Why I'm for Dean By William Greider (the Nation)

[Cheswick2.0]

I have looked and did not see this article posted. Enjoy

<snip>
Howard Dean is an odd duck, certainly, in the milieu of the contemporary Democratic Party. He is, I surmise, a tough and savvy politician of the old school--a shrewd, intuitive pol who develops his own sense of where the people are and where events are likely to take public opinion, then has the guts to act on his perceptions. That approach--leading, it's called--seems dangerously unscientific in this era of high-quality polling and focus groups, the data interpreted for politicians by expensive consultants. The press corps has not had much experience with Democrats of this type, so reporters read Dean's style as emotional, possibly a character flaw. He reminds me of olden days when Democrats were a more contentious bunch, always fighting noisily among themselves and often with creative results.

The ubiquitous "party sources" have explained that Dean merely caught a lucky break by declaring early and forcefully against the war on Iraq at a time when Americans were overwhelmingly prowar. Who knew things might change? The doctor knew.

A more pertinent question is, Why didn't other leading candidates see this tragedy coming? Their reticence was symptomatic of the inert Washington insiders, exceedingly cautious, indifferent to whatever roils the party's rank and file, and always a few steps behind the curve. The explanation that Washington candidates voted for the war on principle or were misled by Bush doesn't help them. Their blindness to the potential consequences (now unfolding) is another reason to be for Dean. He, meanwhile, speaks plainly to the error of US imperialism. "America is not Rome. We do not dream of empire. We dream of liberty for all."

The man also stands his ground in a fight. When someone jabs him, he jabs back. Pundits describe this quality as dangerous, and no doubt it gets him into trouble occasionally, but what a refreshing departure from the rope-a-dope calculations of the Clinton era. This trait is what I like about him most. In my experience, it's more revealing than a politician's positions on issues. With issues, Dean is pretty much what he says: a middle-of-the-road moderate, neither left nor right, though middle in Vermont is liberal ground. As governor, he was skilled at maneuvering through contending forces, sometimes angering both sides in the process.


More found here:

< http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20031215&s=greider >

[ulysses]

1. but wait - isn't he a liar on a Nixonian scale?

That's what all the hip DUers are saying...;-)

Good to see the Greider piece again.

[liberalnurse]

3. Hip-Duers....you give way too much

credit to the peanut gallery of a few lonely flamer's.

Nice post too Cheswick, good to see the Greider article.

[Cheswick2.0]

6. the hip DUers don't talk to me

:cry:

Like I tell my kids all the time, nothing hip about me.

[OKNancy]

2. Greider know how to pick winners

He was Nadar all the way in 2000.

[Cheswick2.0]

4. hmmmm

not sure that is true, but what does it have to do with now?

[liberalnurse]

5. Do you have a link?

I'd like to make that assessment myself.

[ulysses]

8. found this

http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemId=4862

I hadn't realized that Greider supported Nader in 2000. Not that it bothers me in the least. :)

[MODemocrat]

15. So was my Grandson for Nadar in 2000 but he's now for DEAN

As he told me, one learns from his mistakes, and this time I'm voting for a real winner.

[JNelson6563]

7. Great article!

Excellent commentary. I confess I agree with it all. ;-)

Julie

[Kolesar]

9. "It's called leading"

Those four paragraphs were fawning praise for Dr. Dean. This was the best part:

"A more pertinent question is, Why didn't other leading candidates see this tragedy coming? Their reticence was symptomatic of the inert Washington insiders, exceedingly cautious, indifferent to whatever roils the party's rank and file, and always a few steps behind the curve. The explanation that Washington candidates voted for the war on principle or were misled by Bush doesn't help them. "

January 4, 2004, and that is where I am, politically.

[Cheswick2.0]

10. Were you mislead by bush?

I wasn't and neither was my candidate.

[Kolesar]

12. I meant the first definition of fawning, which is more positive

1. To exhibit affection or attempt to please, as a dog does by wagging its tail, whining, or cringing.
2. To seek favor or attention by flattery and obsequious behavior.

I think Greider was doing that to some degree.

