Why we shouldn't buy into a Dean coronation just yet

[mbali]

I am deeply troubled by the notion that Iowa and New Hampshire could pick the Democratic nominee. After all, these states aren't particularly representative of our party.

As an African American, I am particularly concerned, not only because I feel that African Americans and other minorities could be completely ignored in the nomination process, this rush to nomination could also result in our voices not being heard in other important aspects of the party process, most notably the determination of the party platform. The convention delegates, even those who are pledged to a losing candidate, have a great deal of important input into the platform. The fact that one's candidate does not get the nomination should not mean that any delegate who is not with the victor has no voice.

This is exactly what we risk by demanding a coronation before a single vote is cast. If it is treated as a foregone conclusion, after the first or second primary, that Dean is the one, we are telling the Democratic voters in other states that their voices and votes do not matter. Such a scenario will discourage non-Dean supporters from voting; the natural result will be that other candidates will have far fewer delegates at the convention. Delegates do more than vote for their candidate - they help to determine the message and direction of the party.

This is one of the reasons that so many party veterans are balking at this approach - we aren't unhappy because we have a problem with Dean (at least, most of us feel that way, I think) but because this premature Dean juggernaut goes against everything that our party stands for and threatens to turn us into a party that cares about and listens to only those with the loudest voices and biggest campaign coffers.

As an African-American and a Democrat, I will not feel comfortable with or enthusiastic about a nominee and party platform that appears to me to have been selected by an homogenous group of people who do not represent my interests. If we want Democrats to buy into the nominee and the message, we need to do more than tell them to get with the program and jump on the Dean bandwagon. We need to be sure that we don't feel that Dean has been shoved down our throats by a few folks in Iowa and New Hampshire.

If Dean is the best person for the job of taking on W, he'll win a marathon just as handily as he would win a sprint, and earn a lot more respect and credibility for his efforts. He'll also be a much stronger, more tempered and, thus a considerably more formidable adversary to Bush. And people with different views will have an opportunity to craft the party platform, making it a stronger and more comprehensive blueprint for success.

So we need to slow down, take a deep breath and let the process take its course. Let's do this thing right.

[slinkerwink]

1. actually, the first primary is in D.C., and Dean is the only one on the

ballot along with Sharpton, Kucinich, and Braun. The other five candidates skipped DC because they didn't want to be shown up by Dean there. That's disenfranchising the African-American community there, in my opinion by not giving them a reason to vote.

[mbali]

3. The DC Primary does not select any delegates

and, thus has no effect on the process. DC delegates will be selected later.

[Dagaz]

2. A few questions

I'm a bit concerned that Dean is now out running against the Clinton economic plan yet Clinton and Gore had terrific backing in the AA community and clearly the economy was Clinton's strength.

1. Do you see AAs supporting Dean in the same numvers as Clinton and Gore?

2. Would Harold Ford as a running mate make a difference?

[mbali]

5. This is pure conjecture

on my part, but at this point, I don't see African Americans supporting Dean in anything close to the numbers that supported Clinton and Gore. Unless Dean starts to do a better job of reaching out to African Americans and demonstrating a deeper interest in and connection to the black community than what many of us see as a superficial and sometimes patronizing approach that merely skims the surface, I don't think he's going to generate much enthusiasm among blacks.

Harold Ford might make a difference - if he were old enough. But he'll only be 34 on January 20, 2004 and, thus, is ineligible.

[deminflorida]

4. Well, I'm not an African American, but your right I want someone

that honestly represents all Americans regardless of race, creed, or national origin. When the Dean campaign was caught using White people to hold up banners at a South Carolina campaign rally that read "African Americans for Dean". Well I don't think that was honest representation at all. To me it was an insult to South Carolina African Americans. I listened to a radio program on NPR yesterday and I agree with the black pastor that spoke, he's not looking for anyone who's false in pretending he understands the issues concerning African Americans. By the way the incident I speaking up is reported in the S.C. papers and on this board. Use the search function if you don't believe me.

[mbali]

7. African Americans don't expect

every white politician to be a black man in white skin. The problem that many of us have with Dean is that he seems to think that he can get our vote by trying to show us how "down with the brothers" he is, which is insulting and annoying. It also makes us laugh at him, not a reaction I think he is really going for.

For example, most blacks I know were not impressed, but pretty amused with Dean claiming a Wyclef Jean song as his favorite tune. Most of us didn't even believe him - sure, he probably LIKED the song, but to claim it as his favorite? Please. Nobody bought that. We also felt a big "so what?" wondering why he seemed to think that we would suddenly rush to his support even if he is a fan of black music. I don't know a single black person who would have thought less of him if he had said his favorite song was Mack the Knife or Stairway to Heaven. We are politically mature enough to understand that a white guy from Vermont who has had little opportunity for contact with minorities over the years likes white music and not hold it against him. Black folks aren't looking for someone to dance with, we want a president who cares about our issues and music is waaaayy down on our list of priorities when it comes to politics. He's got to do much better than that to get our attention and loyalty.

[JohnKleeb]

11. Makes sense to me bali

"Black folks aren't looking for someone to dance with, we want a president who cares about our issues and music is waaaayy down on our list of priorities when it comes to politics."
From a white dude, our issues are the same, whether we be white or black. That made good sense to me. I agree with what you are getting at in this post.

[deminflorida]

14. Yep, you hit the nail on the head....

I agree 100% that's why the incident I read about in S.C. certainly caused me to do a double take.

[mbali]

16. Lots of people did

Unfortunately, some in the Dean campaign see this kind of "whoa" reaction as simply "Dean bashing." I really wish they would take heed of these concerns and recognize that many people are sincerely troubled by these sorts of things and that concern could pose serious problems for Dean down the line.

These shortcomings are not insurmountable. But the problem I see is not only the abject refusal to do anything about them, but the condescending and sometimes hostile attitude toward those of us who point them out.

[HFishbine]

32. Question

In what way do you think Dean is trying to show how "down with the brothers" he is?

[curse10]

46. again, agreed

:-)

this thread is great

[Myra]

112. I think the issue of African American support

Is one of Dean's achilles heels.
He's got a lot of them; but this is a biggie.

And Gore actually makes that one worse, because
he never bothered to fight for (even speak up for)
the many disenfranchised black voters in Fla who
were targeted to successfully steal *his* election.

[cally]

6. I'm glad you posted this

The historic dominance Iowa and New Hampshire have in selecting the party candidate is wrong. These states do not represent America and certainly not the Democratic party. Then you have the problem of crossover votes from Republicans, and you have a strange and distorted nomination process.

I live in California. I get incredibly jealous when I hear NH residents say they expect to shake hands with a candidate three or four times before deciding who to vote for. Here, you have to go to the fundraiser or work on the campaign to even have a chance of meeting a candidate. Even then, our primary is usually so late that the nominee is selected before our primary. So we are the largest state, a huge state for political fundraising, very diverse, but we have almost no say in who our nominee is.

[bearfartinthewoods]

30. if anything good comes from this primary season, i hope it's that we

are forced to look at the primary process. i;m sick and tired of being disenfranchised.

[adadem]

109. Carl Levin (MI) tried

to change the primary schedule but was shot down by the DNC. Will see what I can find regarding his efforts.

[HFishbine]

33. Sure, you're right

But it's wrong to blame Dean for the process. Somebody is going to lead in IA and NH. Seperate the weaknesses of the process from attacks on Dean, as you did and the original post did not, and the argument will have broader resonnance.

[mbali]

41. I have neither blamed Dean nor attacked him.

And judging from the posts in this thread, my point has broad resonance.

[HFishbine]

49. Didn't attack Dean?

"The problem that many of us have with Dean is that he seems to think that he can get our vote by trying to show us how "down with the brothers" he is, which is insulting and annoying. It also makes us laugh at him, not a reaction I think he is really going for."

