supporters know it and accept it

When Dean says "call me a liberal if you mean liberals balance budgets" is a swipe at the media pundits labeling system. Dean can not be defined narrowly because he evaluates a problem and comes up with a solution based upon the evidence at hand. That technicque is from his doctor's training.

Refusing to be categorized is Dean's MO and one reason why he will win in 2004.

[AP]

15. This is an identity crisis, and not simply a refusal to be labeled

I urge you to listen to that speech again.

Dean isn't just refusing to be labeled. He's being cagey about what he stands for. And, actually, balancing budgets by dropping programs with are the cornerstones of liberal democracy (ie, programs which reap their rewards broadly and in the future) is not being a liberal.

Furthermore, the quote is more along the lines of 'they say a liberal can't win...you be the judge of whether I'm liberal...if liberal means balancing budgets..." If I remember correctly, he doesn't ever finish the sentence. I think that's deliberate. He doesn't want to define himself because he wants to be liberal to those who want him to be liberal, and he wants to be a centrist to those who want him to be a centrist.

[Larkspur]

23. He said the same thing on Larry King live interview

that if you define a liberal who is one who balances budgets, the Dean is a liberal.

You're making a mountain out of a mole hill.

[AP]

39. Why doesn't he want to define himself?

Listen to the words.

Q: Are you a liberal?

A: Well, you think a liberal does X, well I did X.

Q: Well, what are you then? (And liberalism or conservativism has NEVER been defined by your position on just one issue.)

The other candidates are perfectly happy to list dozens of policies -- all of which are traditional, longstanding litmus tests of liberalism.

OK, look. I know all the candidates want to appear moderate to the moderates and liberal to the liberals. However, Dean is doing this in a really confusing manner. The way he talks is very confusing. If you listen to his stump speech, he doesn't finish sentences or connect ideas up logically.

My examples are above. I'm not going to spend a lot of time repeating them, and I know you'll just think Dean is clear and logical because he makes sense to you. But I think I wouldn't be alone in thinking that Dean is, more than any other candidate except maybe Clark now, more of a vessel that people fill with meaning, and he spends more time refining the shape of the vessel rather than articulating EXACTLY what its contents are.

It's like that Gephardt charge about Medicare. To Dean that was an attack, and was dismissed. Well, what about the charge? I know you think you can decipher something from his web site, but why didn't Dean just respond to the charge? It's also like saying, "well if you think a liberal is X..."

[ProfessorPlum]

40. "liberal" and "conservative"

are generally idealogical labels. Many of Dean's positions are pragmatic, not idealogical. Therefore, he is hard to label. However, he is smart to try to self-label and control his message as much as possible. Confusing? Nah, just get a program and hang on for the ride. :)

[AP]

56. That's lame. If true, Dean should run as the Pragmatist Party candidate

while the Democrats nominate the kind of candidate who wins...an economic progressive in moderate's clothing.

And if you want to talk about Dean being smart, I got another post above which doesn't seem to be getting much attention.

[jacksonian]

14. you're right Dean needs to be a centrist

whether Dean himself truely understands this we shall see.

But, just for the sake of argument, say he doesn't and fades. What is to be done with this man - your points are well taken but we do not live in the age of Kennedy anymore. Say what you will, Dean is attracting some white males with this message --- sort of a liberal Ross Perot, and I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of his support aren't lefty strays from the old Reform party.

We need these votes and Dean has touched them without alienating the left too much. More of Dean is a good thing, even if all the way to President may be too much.

[AP]

17. Clinton didn't live in the age of Kennedy, Kennedy didn't live

in the age of FDR and FDR didn't live in the age of WW (in the political sense, of course). However, the same rules (cloak your progressive economic policies in the appearance of modration) applied to all of them (Dean is cloaking his fiscal conservativism in the apperance of liberalism).

[jacksonian]

32. true, there's no age of anything

when you really think about it, and you're right about liberalism in the guise of centrism being most electable. My point is in the here and now what he does seems to attract voters disillusioned about these guises - a more politically significant group than in Kennedy's day.

[AP]

41. What's so different about today and 96?

If anything, people are going to be more energized, regardless of Dean.

Also, it's not like there's a third group of disenchanted people who are going to elect their candidate OVER the Democrats and Republicans who are fighting for the vast middle by defying the rules which have resulted in victories by all those Democrats I listed.

I'm not saying it's impossible, and I might be wrong. But, man, you'd really have to be feeling very lucky if you're willing to take that kind of chance in 2004.

[Mairead]

27. Some problems with that analysis

Wilson was a disaster. As an example, I'll merely point to the idea of imprisoning people for speaking out against the government.

