Dean is not McGovern, he is fully electable IMHO

[George_Bonanza]

The reason why I do not have Dean as numero uno is not because he's "McGovern"-like or unelectable. With the type of excitement he's generating, he's totally electable. He has strong centrist support, with enough liberal credentials to win over those people. I am extremely politically inexperienced, but I think of Dean as a Clinton: widely appealing, energizing, and moderate/centrist.

So why do I not like him as much as Kerry? For one, Kerry's achievements impress me more. His environmental, corporation-fighting, and a solid involvement in all of the important American affairs of the last 30 years are truly heroic. I love Kerry because he's an American hero. He's a war hero. He's a gay rights hero. He's a pro-choice hero. He's an environmental hero. He's a small business hero. How many times do we actually get a chance to elect a hero like that?

Anyway, I ramble on. My point is that Dean is a balanced candidate. His Left credentials, which are Bush opposition and civil unions, are counter-balanced with his Right credentials, which are guns and fiscal conservatism. He's wholly electable and if he wins the nomination, I will gladly support him.

PS But a baffling question I do not comprehend is why people think Dean's a revolutionary political figure, when he's a rather conservative liberal? I am somebody who gladly respects all political ideologies, so I don't hold his conservatism against him. But why this faith in his words and campaign, and not his history?

[virtualobserver]

1. I think that the anti-war rhetoric is what solidifies the "leftist" label.

...for Dean. I think that Kerry's military credentials tend to overshadow his liberal record in an opposite fashion. TV coverage is so one-dimensional.

[Jack Rabbit]

2. I agree with you

As far as I can tell, it's just the DLC saying he's the new McGovern. Of course, they've got there own agenda.

It is ludicrous to compare Dean to McGovern simply because Dean came out against the invasion of Iraq at a time when it had popular support. It is equally ludicrous to assert that Dean is weak on national defense for opposing a war that has resulted in tying down half of the army's combat forces in a country where they aren't wanted, which has cost far more money than advertised, has cost us the goodwill of the world and was predicated on a pack of lies. It would seem that to support such a war -- and to continue to support it -- makes one look foolish and gullible and not very presidential. Dean, on the other hand, demonstrated good judgment and clear foresight.

Disclaimer: I am not supporting any candidate at this time, although Dean is, in my judgment, one of the stronger candidates the Democrats could put forward.

[w13rd0]

3. Your question...

...I don't think it's necessarily Dean that is viewed as a revolutionary political figure, but his campaign is seen as rather "ground shaking" in its model for fund raising and participation from supporters. And they've managed to sustain and build on that as the primary has gathered steam. I think Dean is likely as mystified by it as everyone else...

[Feanorcurufinwe]

4. Good post.

And at the risk of sounding like nothing but a 'dittohead' -- I completely agree.

[HPLeft]

5. Beats Me

IMHO, you're mostly on here - although I think the McGovern tag might apply in one specific sense. Dean's trying to paint himself as having been 100% against the Iraq war (which isn't true based on his own words, but I'll get to that later), and while Americans don't like paying the $87 billion, they still feel that the Iraq war has certain virtues. I don't agree with them, but I do think that Dean's positioning might allow Bush to use his $200 billion war chest to paint him as weak on defense and incapable of defending this nation. We Democrats need to very afraid of that happening, in the context of a post-911 America that is still not over the shock of the attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon, and the very real possibility of yet another attack between now and November 2004. And, while McGovern was a war hero (as Stephen Ambrose finally brought to a wider audience in one of his last books), Dean doesn't even have that to fall back on.

I think the parallel with Clinton may be truer than we should be comfortable with, since Governor Dean also appears intent on re-inventing himself in order to win this election. So, for instance, even though he has been a centrist Governor, he continually claims that "he's from the Democratic wing of the Democratic party". I don't think that phrase applies, since that wing is decidedly anti-death penalty, pro-gun control, pro-Medicare, etc. So, he's essentially attempting to misrepresent his political history, and that of his opponents (like he did yesterday with his statement about John Kerry and John Edwards, with regard to their vote to allow the President to use the threat of force in negotiations with the United Nations) in order to win this nomination. This suggests a definite character issue. And he's also apparently been using very selective numbers when making the case as to why all the tax cuts need to go - and deliberately misrepresenting the impact of repealing those middle-income cuts.