[mbali]

51. The truth is not an attack

Dean's approach has been insulting and annoying to many African Americans. And many of us do laugh at him.

That's not an attack. It's just the simple truth. And unless and until Dean and his campaign recognize this fact and do something to correct it, it's only going to get worse.

We don't dislike him, we don't look down on him, we don't think he's a bad person. We just think he's trying a little too hard and it makes him appear silly. He reminds me of the white boy at the black party who thinks that talking in Ebonics and dancing the funky chicken like a wild man will make him seem cooler. No one says anything to his face, but as soon as he leaves the room, everyone waits a beat and then breaks out into one big "BWAHAAHAAHAAHA!!!!"

I don't think that's the effect he's going for. So, whether he thinks it's fair or not, he needs to do something about it real quick.

Perhaps if Dean and his supporters actually bothered to listen to and - here's a concept - take into consideration the views of others, instead of accusing anyone who doesn't think that Dean hung the moon of "attacking" him, he might be able to become a better candidate.

I want the Democratic nominee to win. If the Democratic nominee is Howard Dean, I'll want him to win. But, trust me, Howard Dean can not and will not win if he continues doing the things he is doing.

[HFishbine]

54. Yeah, yeah, yeah -- how about some specifics?

Unsubstantiated accusations of Dean being insulting and not listening and hyperbolic similes completely ungrounded in reality. And yet, despite a request for examples or specifics, none are forthcoming other than an incredulous observation about him liking Wyclef Jean. Is that all there is? Anything other than bombastic magniloquence?

[mbali]

58. You obviously aren't interested in a real discussion

about this issue. I've given you examples, even though that is not the point. Neither I nor the many people to whom I refer need to justify to you why we feel the way we do. The important thing is that many, many people feel that way. For you to demand that we provide you further justification for our views, along with the snide and condescending manner in which you make the demand, only helps to prove the point that I am making.

Instead of trying to refute or prove me wrong, why not consider the possibility that there is truth in what I am saying and start to figure out ways that you and your candidate can deal with the less-than-positive perception many, many people have of him? Your refusal to do so only exacerbates the already serious problems I am trying to bring to your attention.

[HFishbine]

62. Oh I don't doubt you feel the way you feel

I'm asking why you feel the way you feel.

Just as some people feel that black people are lazy, or that the Jews control everything, I dismiss those "feelings" because they have no reasonable justification based in reality. Do you give credence to the views of people who think blacks are lazy just because they "feel" that way, or do you insist on looking at reality?

So, when you say "I've given you examples" and in fact have only given me one, your disbelief that Dean actually likes Wyclef Jean, I don't take your arguments seriously because there is no foundation in reality.

I would gladly accept the possibility that there is some truth in what you are saying if you could in fact show me what "serious problems" you are trying to bring to my attention.

Are these questions not reasonable?

You assert: "Dean's approach has been insulting..."

What about his approach do you find insulting?

You assert: "We just think he's trying a little too hard..."

In what way is he trying too hard?

You assert: "The problem that many of us have with Dean is that he seems to think that he can get our vote by trying to show us how 'down with the brothers'..."

In what way has Dean tried to show that he's "down with the brothers?"

If you want to skip over anything that serves as an example of what caused you to feel insulted, overlooked, dismissed or why Dean is laughable or unconcerned, that's your choice. Just understand that your arguments are then, by definition, unsubstantiated opinion.

[mbali]

67. Ok - here are a few examples:

1. Wyclef Jean - no not the fact that he claimed that Jaspora was his favorite song - which I just plain don't believe, but what he said in preface to his answer. In announcing his favorite song, Dean told Farai Chideya, editor of thebeehive.org, that it was "one you've never heard of." I was taken aback as soon as he said that. In my view, it evidenced an arrogance and a certainty that he is so far ahead of everybody that his favorite song was one that an African American woman, a black pop culture expert, just didn't know. It was a small thing, but it really rubbed me the wrong way. Alone, it wouldn't make any difference to me, but in context of some of the other things I've seen, it tells a bigger story to me.

2. "I am the only white politician talking about race to white audiences."

This statement is not only blatantly untrue, it demonstrated to me either a willingness to lie outright or an utter lack of understanding about what has been going on in politics in regard to the race issue for the last 40 years. If Dean truly believes that he is the only white politician talking about race, he just hasn't been paying attention. The impression I get is that he is so out of touch with the race issue that he really believes that his pronouncements are cutting edge.


3. Speaking to a black audience in front of a grafitti backdrop. Black people are not going to identify more with a candidate just because he's standing in front of a defaced wall. What is that supposed to tell us about how his campaign views us?

4. "I want to be the candidate of the people with Confederate flag decals on their pickup trucks."

Again, this, in my view, showed that Dean just really doesn't understand the depth and complexity of the race issue. And his supporters visceral defense of this statement and attitude only aggravates the problem for me. To me, Dean sounds like a well-meaning white guy who is not even remotely a racist or bigot, wants to do the right thing on race, but just doesn't understand the issue. There's nothing wrong with that at all. The problem comes in with his abject certainty that he is an expert on race who has the insight and credentials to lecture other people about the issue. That attitude is annoying and insulting.

What makes it worse is the manner in which he and his supporters attack anyone who has the temerity to raise questions about it. I am so sick and tired of being told by supposedly liberal white people that in raising questions about Dean, I am somehow calling him a racist. That all or nothing, black and white view - that someone is either a racial savior or a racist - demonstrates a complete lack of understanding about the race issue and its intricacies. And I and many, many black people - as well as whites who have been fighting in the trenches long before many of Dean's supporters ever saw the light of day - do not need or appreciate sancitimonious lectures about our civil rights bona fides.

And while I'm ranting, I want to point out how incredibly insulting it is to have Dean supporters try to bat down our views by pointing to the two black people they know who disagree with us and think Dean is a great guy. That is tantamount to saying that because I know five white people who love George Bush, your views about him must be wrong, irrelevant or just plain misguided.

5. Dean walking around at the NAACP Convention in a kente cloth - I don't need a cite for this, since I saw it myself. He may have been trying to identify, but, frankly, it just looked stupid and plenty of people remarked on it privately, some just shaking their heads in amusement. "Bless his heart," one woman told me. That's southern for "I know he means well, but what an idiot." Fortunately, someone on his campaign had the sense to get him out of it before he went on stage for the candidate forum.

6. Dean's complete lack of a civil rights record. Yes, his supporters will point to the civil union bill, but the constant repetition of that again belies a lack of understanding about what the civil rights community is looking for. Black folks are not to terribly impressed that Dean made it possible for a few gay white people in Vermont to get partnership benefits. Yes, it's nice that he did it, but that doesn't count as any great civil rights move. Again, I don't hold that against him per se, but Dean has done nothing in his entire public career to advance the cause of civil rights for minorities. Fine. But his insistence on portraying himself as the great liberator makes this more obvious.

You can dismiss these perceptions or try to convince me that they are unfair, but they are what they are. And equating these kinds of perceptions with damaging racial stereotypes doesn't cut it. It's not the same. Dean is not a victim, he's not being stereotyped and he's not being attacked. He's running for President of the United States. And if he wants to be successful, he needs to do a better job of elevating the comfort level of people outside of a group of like-minded acolytes.

[HFishbine]

71. Thank you

I appreciate the exchange. Now I have a much better understanding of the points you were trying to make. You've given Dean supporters some real issues and actions to mull over -- much more compelling than an opinion alone.

Frankly, I agree with you on some of the points you raise and some seem a little exagerated. I won't go through them point by point, because I know you were not looking to have your opinion challenged at every turn and I respect the effort you undertook to offer explainations.