FDR was elected as a leftist--he turned toward the Dark Side later. He was elected as a leftist because, not unlike today, the US was chin-deep in the cagle and sinking. The Capitalist shell game had imploded and was sucking everything into its whirlpool. People were looking to socialism and even Communism for a way out. FDR saved Capitalism, but, true to form for the pathologically greedy, the Capitalists wanted MORE and so they tried a coup. WW2 was in some ways so much a godsend to Capitalism that I've often wondered how much of it was an FDRian LIHOP.

JFK was elected at a time when the US was in a funny place. It was still riding high on the post-WW2 prosperity, a mix of FDRian social-democratic benefits and military-industrial fascism. And there'd just been a decade of rabid anti-Communist hysteria and a lot of don't-make-waves repression that Ashcroft would have loved. So JFK, putting out a hopeful and 'noble' (Camelot) message rather than FUD, looked good, and nobody needed to vote their wallets. (Well, the n*gg*rs were unhappy that they were still 3rd-class citizens, but there's just no pleasing some people.)

LBJ might have saved Capitalism again with his Great Society. The civil-rights and anti-war movements in the '60s could have mushroomed into a full-blown repudiation of Capitalism and its imperialist adventurism. The Great Society deflected that, though LBJ's inability to let go of Vietnam sank him personally. He could probably have been strongly re-elected on his Great Society record, had he been able to turn his back on the warmongers.

JC is/was a genuinely decent man, and I think that's what got him elected. People were looking for 'decent' at that point. But he was also very conservative man -the first DINO president- who couldn't solve the problem of Capitalist greed within his pro-Capitalist ideology and so apparently didn't even try. He gave in, and started us down the slippery slope. When he was elected, we were still living on the dregs of WW2 prosperity. When he left office, there was nothing left.

WJC was a DINO and I think most people now recognise that. But socially he seemed like a contrast to Reaganbush in the same way the same 50%-grey square will seem lighter or darker according to the color it's put next to. He talked a great game and gave some people some temporary prosperity at the expense of our long-term wellbeing. I think he was elected mostly by kids whose picture of the world was painted mostly by Reaganbush--they didn't know any better, so he seemed wonderful! But he wasn't wonderful. He presided over the destruction of one of the most important parts of FDR's social safety net, and most people were less well off when he left office than when he was elected.

Now we're in another funny place. Our Constitutional protections are in tatters, we're the least-free (in ways that matter) first-world nation on earth, we're in a masked Depression, we're feared and despised in the world, and we have an electorate a large part of which have never known anything other than Republican, corporatist government.

Personally, I liked the fruits of social-democratic thinking much better than the fruits of corporatism. I don't think we should elect another DINO 'centrist' because that would only send us further down the road to The Pit. As the song said: this might not be the end of the world, but I think we can see it from here.

[Evil_Dewers]

6. Counterpoints

1. Vermont Congressmen voting against the war will ultimately turn out to be a good thing because things in Iraq are not improving--they are getting worse. Iraq will not be a popular war--even among the brain dead masses. Arkansas was a small state. A Dem only needs to win a couple of states in the South--Florida being a must win.

2. Dean explains away contradictions better than anyone since Bill Clinton.

3. Bush's military experience consists of keeping the Vietcong South of the Rio Grande before he went AWOL and playing dress up with a flight suit in front of a "Mission Accomplished" banner. More Americans have died/been wounded in Iraq since "Mission Accomplished" than died before the aircraft carrier stunt.

His foreign policy consists of telling the world to fuck off and bombing Afghanistan from the bronze age into the stone age and turning Baghdad into Saigon.

[quinnox]

7. All valid points

I think these are some of the reasons Dean will end up fading. Especially now that Clark is in the race. Dean was the flavor of the month for the summer but I see a slow fade starting now and continuing until the primaries. I agree with the party strategists thinking, that Dean is a weak candidate in a general election so I must say I am not unhappy about this.

[clar]

47. He's got too much money

to fade. He's going to raise over 10 million this quarter. Actually, according to rumors I've heard here in Vermont, he's already raised well over 10 million. They're going for over 15 mil, and they may well get it. You have that much money, you don't just fade. Unless Dean does something far more damaging than he's done to date, or something terrible emerges from his past, he's in the race until the end.

[KaraokeKarlton]

12. I actually think Dean is the most electable

Here's why...Dean has brought so many new people into the process across the country, that as long as all Democrats vote for him, with those new voters, there's no way Bush can win. Dean's candidacy has created a whole new "base". It's not mostly liberal activists anymore. The only people who really believe he's not electable fail to realize how significant the change in the base is. It's NOT the "liberal base" that Dean is exciting and energizing. It's some of those, but it's mostly people who have never voted in primaries before and a lot who simply don't vote at all.