As to why he's seen as a revolutionary force, I guess that people are so angry at Dubya that they feel the need to believe that there can be a better way - just like Californians with Arnold.

[George_Bonanza]

13. Dean IS trying to reinvent himself

Which is one of the reasons why I don't have him as number one. What's even more annoying is the willingness of people to believe him. Compare him and Kerry. JK spends 30 years being a great liberal, standing up to Bush since 2000 when nobody really cared, then a couple of votes goes the wrong way, and BAM! everybody judges him and knows exactly what kind of spineless coward he is. Dean spends 11 years being moderately conservative liberal, doing some good things like the civil unions bill, then a few key words later BAM! everybody KNOWS he's the next great progressive president.

But I don't want to bash Dean too much. These are just my feelings.

[Skwmom]

6. I think Dean is totally unelectable. A draft dodger will not be

elected when there is such uncertainty surrounding national security. Why do you think Rove is trying to pull a Davis and have Dean as the Democratic nominee.

The man talks out of both sides of his mouth, falsely smears the other candidates, conducts himself in such an undignified manner, misrepresents his own record, will say anything to get elected, and uses veiled threats (he'll take his supporters and go home if he doesn't get the nomination). If he gets the nomination the real Dean will be exposed leaving Dean with a lot of disillusioned supporters on his hands.

In addition, once you get past the angry rhetoric, there's really not much there of substance. Our country is so screwed up we need someone who is capable of cleaning up this mess and restoring our relationships with other countries (bringing dignity and respect back to the Whitehouse). That man certainly isn't Dean.

[pruner]

8. how does a medical deferment = draft dodging?

please explain that, of enlightened one.

[peaceandjustice]

25. yeah, especially compared to President AWOL? n/t

[NewYorkerfromMass]

7. No he's certainly not like war hero McGovern.

if not for the bungling of the Vice Presidential selection (the psychiatric history of Eagleton), McGovern had a good shot at dethroning Nixon.
Comparisons between the two are an insult to McGovern.

[genius]

9. McGovern was Nixon's choice. Dean is Bush's choice

How about if we stop nominating the Republican opponent's choice for our candidate?

[union_maid]

10. Yeah, that's what I'm thinking

I'm not saying he's unelectable. I don't know that. I think it's a longshot, though, and I think the Republicans think they can beat him. As far as why he's perceived as a left liberal, it's a number of things. That he's been a vocal antiwar critic and he's from Vermont covers most of them. Vermont is the state of a socialist mayor, Ben and Jerry, Phish and of course, Dean signed the civil union legislation. He's done a lot of liberal type things. He sounds like he's pretty fiscally conservative and that makes me a little nervous, but he's got to be better than what we've got. I mean, he's not going to steal from the poor and give to the rich, I'm sure and that alone would be progress these days.

There is one thing that I honestly would love some definite and unbiased information about, though. I don't know what the truth is about his feelings about criminal justice. If he's really been bad on legal services for the poor, then I think he should turn in his Phish food and join the freepers. For real.

[quinnox]

11. When I compare Dean to McGovern

I'm not comparing the men, just the likely outcome of a Dean match up vs. Bush.

[George_Bonanza]

12. Nixon was a better man than Bush

I think it'd be easier to unseat Bush than defeat Nixon, especially since Bush is the incumbent and we have already seens his bungles. Plus, the anger among Democrats is solely directed at Bush. In the seventies, the anger was at the Vietnam War, which a Democrat, Lyndon Johnson, got a lot of grief over. So it's not the same scenario. Back in the seventies, you had a Democrat lose to a Republican who was not an incumbent and who was not the driving power to a bloody war. Today, we have a Democrat running against a Republican who IS the driving power to a messy war.