Howard Dean is not perfect. I suspect he will address the issues you raise. I hope you'll keep an open mind. I will. If he can't present a candidacy that appeals to minorities, he doesn't deserve to be the dem nominee. Which gets us back to the concerns expressed in your original post. IA and NH will not be the coronation you fear. February 3rd may be decisive, but a much broader representation of America will be voting on that day.

Again, thank you for helping me to understand your point of view.

[mbali]

73. Thanks -

I'm glad we were able to discuss this rationally.

I hope you're right.

[bearfartinthewoods]

77. i've said all along that he wasn't a racist...just clueless.....

if a white guy from PA who's only real connection to the black community is an affection for the blues can spot it, it must be obvious as hell to black people.

[Crunchy Frog]

96. I think it is a big mistake

to dismiss feelings and perceptions in a political campaign. They are by definition not the product of "reasonable justification based in reality". They simply are, and any politician who doesn't take that into account is making a big mistake, because to a large extent the American people make their decisions on who to vote for or whether or not to vote at all based on feeling and perceptions. I wish this were'nt the case, but unfortunately it is.

GWB has done an exceptionally good job of manipulating perceptions and because of that, many people are going to vote against their own interests and even their own beliefs in 2004 unless we run a candidate that takes that aspect of politics seriously, and is able to do an effective job of countering it. This is not an attack, it is simply an observation of how politics works in this country.

[MODemocrat]

91. What do you mean about Dean being "down with the brothers?"

I'm not being argumentive, but it's not something I see about him.
Please clarify this for me. :think: :dem:

[mbali]

94. It's a figure of speech

that means he so identifies with black people that he might as be one himself.

[Jerseycoa]

8. I'm with you

Many, many people view the Gore endorsement as an attempt to nullify the democratic process. Even if that was not its purpose, the endorsement certainly has hobbled the process and damaged the party. I do not accept Dean as my primary candidate. I will not "unify" behind him. I will stand behind the Democratic nominee whoever that may be. If Howard Dean is nominated, I will vote for him without conviction or pride.

[mbali]

12. There's a big difference between

supporting a candidate and really going to the mat for him. I think most Democrats will support any Democratic nominee and will get out and vote and maybe even do a little volunteer work because they want Bush out. But to get people to walk door-to-door in the rain, talk up the nominee at every opportunity, and fight to the death for their candidate requires more than just party loyalty - people have to feel that candidate and believe without question that THAT person must be the next president, not because he's the Bush alternative, but because HE is the MAN (or, hopefully one day, SHE is the WOMAN)! Bill Clinton was able to generate that kind of commitment and loyalty in the Democratic base and that's why he won. In fact, he was the first Democratic nominee to install that kind of enthusiasm since Jack Kennedy in 1960.

I fear that this is something that many of the Dean folks don't understand - if they did, they wouldn't be so dismissive of so many segments of the party, treating them as if their views don't matter and ordering them to "just get with the program." We'll all get with the program, but, unless we feel a personal commitment to that specific candidate, regardless of how much we want Bush out, it will be nearly impossible to gin up the sense of mission necessary to win elections. And that personal commitment will be impossible to instill as long as we're told that we just don't count.

[Jerseycoa]

15. Something curious

You know, "the base" thing? Bringing "the base" back to the party. Taking the party back for "the base." Who do you suppose they mean? I always considered myself in the base and I never left the party. Do you get it?

[mbali]

19. No, I don't get it.

What do you think it means?

[Jerseycoa]

21. Just puzzled

Maybe somebody will come along and explain it all.

[mbali]

25. We can keep each other company while we wait.

Want some popcorn?

[Jerseycoa]

23. I'll have to check back in the a.m.

I enjoyed your presentation very much, mbali. You have an elegant way with your words. :)

[Tom Rinaldo]

27. I don't think it is that complex an appeal

I remember thinking throughout the 2000 Election that Gore was throwing away our victory by not embracing the Peace and Prosperity heritage he could rightfully claim. It's not that I was enamored with Clinton centrism, it's just that I wanted to hold onto the White House that the Democrats had finally seemed to secure after mostly Republican rule throughout my life. I was angry that Gore essentially blew an Election he should have walked away with and handed the White House over to the Republicans.

My frustration floated around Gore, though of course I was conflicted because I basically liked Gore, and in many ways preferred his platform to Clinton's. Still I was left feeling that "we wuz robbed", obviously by Bush and the Supreme Court, but also by the National Democratic Party for somehow blowing something that never should have been close in the first place. We fought a bad fight and that is why we lost.

Shift forward to the 2002 Congressional Elections and that floating malaise hardened into a sharper anger. It seemed to me at the time that our Party more or less rolled over and tried desperately not to frontally attack a then popular "war time" incumbent. This of course followed directly on the heels of having allowed Bush to somehow preempt almost the entire election campaign with his Special Edition Coming Attraction All Saddam, All the Time, War Promo, both in Congress and in the media. What happaened to all the issues that were important to me? They weren't being talked about, instead Democrats seemed to be signing on to be the loyal war time opposition to the Commander in Chief, all of this AFTER letting Bush ram two or three massive tax cuts for the rich through Congress.

It kind of seemed like our leaders had forgotten how to fight hard for anything that was important to most Democrats. I am talking impressions here, though I think there is some substance to it also. Afterall, the proof was in the pudding so to speak. Barely two years after an American golden age; Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, and Cheney were solidly in control ramming through a sweeping right wing agenda in every conceivable arena, under the smirking visage of George W. Bush, our new tough but "compassionate" Conservative President. And things got WORSE after the 2002 Elections.

Real Democratic Party leadership wouldn't allow all of that to befall us. Real Democratic leadership would know how to defend all the good things that Democrats stand for, and carry the battle to Bush and all those lying Republicans. I felt like; "I don't know who those Democratic strategists are talking to when they develop their strategies and priorities, but it sure isn't me or any of the Democrats that I know."

Dean's appeal isn't about changing the base of the Democratic Party, it is about claiming to speak FOR the base of a Democratic Party that was abandoned by leadership that either didn't know how to, or wasn't sufficiently motivated to fight for us. Most of Dean's initial appeal can be boiled down to four words "I hear your Anger", with the implication that most of the other Democratic leaders obviously didn't, because they were spending too much time trying to play nice with Bush.

I find it ironic to now watch the Dean Gore Alliance take shape.

[Egnever]

85. Interesting point

"There's a big difference between supporting a candidate and really going to the mat for him. I think most Democrats will support any Democratic nominee and will get out and vote and maybe even do a little volunteer work because they want Bush out. But to get people to walk door-to-door in the rain, talk up the nominee at every opportunity, and fight to the death for their candidate requires more than just party loyalty - people have to feel that candidate and believe without question that THAT person must be the next president, not because he's the Bush alternative, but because HE is the MAN"

What I dont understand is how you believe someone with less support than Dean has will somehow Become the person that can get that support out there. It seems to be a false ideal you are putting out there. That if only Deans large base of support would decide they dont support him we would somehow be able to get behind the real candidate that deserves that support and could all be energized.

All of us believe our Candidate is "THE MAN" or we would not be backing that candidate would we?

I dont understand how you can try to make the argument that the guy with the most support at this point with the most people on the ground actually out in the rain going door to door is somehow not the guy to get this stuff done.

I find this argument to be lacking. I dont understand how you can think that if only dean would lose everyone would suddenly be extatic that say Clark is instead the nominee and would somehow suddenly be energized where if instead Dean won these people wouldnt be.

I am less than enthused by any of our other dems. I am out on the streets now working/protesting etc. If Dean is not the nominee I will not be enthused by someone else. I will vote but I will not be as energized as I am for Dean. I dont think I am much different than any other candidates suporters. Somehow the argument the guy with the biggest base of support is somehow weaker than someone else with a smaller base of support just doesnt fly.