Yes, Dean tends to put his foot in his mouth, but he possesses the ability to gracefully remove it just as quickly. Every politician says and does things they shouldn't sometimes. That's to be expected. However, many of those same politicians don't have the same capacity to rise above it.

It's true that Vermont's political makeup is pretty unique. It's not about Vermont being more liberal than anyplace else, because it's really not. It's a case of our liberals being extremely loud and active and much, much further left than typical liberals. More than anything, Vermont is Independent and we live and let live. Bernie Sanders is popular because he started out in a community he was well known is and people like his personality and honesty. His policies and party affiliations has nothing to do with it.

The only way Bush can do any harm to Dean is if Dean acts like Bush has damaged him. He won't do that. Dean has more confidence than any of the other candidates and he is very courageous. He's framing the race the way he wants it and has everyone else scrambling to respond to what he does. That's what wins the confidence of voters.

[MrPeepers]

52. I disagree.

The problem is, not nearly all Democrats will vote for him. Believe it or not, many, many Democrats view Dean as an under-qualified knee jerk reactionary, myself included. Dean hasn't gotten the electorate nearly riled up enough to bring about this "new base." The numbers of people flocking to the polls you're talking about just arn't there. Dean's real support truly is the liberal activists, which is why he seems to have jumped ahead like he has. I'm afraid it all might come crashing down for him when the more moderate liberals head out to the polls. I might add that there are a plethora of ways Bush can harm Dean. Karl Rove (hiss) would have a field day with him. I don't even want to think about the role Security would play in a Bush Dean election. That's probobly the biggest reason why I don't support Dean. I simply don't believe he has the slightest chance of taking down Bush.

Peepers

[no name no slogan]

63. Dean's new supporters

I have to agree with you in RE: Dean bringing in a lot of new blood. And I give him props for that.

However, in my experiences with Deaniacs, I've found the support is a mile wide and an inch deep. Not many Dean supports are aware of his position on very important issues, like militarism/war, healthcare, foreign policy, foreign trade, etc.

I've noticed a lot of dilletantism (sp?) among his supporters, too. That is not necessarily bad if the primary is a couple weeks away. However, the Dean campaign needs to reinforce with these supporters his strong points, and counter the negative attention he's getting as the frontrunner.

Also, the type of supporter Dean has brought in (especially in the last few months) are the types that will take 15 minutes to vote in a primary; however, it's highly unlikely these same supporters will be willing to spend the better part of an evening sitting in a caucus with a bunch of people they hardly know. This will be of particular importance in early caucus states, like Iowa.

[Pavlovs DiOgie]

64. I have to disagree with this statement

"Also, the type of supporter Dean has brought in (especially in the last few months) are the types that will take 15 minutes to vote in a primary; however, it's highly unlikely these same supporters will be willing to spend the better part of an evening sitting in a caucus with a bunch of people they hardly know. This will be of particular importance in early caucus states, like Iowa."

Dean supporters show up once a month in droves to plan ways to volunteer over the month, getting Dean's message out there and registering voters. Do you really think that these people aren't going to take the time to participate in the primaries? I think you underestimate the amount of people that are already taking time to get Dean the nomination. I live in Vegas, where our primary is the very last one of the country. Last weekend I attended a house party for Dean: 60 people were present. This weekend a bunch of us are going to hang a banner over the pedestrian bridge on the strip for an afternoon. You really think people like this aren't going to take time out on the important day?

[no name no slogan]

65. Yes, possibly, but

I think you missed my main point. I wasn't talking about primaries, I was talking about caucuses.

Precinct caucuses take up quite a bit more time than voting in a primary. Unfortunately, they tend to be boring as hell, too.

Have you ever been to a precinct caucus before? They're quite a bit different from hanging around and thinking up volunteer/fundraising ideas. There's a lot of "hurry-up-and-wait" involved, a lot of party business, and a lot of referring to Roberts Rules of Order. Not to mention debating the placement of a comma in your proposed plank for the party platform. Unless you're a parliamentary procedure junky, it's probably 2+ of the most boring hours of your life.

Also, caucuses are more about coalition building and compromise than primaries. Many subcaucuses probably have enough members to warrant getting a delegate to go on to the County Convention. In that case, you may have to throw your support to another candidate. This happens all the time (I myself was an alternate delegate to the Minnesota state convention in 1990 for "Perpich for Governor/Wellstone for Senate" even though I didn't actually support Perpich for governor!)