[union_maid]

15. Um..no

That was the scenario in '68. McGovern ran against Nixon in '72 and by then Nixon was indeed the driving power to a very, very bloody war, information about Watergate had surfaced and Nixon was pretty well hated by those who didn't support him. He had a well known enemies list and was a paranoid and scary figure as he sent out his henchman, in the person of his VP, to further divide the nation and alienate a large part of it. And with all that, he was miles better than Bush. Amazing times we're living in.

[George_Bonanza]

17. Really? How embarrassing for me...

[DemDogs]

14. Honest question: what states does he win?

Question 1.
And 2. does he win any states that Kerry can't win?
3. Any states that Edwards can't win?
4. Any states that Gephardt can't win?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

16. Dean is more conservative than Kerry, Edwards, or Gephardt

so it is possible that he could do better in some of the 'Red' states for that reason. The question is what line of attack the Repubs would use... seems like Dean has positions all over the left-right spectrum for them to use. So they could actually attack him on what I think is his weakest points, his consistency and integrity. Ironic coming from Bush but don't forget, a significant number of voters trust Bush. I don't understand it anymore than you do, but it is a fact that we can't deny when making our political calculations.

Kerry would present a much clearer contrast with Bush than Dean would.

Bush: Conservative
Dean: Centrist
Kerry: Liberal

Bush: AWOL
Dean: Medical Deferment
Kerry: War Hero, Anti-War Hero

I think the clearer choice would play to our advantage.

But going back to your question 2-4, I don't think so. Dean and Kerry are both northeasterners but Kerry certainly has the more liberal reputation and record. Perhaps that hasn't always been a winner but it's hard to forget that the last Democratic senator from MA who saw wartime action on a patrol boat was also JFK. I'd flip it around though for Edwards and say just by virtue of his Southern accent he might be able to take some of those Southern states that would be harder for Dean or Kerry. But I don't think he has much chance for the nomination, it's just not his time. Maybe he can run for governor sometime after this and coming from a governor's mansion with Senate experience and prior expeperience at a Pres campaign.... but not this year. Gephardt... who knows, I guess he has a shot at the nomination but I think it would be a disaster. He just seems to embody so many of the problems in our party and although I think he could beat Bush, I'd be awfully worried. Clark -- I'm sure he'd beat Bush soundly, but I consider him a cipher... I'm not ready at this crucial time to turn our country over to someone with no public record, no history... he could make a great Secretary of Defense (maybe I'm sentimental but I think it would be great to find a female veep).

[DemDogs]

18. But seriously, which states? (n/t)

[Feanorcurufinwe]

19. I wish I had the expertise to make guesses like that

but I don't. I do think that Dean, Edwards, Kerry and Clark all would have a good chance here in Montana.

[dsc]

20. Dean has a better shot

at Ohio, WV, and both PA and MI than Kerry. His position on guns is very helpful in that regard.

[Cogito]

30. Dean is not as electable as Clark

National poll numbers for Bush vs Clark range from 3% ahead to 12% down with many between 4% and 8% down. On those same polls Dean never has polled ahead of Bush and except fo one poll does significantly worse (more than the MOE) against Bush than Clark.
At the state level two recent polls, one in PA and one in California show Clark doing significantly better against Bush than Dean. The poll in PA has Clark behind Bush by 5% while Dean trails by 10%. In CA, Clark beats Bush by 2% while Dean trails by 3%.

[peaceandjustice]

26. states they can win

In my opinion...Dean can win every state Gore won. Dean's position on gun control neutralizes the 100% Bush vote of single-issue pro-gun rights voters. So with that advantage he wins Nevada and New Hampshire, and Arizona with a strong turn-out of the elderly, dissatisfied with Bush on health care and social security. He wins Missouri with the guns issue assisting his standing in rural areas and a strong turn-out drive in K.C. and St. Louis. If he runs strong on labor rights and mining safety (Bush has cut the MSHA budget heavily despite increases in mining fatalities)he also picks up West Virginia and forces Bush to spend more money in Ohio. That would be enough. The mines and gun control issue might at least help Dean put Colorado into play.

Gephardt can win Missouri, of course, West Virginia and Ohio. Which would also be enough. WIth a strong effort directed at the elderly he can win Arizona.