[Badger1]

9. If the object is

to beat Bush, then we must be patient and keep the eye on the prize. Clark, though not on the ballot in Iowa, is beginning to cause a stir in that state. We must look at the General as possibly the best canidate to defeat the shrub.

[Jerseycoa]

10. I just noticed, mbali

This needs to be moved to the other GD. I think if you alert a mod, they will do it for you.

[mbali]

13. Thanks -

They're obviously on top of things around here. :-)

[Bill of Rights]

17. Great thread

mbali - thanks for the good read.

[mbali]

18. Thanks - nice of you to say. n/t

[juajen]

26. I concur

A thoughtful and well-laid out thread.

[Tom Rinaldo]

20. What a thoughtful post

Even though I am a Clark supporter I was afraid this thread was going to be an anti-Dean rant before I opened it, and those type things always spin out of control immediately.

I couldn't have been more wrong. I find your perspective, and your inclusive way of communicating it, more than refreshing.

[Jerseycoa]

22. Tom

Maybe you could address post #15? I would appreciate it. You have a good analytical sense of these things.

[Tom Rinaldo]

55. It was late last night when I did

I might have skewed off theme a little. Another quick hit is that Dean targetted the "self identified" Dumocratic base. That is the alienated Democrats, and anti-Republicans of all stripes, who rightly or wrongly did not take much personal responsibility for the defeats suffered by the Party but felt betrayed because of them.

[frustrated_lefty]

24. Mbali

that was a very thoughtful post, and I agree with you on most points.

[MidwestMomma]

28. Been having many of the same thoughts...

Thanks for putting them into such thoughtful words. It's weird, I've been feeling kind of disconnected from the board but then I read a post like this and I feel like I'm home again.

Your point about the delegates role in determining our party platform was something I hadn't really thought about. This makes it even more critical for people to continue to support their candidate until their state primary/caucus is held and then vote for the candidate who best represents their political interests...even if that candidate can not win the nomination. You are so right that urging people to get behind a single candidate at this stage would be detrimental to the continued growth of our party.

I posted to another thread earlier my concern that the Dean campaign seems unwillingly/unable to formulate a strategy to convince this lifelong Democrat to support him as my candidate. My concern being that without such a strategy, how can they hope to convince the general public to support him. Does this seem like a valid concern?

Thanks again. You've given me quite a bit to think about.

[mbali]

53. I agree

I have the same concerns that you do. The Dean campaign may not need the 80% of Democrats who are likely not to vote for him in the primaries now. But he will need us in the general. If the campaign doesn't change course and soon and make an effort to reach out to us (and that means more than telling us "Dean is going to win. Get over it."), we're all going to be in trouble.

[FrenchieCat]

29. As a black person

who agrees with your concerns, I was deeply offended by both Dean and Gore.

I voted for Gore while holding my nose. He must not have known it though.

I Know Dean's stance on AA, and I don't like it at all.

Also I just think Dean will lose; it's so clear to me, I can almost not stand it.

Al Sharpton came to our church this past thursday...didn't have good things to say about Dean, I'll tell you that!

I get about 40 people that come to my home for bible studies every Tuesday (my husband is a Deacon at Allen Temple, Oakland, CA).....and I have turned them on to Clark.

Black folks can't be hoodwinked...they know a winner when they hear one...and Dean ain't it!

I also feel that Black folks want Bush out most likely worst than anybody else.....and for real, many don't see it happening with Dean once they hear about his profile.

[HFishbine]

37. "I Know Dean's stance on AA, and I don't like it at all."

What do you find objectionable?

[Egnever]

83. What is clarks stance on AA that you find so apealing?

other than you think he will beat bush? I dont find that to be an AA position.

[robbedvoter]

31. Right on! I want my vote to count as well and I understand your concerns

about a candidate who said that the confederate flag being flown on government buildings in South Carolina is "a states rights issue"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show topic&forum=104&topic id=636191
(exactly like W in 2000). When the NAACP organized a debate on September 5 in South Carolina, they set it in Charlotte - in furtherance of theor boycott of the capital. The mere attandance to that rally was thusly a political act. Clark ended up there alone - Kuchinich and Sharpton had been on the stage but had to leave early, Lieberman came, but had to bow out because it was Sabat, Edwards and Mosley Brown were delayed by plane problems. Kerry was campaigning in New Hamshire and *D...had parents day at Yale

[HFishbine]

34. A Challenge for Accuracy

Is there a source that shows Dean believes that the decision of whether or not to fly a confederate flag on government buildings is a "states (sic) rights issue?" A broken link to another DU thread is not very authoritative.

[robbedvoter]

35. Sorry about the link. Here's the whole post:

chimpymustgo  (1000+ posts) Sun Nov-02-03 05:32 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. No, it's a recognition of tone-deafness on Dean's part about race.
Geez Louise. If Dean supporters could put down the Kool-Ade just long enough to look at this objectively.
I don't think Dean is a racist. He just doesn't understand the issues, the language, the nuances of the debate.
My first exposure to Dean was last January - Martin Luther King's birthday. Dean was asked about the state of South Carolina flying the Confederate flag.
Dean hemmed. Dean hawed. Dean kicked the dirt with his shoe. Dean said it's a state's rights issue.
Okey dokey. I knew then and there what we are dealing with here. Now I've watched for months, as Dean says what he THINKS needs to be said it any given situation to get votes.
Please, let us as a party, be capable of doing better than this. 
 Alert Printer Friendly | Reply | Top 
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show topic&forum=104&topic id=636191

[HFishbine]

38. Oh, come on

You cite the words of another DUer as proof of a candidates position? If this really were Dean's position, wouldn't it be verifiable from some source with a little more credibility than a message board post by a *lark supporter?

[robbedvoter]

39. A DU-er who witnessed it? At early time when it was bellow media radar?

If I had doubts, *D's strategic absence from the NAACP forum in Charlotte and the RTV attitude confirmed it to me plenty. Why don't you get your candidate to make a statement to the contrary? "I support the NAACP's boycott in South Carolina"? That would close this issue.

[HFishbine]

43. So now we've gone from

an assertion that a candidate has a prticular view to a demand to prove that he doesn't. Sorry, I only engage in intellectually honest exchanges.

[maddezmom]

40. What is Dean's position?

I can't seem to find it anywhere.

[mbali]

45. Yes, it is verifiable . . .

From the transcript of CNN's Inside Politics with Judy Woodruff, January 14, 2003:

WOODRUFF: In the state of South Carolina, where you'll be campaigning, on the state Capitol grounds flies a flag with the insignia of the Confederate flag. Should that come down?

DEAN: I don't like it, but that's a matter for the people of South Carolina to settle, not me.

WOODRUFF: So, you wouldn't urge them to change it?

DEAN: I just said, I don't like it, but it's not for somebody from out of the state to fix that problem. That's an in-state problem.

[maddezmom]

48. thanks for your reply :)

[HFishbine]

56. Thanks! Dean opposses CF on SC state capitol grounds

Yes. There is no evidence to support the absurd notion that Dean doesn't object to the CF at the SC state capitol. Thanks for refuting the inuendo. Here's more:

Dean said Saturday that he opposed displaying the Confederate flag at the capitol. But he said he was not honoring the NAACP’s boycott of the state after discussing the matter with African American leaders in South Carolina.

“I think it should come down,” he said.

Dean said he decided not to honor the boycott after the head of the South Carolina’s NAACP chapter said he would not hold any of the presidential candidates to it because their presence in the state would further the cause.