[robbedvoter]

22. I disagree with 1, and 3 isn't a big one for me, but 2 bothers me

along with the NRA thingy.
Still, my second choice.

[DrGonzoLives]

24. OK

(1) Bill Clinton was from Arkansas. There is NOTHING in Arkansas. NOTHING. Trust me, I've been there.

(2) All he has to do is shift focus from his inconsistencies to the mounds of contradictions and lies that Bush and his cronies have perpetrated.

(3) Clinton had no foreign policy experience, nor military background.

[blm]

28. He recovers from his gaffes because no one has run ads against him

showing his gaffes and inconsistent statements repeatedly in attack ads.

One part of me wishes the Kerry campaign would run those ads, but the greater part of me is glad that he isn't attacking Dean with ads. If the Dean campaign were given the same opportunity I don't doubt for a second that he would use it against Kerry.

[ProfessorPlum]

29. That's because Dean's The Antichrist (TM)

What makes you think Dean hasn't had the same opportunity and not taken it? Do you think there is no material with which to compose such an ad against Kerry? Really?

[DrFunkenstein]

31. My Three Cents

1. The thing about Vermont that worries me is that it has NO urban centers. It's biggest cities are smaller than some New Jersey suburbs. Which doesn't bother me in and of itself, but the fact that he is running so strong on his ability to get health care and balance the budget seem so easily shot down. And they will be, as soon as the debates stop running like a cluster-hump.

As for being centrist, Rove does not really care about actual ideology (like many Americans). Dean will be painted as an unstable radical. Not only videos of Dean sounding like a Marxist maniac (although he isn't), but he has many damning quotes that will come back to haunt him.

On Saddam's fall: "I suppose that's a good thing." On Saddam's kids: "The ends doesn't justify the means." He also made an unfortunate joke that Bush may eventually make schoolgirls wear veils (i.e. Bush is like the Taliban).

2. Dean is best when he apologizes for his inevitable gaffes. However, I have noticed time and time again that he is getting more and more unapologetic. And the fact of the matter is that he is too brittle. Who the hell gets mad at George "The Greek Softball" Stephanopoulus?

Although he is obviously very energetic in monologue on the stump, I have yet to see him perform well one-on-one with any interviewer. Maybe a Larry King or Today show, but he has yet to prove himself with the big boys. It is hard to believe that he isn't a little afraid of getting into a real debate. Now that I think of it...

"I do have a mouth on me...That is, I generally say what I think so I get in trouble," Dean said.

Could he hurt himself? "If I blew up in a debate or something like that, yes," Dean said. "But I haven't done that in 16 years of debates."

While I don't doubt there are impressive politicos in Vermont, I somehow doubt they have anyone on the level of a William Weld.

3. First of all, the skiing may hurt him in the primaries, but I doubt AWOL boy will bring it up. Then again, they did attack McCain for Vietnam!

As I have pointed out on many occasions, Dean says alot of foreign policy things that sound great, but have little to back them up. He says that we need to win allies, but he doesn't say very much that would build lasting relationships. His position on trade is all over the place, and his position on the third world is erratic.

Not only that, but the true nature of his relationship with Ariel Sharon will poison his ability to deal effectively with the Arab world, despite his progressive sentiments. And although his sentiments are good, I haven't seen anything resembling Kerry's plan to "drain the swamps" of terrorists through intricate trade proposals.

[dsc]

46. You're kidding right?

To take some examples of pretty darn good Vermont politicos. Bernnie Sanders, Jeffords, Leahy, Dean just to name some. For such a small state it has had remarkable leadership.

[DrFunkenstein]

59. Sorry, I Meant Someone Going Up Against Dean

Sometimes me no clear. Any thoughts on the rest?

[Cassandra]

38. As for the military exemption...

Dean said that the Army doctors gave him that when he went in for his official physical. His back problem concerns long-distance running (something they do a lot of in the army; with full pack) not skiing, which probably puts different kinds of stress on the back. As far as I know, the Army was not looking to add to its ski patrol in Vietnam. Dean was put in a provisional category where he could be called up in an emergency, which he accepted. He wasn't called.

[Fabio]

42. Response.

For infantry in the army, it is true that running is a necessity. Whether or not Dean was actually fit for such duty I dont know and dont pretend to. However, there are four armed services and many other deployments for which Dean's health would have completely satisfactory.

Personally, IF IT IS THE CASE, I wish he'd admit that he didn't want to serve. By 1972, no one did -- he would not be alone. It was an unpopular war in which many people were losing friends (and brothers, in his case). But making it seem like he fought the good fight and tried, and was sent away from the Draft office disappointed, seems a little far fetched.