And further--what sad times are these when one cannot post things like "this is the best part" in the DU without it being taken sarcastically. That Dean called the IWR vote correctly was really the best part.

My boss lives in a world of sarcasm, so I try to stay out of it.

[WillyT]

16. Well Put Ches, Well Put !!!

:bounce::kick::bounce:

[Kolesar]

24. did you even read my posts?

[Armstead]

11. If Dean ois good enough for Greider, it's good enough for me

William Greider has been accurately analyzing the political and economic trends for years. He tells the unvarnished truth about where things are leading.

Although sometimes is writing is a bit of a tough slog because of his details and level of knowledge, Greider is perhaps the most accurate analyst writing today. He is a liberal populist, but he is always clear-eyed and honest, and based his analysis on fact -- not just spin or wishful thinking.

His endorsement of Nader may have been a bit odd, but his reasons accurately predicted the problems the DLC drift has created today for the Democratic Party.

[kentuck]

14. I respect Greider's opinion a lot, also....

This should give encouragement to all present Dean supporters and give pause to others that might be yet undecided...

[askew]

13. Thanks for the link.

The article touched on a lot of things I like about Howard Dean. This was my favorite part of the article:

"He is, I surmise, a tough and savvy politician of the old school--a shrewd, intuitive pol who develops his own sense of where the people are and where events are likely to take public opinion, then has the guts to act on his perceptions. That approach--leading, it's called--seems dangerously unscientific in this era of high-quality polling and focus groups, the data interpreted for politicians by expensive consultants. The press corps has not had much experience with Democrats of this type, so reporters read Dean's style as emotional, possibly a character flaw. "

The press truly doesn't know how to deal with him, so they are slapping labels on him as fast as possible, regardless of if they fit or not.

[madfloridian]

17. Yes, they find him very hard to label.

He does not fit into a convenient little box to be labeled. That really blows the mind of the press corps. They love to label and make it all fit.
:hi:

[Zomby Woof]

18. This is a major dupe

From Politics & Campaigns, November 26th:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?
az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=92352

From GD on November 29th:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=794493

From GD on December 12th:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=894753

A little long in the tooth (and short on the truth) is this article.

[Cheswick2.0]

19. Thanks for kicking it

even though you say it's a dupe. I think it is a great article and more people should read it.

[Zomby Woof]

21. it's a public service

You said you had never seen it, and I have, so I was showing you. Kicking a thread in here late at night is no big deal. It will be on page 5 by 7AM when 50 or so threads about the debate are posted in the morning analyzing why "MY CANDIDATE KICKED YOUR CANDIDATE'S ASS!" or some variation thereof.

Greider is a hack. I used to read his fluff in Rolling Stone (the center of all great political thought of course!) years ago when I didn't know better, and now I have to suffer his byline in my Nation issues. Katha Pollitt is bad enough, but now Greider!

[ulysses]

23. I'd missed the Nichols piece

Thanks, Woof. :)

[zulchzulu]

20. Greider's lovely endorsement and lovefest for Nader in 2000

Greider was for Nader and thought Gore was the Devil in 2000. He sure knows how to pick candidates... his endorsement for Dean sounds oddly familiar.

From the article:

"Nader is an idealist but not a fool. He well understands that what he is attempting this year is only one stroke in the long, difficult political struggle to reconnect ordinary people with the power to govern.

{snip}

It's also why I'm voting for Ralph and for the potential impact of his voice, his ideas. I wish to protest the captive impotence that conventional logic imposes, but also the New Democrat consolidation that Gore represents-a business-first party that will selectively defend social guarantees against the other business first party, but a party that wins by playing to the fears of insecure people without addressing the deeper sources of their pain. What I would like to see is a season of white-knuckle fear among the Democratic establishment."

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Political_Reform/Nader_Interview_Greider.html

[ulysses]

22. yes, he endorsed Nader.

We should kill him.

:eyes:

[helleborient]

25. So we have proof Dean is THE candidate to pull Greens back...

Into voting for a Democrat for President?

Is that what you're pointing out?