“He told me he doesn’t believe presidential candidates should be held to the boycott,” Dean said. “It’s to the best advantage of his cause to get the flag off State House grounds, because we all support taking the flag down.”

http://rutlandherald.com/hdean/64897

[chimpymustgo]

59. I SAW Dean do that interview. His response was weak, waffling, unsure.

He later cleaned it up, to emphatically say the flag should come down. But I'm telling you - I saw the interview. It was painful to watch. He clearly was trying to not offend white SC voters. The main point he made at that time was that this was an issue for SC voters to decide - the standard REPUBLICAN response. Later, he refined his message to emphasize that the flag should come down.

When I first saw this, I had no opinion on Howard Dean. But I recognized something in that moment - wishy-washyness, opportunism, dishonesty -situationalism - that I have seen repeatedly in Dean since then.

[robbedvoter]

36. Also, here's W saying same (not that anyone here doubted that):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9714-2003Nov6.html
The highly nuanced, ever-tortured debate over the Confederate flag has laid political minefields for presidential candidates for years in this critical early primary state. South Carolina was the last southern state to remove the Confederate flag from its statehouse dome, transferring the banner to a flagpole in front of the capitol in 2000. That same year, then-presidential candidate George W. Bush sparked a controversy by refusing to take a position in the South Carolina dome debate, saying he felt it was a matter for state residents to decide.

[HFishbine]

57. Does he say the same thing?

The link you provided is broken, but maybe you can cut and paste the protions where W says that he supports getting the CF flag off SC state capitol grounds.

[mbali]

42. I don't have a problem with Dean not going to that event

Parents' Day may have been very important to him. But I also have no doubt that if he had attended the debate and another candidate missed it for that reason, we would never have heard the end of it - Dean would have run it into the ground that he was the only candidate who thought this was important.

That's one of the reasons that Dean hasn't been able to incite much enthusiasm in Democrats outside his core of support and why, if he doesn't change his approach, he will have great difficulty attracting the critical mass he would need to beat George Bush. A candidate can win the nomination with the support of one fourth of the one half of Democrats who vote in first few primaries. But he cannot win a general election with those kind of numbers and won't gain any additional support among those who did not vote for him in the primary with such tactics. And accusing those of us who point that out of Dean bashing and not doing a thing to correct the problem won't do one thing to improve the situation.

[curse10]

44. great post mbali

I agree, winning two states does not a president make :-)

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mbali]

50. Yes, it will be interesting in the South

In my experience, black voters tend to pay little attention to the endorsements of national black leaders when making their choices. They consider the views of these folks but they don't carry a lot of weight with them unless they have some more direct relationship.

For example, while endorsements by current CBC Chair Elijah Cummings and former Chair Eddie Bernice Johnson were sought after by the Dean and Edwards campaigns (and they certainly don't hurt), I think they will do little to encourage black voters - other than those in their own and adjacent districts - to vote for that particular candidate any more than we could expect a nationwide groundswell of support in the white community for a candidate because Rep. Steny Hoyer came out for them.

African American voters are much more likely to give greater credence to the support of their own representatives and local leaders - mayors, state reps, state senators, community leaders, etc. And because those folks don't get much national press - nor does the outreach to them generate much national attention - it will be interesting to see how this will develop as the primaries play out.

[HFishbine]

66. What is there to get?

So somebody has an opinion, but you know what they say about opinions. Without any grounding in reality, there is nothing to get.

[deutsey]

52. I don't know of any Dean supporters buying into a "coronation"

I certainly am not. However, I must say I agree with you about the primaries. I've had problems with our primary system for as long as I've been able to participate in it (actually, it never seemed fair even before when I learned about it in civics class).

Beyond all that, though, I'm more concerned that the Dem establishment is going to do whatever it can to snuff out the grassroots effort that has grown out of Dean's campaign, just as they did with the Mississippi Democratic Freedom Party in '64, than I'm concerned that Dean is going to be coronated.

[madfloridian]

99. That term was used in an article by Al From, I think. Dec. 10

I was just there and saw something. I did not save the article, but they use the term coronation.

Found it:
No Time For a Coronation

SNIP..."But let's remember: nobody's voted yet. Dean's got a ways to go in persuading a majority of Democrats that he's the guy. And as the self-described "people-powered" candidate, he should be the last candidate around to want any sort of coronation by the Democratic establishment or the punditry, before the people have weighed in...."

They talk very condescendingly about him and Gore, as though they were naughty little children who have not measured up to Al From standards.

They make it sound as though they must follow orders.

[ulysses]

60. this is a primary issue, not a Dean issue.

A homogenous group of people who do not represent your interests *always* play a large role in determining the candidate, at least if you live in a state that has a later primary. By the time it gets to you, your choices are, at best, reduced.

I agree with you as far as that goes, but I don't see how it has anything to do with a "Dean coronation".

[Tom Rinaldo]

61. mbali, a question for you

I am not shy about expressing opinions when I I think I know what I'm talking about, but when I don't I want to learn.

How much, if at all, do you think it is it an advantage or disadvantage for Wesley Clark with African American voters that he was a career military man? I know that the military is perceived by many as racially progressive compared to most of America, but a lifetime in the military is also a lifetime spent off the streets, away from protests, and out of the spotlight conerning public advocacy of social justice issues.

[mbali]

68. Interesting question

I don't think that African Americans are necessarily looking for a candidate who was out in the streets fighting for equality. We are much more about trying to find someone who has demonstrated a commitment to the issue, in whatever way they did it, who understands race and racial politics and has tried to do something constructive about it. Clark appeals to many African Americans for that reason. As you mentioned, the military has been much futher ahead than the rest of society in combating racial discrimination and Clark can justifiably claim to have been a part of it.

For most of the minority voters I know, it's much less about who's talking the best game, but who seems to just "get it." And part of "getting it" is knowing that none of us has all the answers and can learn a great deal by reaching out and listening to others. We're not looking for someone who will just talk the talk, but who will also listen and learn.

[Zomby Woof]

63. You are my new hero, mbali

:-) Thank you for a fresh perspective on why Howard Dean does NOT have ANY appeal outside of his small but very noisy "grassroots" base.

I tried taking the high road with my skepticism about Dean before, but with much less success than you. I am pleased that this has gone this well. I am certainly going to be seeking out more posts by you!

ZW

[ulysses]

65. if anyone else were the frontrunner

the problems with the primaries that mbali describes would still exist.

[Zomby Woof]

70. but that isn't the issue

It's relevant, yes, but peripheral to his/her real concerns:

1. Dean has some supporters, especially a vocal contingent (that means a minority, albeit a highly visible one) here on DU, who are pushy and obnoxious in their urgings that we "shut up and accept the inevitable". I know, because I have put on my hazmat and done battle in the many threads saying as much. We're SICK of being told to get in line and accept Dean as our savior and eventual nominee. This is especially galling before the primaries even begin, no matter what flaws the primary system may have.

2. Mbali has a VERY valid point about Dean's lack of appeal to not only much of the AA community, but to the rank-and-file Democrats, from all backgrounds. There is a lot of hullabaloo about his "grassroots campaign", but once you step outside his cadre of supporters, his support dries up, and the skepticism (and yes, even hostility towards him) begins.

I remember the last time the Democrats had a crowded field, back in '92. At this point in December, Paul Tsongas was the favored frontrunner. As much as his campaign fought Clinton's (and fought brutally, as campaigns are wont), neither side told the other to "shut up and accept he's the nominee". It sure made unity that much easier once the summer arrived.

Lots of us have said we will vote for Dean if he gets the nod, no matter how opposed we are to his candidacy. But I have seen instances (and have been on the receiving end of these) where that isn't even enough to appease them. We're accused of "secretly wanting to vote for Nader/Greens", or "how can we count on you after all you said?" or "you're just spouting Rove memes". :eyes:

Fact is, as thoroughly repulsive as I find the members of that little claque, my view of Dean is based on Dean alone, and needs no more than that for me to harbor uncertainty about his candidacy, his views, or his fitness for the office of President.