Edwards might pick up Arizona, West Virginia and Missouri. He also has a better shot at North Carolina (obviously) and Georgia unless Dean does what whoever the Dem. nominee should do and selects Andrew Young as his running mate.

Kerry can win what Gore won except perhaps Florida. And New Hampshire. He could win New Hampshire. So even with Florida under the new electorial figures he'd fall two or three votes shy.

[w4rma]

27. NH, WV, NV (n/t)

[Cogito]

29. Can Dean win?

Can Dean win? Of course he can.
But that is not the proper question. The proper question is what is the likelihood Dean can win compared to the other major candidates. Dean polls behind Clark, Kerry and Lieberman in head to head match-ups versus Bush both in national polls and in state wide polls. Dean will have to abandon the more conservative states throughout the south and midwest.

Dean's problem is NOT that he is, in reality, a bleeding heart liberal. The problem is that most voters are never gonna know any more about Dean than that he is anti-war, pro-civil union and wants to repeal the Bush tax cuts that targeted the "middle class". Add to that the fact that people associate Vermont with bleeding heart liberal and you have a candidate that most voters will perceive as too extreme.

So, can Dean win? Sure. But he is much less likely to win than Clark, Edwards or Kerry.

[dsc]

21. You posted a great post

While I prefer Dean I am impressed with your post and give you credit for expressing it so well. It is too bad, as exemplified in so many of the responses to your thread, that so many of your fellow Kerry supporters are so unlike you.

[DrFunkenstein]

22. Dean Seems More Radical Than Liberal

Dean gets attacked as too liberal to be elected, and too conservative to the Party base.

The truth is this: Dean betrays some core beliefs of liberals, for better or worse. On the other hand, he has the rhetorical stylings of an extremely radical demagogue.

In other words, his beliefs are centrist, and his style is polarizing and scary. His supporters believe that sooner or later everyone except the evil conservatives in America will see the light sooner or later.

The way I see it, though, is that he is already polarizing his own Party, let alone the general public. In a time of great anxiety, I find it hard to believe Americans are going to vote for someone whose hallmark is anger and protest.

http://www.gop.org/Newsroom/RNCResearch/TLvideo2.htm

[dsc]

23. Gee literally citing GOP talking points

how low can it go. You people are just determined to see. You are literally unbelievable. BTW on guns even Malloy appears to agree with Dean. Just how many more high profile liberals will it take for the gun thing to be OK?

[paulk]

28. One thing that disturbs me about many of the Dean supporters

are reflected directly in posts like yours. You have addressed nothing Dr. F. said. Instead you have attacked him. Much the way Dean has attacked the other Democratic candidates and, in fact, the Democratic party in general. I do not find this a valid debating technique, and I predict it will hurt the Dean campaign in the long run.

As for Mike Malloy, I just have your word on it - and it certainly doesn't change my opinion on Dean's gun position. I doubt many other liberals will be swayed either. An "A" rating from the NRA is hard to spin as anything but what it is - a right wing/conservative position.

[cindyw]

24. God, you are so right.

Every time I see Kerry, I think how proud I would be to be a citizen of a country led by him. I yearn for a time when I would feel inspired by a man who would truly make decisions based on what is right for this country and not what is right for his party and his financial supporters.

I can certainly see how Dean's rhetoric inspires people. It makes people want to change this country. I can even see in him, how he would rip Bush apart in an election. But I can also see the reality of his weaknesses and how Bush would rip him and our party apart. I also am bothered by his history. I think the sum of a man's life colors his character. I respect the transformation in his ideals that he says has happened, but why choose a new when we have the choice of someone who has been fighting for the things I believe in his entire life.

The final thing that cements my choice between the two men relates to the first thing I said. Kerry makes me visualize a time when people in this country had an innocence that only comes with faith in your leader. I believe that Dean could get elected, but then I cannot imagine him as a president who can give that innocence back to this country. I'm tired of paying attention and fighting. I want to start paying more attention to my family and be able to turn off the computer and my television without worrying that I will miss the newest threat or the newest war.

Sorry to be a little dramatic, but I thought this thread deserved a little sincerity and honesty.