[ProfessorPlum]

45. Nobody is saying he faked his health records

and stowed away aboard a Navy warship so he could kill some 'Cong. I'm sure he was relieved as we all would be. But he was willing to do his duty when called, unlike many others.

[DrFunkenstein]

60. Not To Nitpick

But there must be other ways to "do his duty" besides bumming around Aspen. I agree with Fabio (is it really not butter?) that it would be perfectly acceptable to say he didn't want to fight a war he didn't believe in, but it seems a little much to say he was willing to serve his country.

In his defense, though, he did eventually become a doctor, which is among the noblest of professions (although it has it's share of ignoble professionals). I have to give him props for that.

[renie408]

44. I agree with your concerns and will

add one more.

I perceive (maybe wrongly) that a good bit of Dean's campaign is fueled by his 'anger'. I feel that his general persona as seen by the public is of a really angry guy. I also think that a good bit of that is political campaign stuff to generate heat and interest. BUT...you can only be so angry for so long before people start to wonder about you. And the same anger that thrills and ignites one set of people, irritates and turns off another set. I think that Dean will hit a point where he is in the proverbial cleft stick. If he holds onto the anger that energized his base, he may run the risk of turning off a large set of potential voters. But if he tones down the message, he may be seen by his base as a sell out and lose some of them. I am wide open to being wrong, just something I have been thinking about.

[clar]

48. That scenario is possible

but neglects to take into account two factors: Dean's supporters are heavily invested in the campaign and Dean himself is an adept politician.

[DrFunkenstein]

61. Invested Monetarily As Well As Emotionally

I would hate to drop down a bucket of money I couldn't afford, and then find out the guy wasn't who I thought it was. I might find myself compromising in ways I hadn't imagined I would.

But I suppose the last perfect guy that came around got nailed to a piece of wood, so a little compromise is almost inevitable. In fact, it is a sign of humanity.

Kerry's war vote, although I understand the reasons why, stung my heart when it was cast. But beyond that, I think the guy is the best thing to come down the pike since Kennedy (I love Clinton, but too much triangulation to believe in him).

I wonder in what ways Dean supporters have come to compromise themselves and for what reasons.

[dsc]

49. I only really agree with 2 as being a possible problem

Vermont is a well run, fiscally sound state. If Bush couldn't use Arkansas' myriad of problems against Clinton I fail to see anyone using Vermont against Dean.

Three is just silly. One interview with the doctor who 1Fed Dean or one look at his file and that is over.

Two I think is hogwash. Nearly every supposed contradiction by Dean falls into either a) very old position b) vastly changed facts or c) made up quotes. The only sort of recent things here are on Cuba where Castro went crazy and on taxes where the deficit doubled. He does need to get his Israel position firm though. That is the only place I can see him having changed position in the absence of a change in facts.

[renie408]

54. I just don't see Dean

as bulletproof. I think he has chinks that need to be addressed. Because somebody will address them for him if he doesn't take care of them first. I do not think they are insurmountable or that he can't fix these things, but the foot in mouth disease IS a problem or it wouldn't keep coming up. If he can learn to think a little, it will take care of itself.

As for Vermont, I dunno, I tend to think of Vermont as one of those places that would pretty much run itself if it had to. Maybe that is just the perception because it does run so well, but I don't think I have ever heard anybody claim that Vermont was some kind of cesspool before Dean took over, either. Was it fiscally UN-sound when Dean took office? Serious question, I don't know anything about it.

[clar]

55. I"d love to think that

Vermont such a paradise that it runs itself. Wouldn't that speak well of us Vermonters? Seriously, Vermont had a signigicant deficit when Dean took offer. Also, Vermont has problems, rural poverty, not the least amoung them.

[renie408]

57. Thanks

I don't know much about Vermont. I have looked up stats, but its hard to find things that are ten years old.

[dsc]

58. Yes it was

they had the lowest bond rating in NE and they had a massive deficit when Dean took over. It now has the highest bond rating in NE and he left it a surpluss. I wouldn't call it a sesspit but he left it better than he found it. BTW unemployment was also lower.

[whirlygigspin]

53. let me abate your fears

Dean is from a small state.
--No, Dean is from NYC. a not so small city.

Dean has no foreign policy experience,
--No, Dean was governor of a state that has a border with
another country...and was frequently involved in foreign trade,
and policy discussions with them.

Dean and the military
--pass-- the republicans would be insane
to bring this issue up with President awol as a candidate.

I hope this helps.