As mbali said, we do not need to justify our views beyond that.

[ulysses]

75. isn't it exactly mbali's point?

Seems to me that your understanding is based on what you want it to be, Laurin. Dean could drop out today and the same homogenous group of people in Iowa and New Hampshire will still set the direction of the primaries.

We're SICK of being told to get in line and accept Dean as our savior and eventual nominee.

Fine, have Skittles kick the asses of people who are telling you that. Do you accept that not all Dean supporters are even remotely saying that?

There is a lot of hullabaloo about his "grassroots campaign", but once you step outside his cadre of supporters, his support dries up, and the skepticism (and yes, even hostility towards him) begins.

And that's different from any other candidate how?

Lots of us have said we will vote for Dean if he gets the nod, no matter how opposed we are to his candidacy. But I have seen instances (and have been on the receiving end of these) where that isn't even enough to appease them. We're accused of "secretly wanting to vote for Nader/Greens", or "how can we count on you after all you said?" or "you're just spouting Rove memes".

There's all sorts of crap flying around these days - it's not all aimed at you by a long shot. Try engaging some of DU's conservatives regarding Dean and Nader. :)

As mbali said, we do not need to justify our views beyond that.


Hey, you be you. Just remember that it's not only some Dean supporters who tend to offer opinion as self-evident truth.

[Zomby Woof]

104. please read my posts more carefully

I have ALWAYS made it clear that my arguments are not with ALL Dean supporters. I use words like "contingent", "vocal minority", "claque", etc. to underscore this. It seems to be a very loud and bellicose bunch, but I have never once said it is typical or representative in a comprehensive way. Please let me know if I make such a bad generalization, and I will correct it and make amends.

If more Dean supporters were like you, I am sure the intra-candidate disagreements would be more productive and substantive.

You, for certain, don't fit the profile, as they say.

I say this because last week, I extended an olive branch with a substantial, issues-based thread trying to establish a meaningful dialogue with Dean supporters. Kind of like a Daily Democrat mixed with 20 questions. Some of the replies were quite good, but once again, that certain contingent attacked my good intentions with paranoia and hostility. I decided just to bag the idea. Some people are not deserving of respect or consideration if they aren't willing to extend it in return on good faith.

Also, you and I have known each other for over 2 years, which makes disagreements easier to resolve because we can have a dialogue without second guessings and suspicions. We're known quantities. Too many of the people I have butted heads with lately I have no history with, and disagreements harder to overcome, which is unfortunate.

But I goddamned tried, and I know better than to reach out my hand again if it's going to get shit on.

I hate that cliché from GD's Dem/Green days, but with some people supporting Dean...

Gloves are off.

[ulysses]

110. didn't we end this peacefully a short time ago?

It seems to be a very loud and bellicose bunch, but I have never once said it is typical or representative in a comprehensive way.

You've seemed happy, at times, to let that implication stand.

If more Dean supporters were like you, I am sure the intra-candidate disagreements would be more productive and substantive.

Yay for me, I guess. I lay no more claim to righteousness than I think you should, though. If the gloves are off, then they're off.

You, for certain, don't fit the profile, as they say.

Maybe the profile is flawed.

But I goddamned tried, and I know better than to reach out my hand again if it's going to get shit on.

Join the club, friend.

[MODemocrat]

92. I'm an David Dean supporter

Yes, I'm part of his very noisy "grassroots" base, but really, why would anyone think that Howard Dean will be "allowed" to be the nominee for president? It's almost certain to be General Clark because the DLC loves him, and if we're going to be involved in a perpetual war, then he would be the right one for president.
I support Dean because, number one, he is a medical doctor, and I feel he would be more apt to be involved in domestic issues. He's dodging bullets from all sides, and still remains the front runner.
If Bush is appointed to serve for another four years, however, we are doomed, so I'll vote for the one who gets the nomination, unless it is Joe Lieberman, then I'll just give up and stay home, curl up and die. :shrug: :eyes:

[jumptheshadow]

64. It's troubling, indeed

Here we have a New England candidate who plans to vault to a nomination by sweeping another New England state, then snaring a hard-fought victory in a mostly white, homogeneous Midwestern state, then using those wins to generate momentum in other states. You have to give credit to the Dean campaign for its effective early primary strategy.

Meanwhile, voters in the states that actually help deliver the general election are onlookers in this process. They can donate money via the Internet, if they have the cash, have access, and are comfortable doing financial transactions on the web. If they're poor or computer shy they are locked out of the decision-making process for the nomination. By virtue of that fact minority voters in core urban Democratic groups -- blacks and Latinos especially, and gays to a smaller extent, are essentially disfranchised from the nomination process unless they're for Dean.

Remember, even among the younger voters, there has been wider availability of technology and computer training in suburban and wealthy schools than in cash-strapped urban educational facilities.

The good news, as we have read here, is that the media is starting to focus on the alternatives to Dean. After assuming the front-runner's status, any stumbles on Dean's part, or gains by his opponents, are going to be played up by the media.

[Tom Rinaldo]

69. I try to be generous of spirit about this

But I keep getting stuck. Given Gore's traditional standing as a "Head of the Democratic Party" given that he was the standard bearer in the last Presidential Election during which he won the popular vote, I keep finding myself resenting the fact that he essentially has asked the party to wrap up the nominating process before a single voter's vote was cast. It is Dean's task to put together the most successful campaign strategy that he can come up with, based on the assumption that a full primary season lay in front of all of us. I can't fault him for doing that. Gore is a different story. It smacks more of Mexican Presidential politics to designate one's heir apparent than it does of American Democratic (small and large "D") traditions.

[mbali]

72. I don't understand Gore's motive here

I see three scenarios playing out:

1. Dean fails to get the nomination. If this happens Gore's political capital drops to zero. After all, Dean was riding high until after Gore endorsed him and then he went nowhere. Of course, one thing wouldn't necessarily have to do with the other, but that's not how it will be read. People will believe that Gore was either the kiss of death, or - just as bad - a completely irrelevant part of the process. Either way, it's bad for Gore.

2. Dean gets the nomination but loses to Bush. Again, this would come back to bite Gore. Not only would he be criticized for backing the wrong horse (and would we want to trust our political futures to a guy who is so bad at picking winners?), but, depending on how the election goes, he could be blamed for injecting himself into the primaries and forcing a losing candidate on the party.

3. Dean gets the nomination and beats Bush. This doesn't help Gore much either since, if Dean wins in 2004, he'll more than likely be the Democratic standard-bearer in 2008 as well, leaving Gore out in the cold at least until 2012 (and that's if Dean's VP doesn't run - otherwise, Gore's in the wilderness indefinitely.)

Perhaps Gore really and truly believes that Dean is the best hope for the party. But given Gore's record, his views, and his politics, I just don't believe his entire decision was based upon such pristine considerations.

But time will tell.

[Jerseycoa]

81. This point

I don't entirely agree with this:

"After all, Dean was riding high until after Gore endorsed him and then he went nowhere."

Dean has party insiders climbing onboard early, who probably wouldn't have without the Gore blessing. He's also dominated media coverage, partly due to the endorsement and its aftermath. It seems to have thrown him ahead of the pack in Iowa, for instance. He's pulled in ever more money from his faithful. Dean's riding as high as ever, but with more ammunition than he had before Gore's endorsement.

What bothers me most is Dean and Gore appear to have had no compunction about damaging the party, not to mention the electorate, and the democratic process. Either they didn't think about it, which is unlikely, or, more likely and more damning, didn't care what this would do to the party and to the primary; and Democrats who support other candidates, who would like to see a fair fight, instead of a fixed one, and are feeling distressed, disenfranchised, angry, and hurt.

As far as intent goes, were we all not supposed to notice Gore's joining a Dean event in Harlem two blocks from Clinton's office and in Rangel's district and Sharpton's turf, as a setting for dropping this particular bomb? Even if Gore had announced in Iowa, the disappointment would still have been felt, but the preemptive strike in Harlem makes it impossible to see it as anything but an opening volley in a battle for the party.

I'm not a major Sharpton fan, but when he called it "bossism," he called it what it is. As a result of this bossism, we are left fighting with each other instead of fighting George Bush, and told that if we want to beat George Bush, we have no choice but to suck it up and back Howard Dean. If we don't, we are guilty of destroying party unity, not Dean and Gore, who blasted that unity to smithereens in the first place.

Wasn't this precisely the sort of thing the so-called Dean revolution was supposed not to be about? Bossism, insider wheeling and dealing, betrayal of campaign finance reform, buying delegates in cash-strapped districts? It's just business as usual, isn't it?

I wouldn't trust Howard Dean or Al Gore on a single thing after this fiasco. I don't trust them with the party and I don't trust them with the White House. I hope like hell the anti-Dean candidate moves up, and moves up sooner rather than later.

[jumptheshadow]

84. I personally believe Gore had sincere motives

He liked Dean's campaign, and, perhaps as importantly, Tipper and Dean had worked on mental health policies together. Dean courted Gore, and, in the end, his endorsement was an honest one. Strategically he probably believes that, given Bush's bushels of cash and readiness to mount a nasty, aggressive campaign, it's best to decide upon our candidate early.

There were two problems with Gore's endorsement: 1) He didn't anticipate the negative reaction it would get and the fact that it would so deeply wound many Democratic activists, and, 2) He called upon us to rally behind a weak candidate. (That is my opinion, and, as you know, it's not shared by everybody.)

Instead of uniting the party he divided it. The other candidates who had loyally backed him took his endorsement of Dean personally. The voters, who know how historically significant this election is, were more motivated than ever to back candidates they believe are more electable than Dean.

[auburnblu]

105. Third problem with Gore's endorsement

He could have done the decent thing and told his 2000 running-mate in advance. Joe L went out of his way and said I won't run if Al does, and how is that repaid? Gore should be ashamed of himself.

[mbali]

106. This was extremely tacky

and completely unnecessary.

I can't imagine why Gore did not give Lieberman a heads up. The claim that they were worried that word would get out just doesn't hold water. Not only was it mean-spirited, it was stupid since it diverted attention away from the endorsement to the mechanics behind it, made Gore look petty and gave Lieberman a little bit of a boost, albeit a temporary one. And, then to follow up it up with an event in Charlie Rangel's and Bill Clinton's backyard only made it seem even more ham-handed.

Like the early endorsement itself, the petty way it was handled makes no sense to me.

Of course, Gore is the guy who let one of the worst and least qualified candidates within memory get close enough to steal an election away from him, so maybe I shouldn't be surprised that he also bobbled the endorsement.

[adadem]

80. Well put n/t

[frustrated_lefty]

74. Wonderful, thoughtful post, Mbali

I would contest one point though, and would ask you to give it thought.

You state: "If Dean is the best person for the job of taking on W, he'll win a marathon just as handily as he would win a sprint, and earn a lot more respect and credibility for his efforts."

At first glance, this makes sense and seems agreeable. Any candidate we put forth to challenge Bush should be subject to intense scrutiny.

I'm bothered, though, by having 9 candidates on the field. The "debates," thus far, have been a joke. Too many people, too little time, they each try and fit in the best sound byte because there isn't time for anything of substance.

More importantly, as candidates become more desperate they resort to smear campaigns. Rather than standing on issues and policies, they devote more time and resources to tearing the other guy down. This doesn't "season" our candidates, it makes them devote time and resources to countering the accusations, and leaves everyone with a oily feel of corruption. It detracts from our effort to defeat Bush in 2004.

And that is the goal. This nation can not withstand another 4 years of Bush. We can not tolerate a circular firing squad in this season. We need to get viable candidates on the field discussing issues of substance and not squeezing out sound bytes.

I understand and agree with your basic point. This is a representative democracy and people should have their views reflected within it. In this season, though, look at what we stand against. This is not a time to quibble, this is a time to save our nation and its values.

[mbali]

76. I agree that 9 candidates is a problem . . .

But I also don't think that any one of them should be forced out prior to a single vote being cast simply because the polls and pundits (which feed on each other) say they don't have a chance. Each of them represents a point of view that deserves to be heard.

That being said, I also believe that the primary process will naturally whittle down the field fairly quickly. When the votes are counted in the first three primaries, we will have fewer candidates in the race, making it much easier for the rest to get their message out. And, if we resist the urge to settle on a nominee before February 4, we will likely get a much more valuable and successful primary process.

[Egnever]

82. OK now I dont understand your point

In your first point you seem to be sugesting that its not right that the first few primaries are deciding who the candidate is and that it negates the feelings of the rest of the country. Then in this point you say that you believe the primary process will whitle down the field as if that was not what you were trying to say was wrong with the process in the first place.

:shrug:

You seem to be taking both sides of this issue.

its bad that the nominee is decided before the votes are cast/ Its good that the field will be whittled down before the votes are cast.

????

Secondly I agree that it is important for everyone to have thier issues addressed and that by prematurely coronating someone we take some of the power to frame the platform away from the people pushing thier agendas.

But I am curious why Dean gets your attention? Is there someone in the race that you feel addresses your issues better than Dean does? If so who and why? Unfortunately I dont think Sharpton or braun will get the nod as much as I like Carol. That leaves us with a bunch of old white men. Which of these old white men do you feel is representing your positions the best and why?

How many primaries would a candidate have to dominate before you felt your vote was not dissmissed?

I personaly think theres a long way to go yet and this decision is far from made however I think the call to stop eating our own is a fair one. Make policy distinctions all you like but for the love of god can we try to avoid the outright spin? I dont like ity when it hapens against any of our candidates as it just provides fodder for the oposition to run with come GE time.

I think you should support your chosen candidate honestly till the end of the primaries. I wouldnt ask anyone to do any different. However The attacks perpetuated on a variety of candidates on this board stemming from right wing talking points is disgusting and couter productive to the ultimate goal of getting bush out of office, something I think any one of our candidates should easily accomplish as long as we unite behind whoever the eventual nominee is.

[mbali]

89. I'll explain . . .

In your first point you seem to be sugesting that its not right that the first few primaries are deciding who the candidate is and that it negates the feelings of the rest of the country. Then in this point you say that you believe the primary process will whitle down the field as if that was not what you were trying to say was wrong with the process in the first place . . .

You seem to be taking both sides of this issue.

Not at all. There is a considerable difference between some candidates dropping out of the race after the first few primaries if they are unable to generate enough votes to remain viable and one candidate emerging as "the one" after the same number of primaries based upon the votes of a small group of people in a few states.

But I am curious why Dean gets your attention?

Because he has managed to get on my last nerve.

Just joking. He has gotten my attention because I think he is a very weak candidate who will remain weak if not held accountable for his positions and approach. I'm afraid that the kid gloves treatment he is getting and seems to expect will leave him soft and vulnerable and, if he is the nominee, BushRove will eat him alive. And he has offended me more than once with the attitude he has displayed on an issue that I care deeply about.

Is there someone in the race that you feel addresses your issues better than Dean does? If so who and why?

I am an Edwards supporter, for a number of reasons, one of which is his innate comfort level with and understanding of the race issue. It's not something he talks about ad nauseum because people who really understand the problem also know that it doesn't lend itself to bragadoccio and pat rhetoric. It's too deep to play with. Edwards knows this, he takes it very seriously and it's just part of who he is.

However, I think all of the candidates have better track records and are far ahead of Dean on this issue. Gephardt, Clark, Kerry, and Lieberman all have strong records and clear positions. Like Edwards, they don't just throw around nice-sounding bromides, pretending to be experts on a subject that everyone is grappling with. They don't lecture voters and one another on the topic as if they have achieved perfect knowledge on all things race. Unlike the other candidates, Dean hasn't done one damned thing to distinguish himself on race and civil rights (again, I'm not mad at him - he can't help where he comes from), except talk about how he's talking about it, yet he not only insists that he's doing such great things, he also has repeatedly implied that the others don't measure up to him.

[Egnever]

90. Ahhh and there it is

Because he has managed to get on my last nerve.

I apreciate the reply you have cleared it all up for me. Unfortunately the clarity is unapealing to me.

You seem to be mad at Dean for talking about race, and like Edwards because he doesnt talk about it.

It's too deep to play with. Edwards knows this

It sounds like, and I could be reading you entirely wrong, that you just dont want to talk about it. It also sounds like you are mad at Dean because when he talks about race he is in your eyes doing so clumsily. You dont actually dissagree with dean you just are mad at him for the way he says it.

This is what I take from what you have written here.

You seem to feel that the only reason that he speaks about race is to pander and nopt because he actually believes that people should be treated equally. This seems like a very cynical and bitter position to take. Again i could be reading your post completely wrong but thats how it apears to me.

As far as the Chosen one theory.

What percentage of the 8 states vote does a candidate need to get in order to be considered viable?

Lets assume that Dean carries those 8 states with 40 % of the votes in each state and the nearest contender came in at 7% would they still be viable? And would this scenario cause you to concede that Dean is the one?

I am not even suggesting that this will happen but I am curious what your threashold is for considering a candidate Viable?

[mbali]

93. You obviously missed the part where I said

I was joking about Dean getting on my last nerve. It was a joke, get it?

It also sounds like you are mad at Dean because when he talks about race he is in your eyes doing so clumsily. You dont actually dissagree with dean you just are mad at him for the way he says it.

You're partially correct. Yes, I don't like how Dean talks about the subject and that's important since how a candidate talks about an issue says alot about how he views it.

My point is that this issue is very complex and does not lend itself to "just listen to me - I'll explain it to you 'cause I have all the answers" bromides. I believe that Edwards and the others understand this and are much more careful and thoughtful about how they approach the topic, which demonstrates a deeper comprehension of the issue and, perhaps, a deeper respect for those who have been dealing with it all their lives.

Dean's understanding of the race issue, regardless of his intentions, is an acre wide and an inch deep. As I've said, I wouldn't have a problem with that if he appeared to have enough self-reflection or humility to recognize his dearth of knowledge and made an effort to reach out on the issue. But he doesn't. He lectures, he postures, he insists that he is heads and shoulders above every other white politician (which would include Bill Clinton, Bill Bradley, Teddy Kennedy, and many others to whom Dean cannot even deign to hold a candle) on the subject, he complains that anyone who objects to his superficial attitude just doesn't understand what he's trying to do, as if he's just too deep for us to get.

Lets assume that Dean carries those 8 states with 40 % of the votes in each state and the nearest contender came in at 7% would they still be viable? And would this scenario cause you to concede that Dean is the one?

I'm not going to play with hypotheticals. My point is that I think it's far too early - especially since not a single vote has been cast - to insist that a Dean win is a foregone conclusion and that it should not be assumed that all he needs to do is win Iowa and New Hampshire to cement the victory.

[MidwestMomma]

98. I agree, it's about going beyond talking about the race issue

It's about celebrating our differences and embracing that which makes us all so different. It's about extending a hand to help someone up not just because it's the right thing to do but because it hurts you to see them down.

On principal, I will always support the rights of any minority but for me the question of race goes far beyond that. I genuinely love to be around people that are different from me. I learn from them, they learn from me. That's how the world should be.

I really do think that Bill Clinton said it best. He was on Larry King Live and a question was asked about why do African-Americans like you so much? He said, It's easy, 'cause I love them.

I think that is the emotion/feeling that comes from some politicians and people that other people can connect with. I don't know.

Hope this thread continues it's thoughtful discussions. It's been nice.

[mbali]

102. What a beautiful post

thanks for putting it so well.

[frustrated_lefty]

101. Bob Graham stepped down

and I admire that man immensely. He saw early on his campaign lacked the snuff to run the race. My wife and I both debate on who should take the office, but we both stand and applaud Bob Graham and the issues he stood on. Stepping out of the race doesn't mean your issues won't get addressed.

I agree, we should get through the primaries, but the party needs to get in a frame of mind where it can support the front runner.

[oasis]

78. Any DU thread with a thoughtful, civil discussion deserves a kick.

:kick: :thumbsup:

[RetroLounge]

79. So who is asking for a Dean Coronation?

I haven't seen the memo. I haven't been invited. Not a single vote has been cast yet. He's leading in some polls. So where's the crown?

Would you be posting the same if your candidate were leading those two states? (whomever your choice is...)

I think your post makes some valid points, and a few of the responses are nice and well thought out, but I question your Topic Heading.

[mzmolly]

86. Agreed

:toast:

[Scott Lee]

95. Agreed. Odd choice of words for a defender of the Kingmakers

or in other words, the Democratic Party Leadership.

[madfloridian]

100. See my post above about the DLC article on a coronation for Dean.

I thought it was a pretty rough article, like he was not toeing the line.

[Tatiana]

87. This is one of the best posts (and threads) I've read all year.

Kudos to you mbali. You've articulated much more eloquently my feelings on Dean, the primary process, the AA constituency and the Gore endorsement of Dean.

Regarding Dean... there's just something I can't put my finger on. Well, actually, I can. I believe he panders too much for votes. I believe, in an effort to gain more votes, he'll say what needs to be said to get elected, but will be hard-pressed to deliver come governing time. Dean is essentially a centrist politically, but I think the majority of his supporters are more left than he is. Why don't they support Kucinich, then? Is it Dean's policies and platform that gain him supporters or is it rhetoric?

I asked my grandmother (a life-long Democrat) what she thought of Dean. She said, "Well, at least he's tryin." She's an African-American, southern, retiree and she likes Clark, but appreciates that Dean is at least trying to address hot-bed issues such as the Confederate Flag. She likes Clark, however, not because of the fact that he's from her state, but she brought up an interesting point to me. She said she liked the fact that he was from the military. The military was one of the trailblazing institutions for integration. There is a large military presence in the South.

The military is a bit of a socialist institution in itself. People join to get a college education. They get their tuition paid, they get health care, housing, insurance... services that the rest of the civilian population could really benefit from. Who better to implement such services on a national level, than Clark, who has a familiarity with the way those social services run?

Basically, this thing isn't over, though Gore may have tried to tilt things a bit more in Dean's favor. If Dean is the nominee, I will support him regardless of the fact he isn't my preference, just like I supported Gore (though he wasn't my first choice). I have suspicions about Gore's motive in endorsing Dean at the time he did. I also happen to believe Gore benefited from widespread AA support because of loyalty to the party and to Clinton -- not out of the AA community being electrified and feeling a sense of kinship with Gore (as AAs have with Clinton).

[gulliver]

88. I agree. We're moving too fast, but also...

... the nine candidates (plus undecided) are splitting the votes so much that the front-runner status is meaningless. We need to be really careful with this important decision.

[ibegurpard]

97. Are you kidding?

I don't think ANYONE, least of all Dean supporters, think he has a lock on anything. I leave it to the supporters of other, dreamier candidates to tout their candidate's infallible electability.

[Myra]

103. I would hope that we could do much better than just accept Dean

The media darlin'.

[beaconess]

107. Interesting thread

deserves a kick.


:kick:

[oasis]

108. kick

[beaconess]

111. Kick

:kick: