Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Howard Dean, Barack Obama, and Political Rhetoric + Guess the Primary Candidate

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU
 
ellisonz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-02-11 05:54 AM
Original message
Howard Dean, Barack Obama, and Political Rhetoric + Guess the Primary Candidate
Edited on Fri Dec-02-11 06:05 AM by ellisonz
...There are a couple truths about successful politics that most politicians don't want to admit. There are two things that work and two that don't work in winning elections with a broad mandate.

1. People don't want to be fed platitudes and provocations for the sake of those two things alone.
2. People don't want to be fed the impression that you're more interested in beating the other guy than you are in working for them.

1. You can only state on a principles stand and how your particular position on policy is derived from in your own experience.
2. Never dismiss any group of voters out of hand and discount their belief that they are genuine in their convictions.

Avoid these two wrongs and practice the two rights and you stand a damn good chance of being elected.

Howard Dean and Barack Obama both followed these basic rules and both have achieved their objectives to a reasonable extent. Dean lost the primary but took back the Democratic party. Obama won the presidency and is now poised to win a second term. It's important to note that their fundraising models are almost identical. They have a lot in common and worked together beautifully in 2008 in wiping the floor with John McCain and Sarah Palin.

Here are examples of how correctly practicing these principles works rhetorically:

Dean

Governor Howard Dean Announces His Candidacy for President - Burlington, Vermont, June 23, 2003

This is a campaign to unite and empower people everywhere.

It is a call to every American, regardless of party, to join together in common purpose and for the common good to save and restore all that it means to be an American.

Over a year ago I began to travel the country in the usual way one does when seeking the Presidency.

I believed that, by running for President, I could raise the issues of health care for every American and the need to focus on early childhood development. I wanted to bring those issues to the forefront of the national debate. And I wanted to balance the budget to bring financial stability and jobs back to America.

Most importantly, I have wanted my party to stand up for what we believe in again.

But something changed along the way as I listened to Americans around this country. On my first trip to Iowa I heard people speak of a profound fear and distrust of multi-national corporations. From New Hampshire to Texas I met Americans doubting the words of our leaders and our government in Washington. Every where I go people are asking fundamental questions: Who can we trust? Is the media reporting the truth? What is happening to our country?

The Americans I have met love their country. They believe deeply in its promise, our values and our principles. But they know something is wrong and they want to take action. They want to do something to right our path. But they feel Washington isn't listening. And as individuals, they lack the power to change the course those in Washington have put us on.

http://www.crocuta.net/Dean/Transcript_of_Deans_Candidacy_Announcement_June23_2003.htm


And Obama:

Obama Presidential Announcement - February 10, 2007 - Springfield, Illinois

Finally, there is one other thing that is not too late to get right about this war - and that is the homecoming of the men and women - our veterans - who have sacrificed the most. Let us honor their valor by providing the care they need and rebuilding the military they love. Let us be the generation that begins this work.

I know there are those who don't believe we can do all these things. I understand the skepticism. After all, every four years, candidates from both parties make similar promises, and I expect this year will be no different. All of us running for president will travel around the country offering ten-point plans and making grand speeches; all of us will trumpet those qualities we believe make us uniquely qualified to lead the country. But too many times, after the election is over, and the confetti is swept away, all those promises fade from memory, and the lobbyists and the special interests move in, and people turn away, disappointed as before, left to struggle on their own.

That is why this campaign can't only be about me. It must be about us - it must be about what we can do together. This campaign must be the occasion, the vehicle, of your hopes, and your dreams. It will take your time, your energy, and your advice - to push us forward when we're doing right, and to let us know when we're not. This campaign has to be about reclaiming the meaning of citizenship, restoring our sense of common purpose, and realizing that few obstacles can withstand the power of millions of voices calling for change.

By ourselves, this change will not happen. Divided, we are bound to fail.

http://obamaspeeches.com/099-Announcement-For-President-Springfield-Illinois-Obama-Speech.htm


Two different politicians, two different styles, but the substance of the speech is the same: we must unite to change the politics of our country because we ought to, because its the right thing to do, and I'm not going to do that by wavering in my fundamental personal principles or by making political calculations; this is destiny.

Of course they both had and still have no end of naysayers who think they didn't play the political game correctly because they transcended their political competition.

Now here are two unnamed examples of political rhetoric that doesn't work because they we're consistent in projecting the two aforementioned (I tried to pick one's people wouldn't recognize and I will post a link to the full texts if requested.)

Again.

1. People don't want to be fed platitudes and provocations for the sake of those two things alone.
2. People don't want to be fed the impression that you're more interested in beating the other guy than you are in working for them.

1. You can only state on a principles stand and how your particular position on policy is derived from in your own experience.
2. Never dismiss any group of voters out of hand and discount their belief that they are genuine.

We, the American people, must assert ourselves. In times of stress and peril in this country’s history, including world wars, a great depression, assassinations and attacks, other generations have put their differences aside, remembered their common beliefs and overcame great obstacles. And we've come out stronger and wiser for it. Now it’s our turn. No one person, including the President, has the ability or wisdom to singlehandedly solve these problems; nor does one Party. But together the American people do. These problems will be dealt with when our leaders come together, as adults, and honestly seek solutions that extend past the next election cycle. That will happen when -- and only when -- the American people demand it. Now you can do that at the ballot box and no election is more important than the one for President. And it demands a leader who understands this country, our people, and what America’s priorities ought to be.

Recently, I talked to a young Marine at Walter Reed Hospital. He had lost both legs in Iraq but was looking to the future. I asked him what he planned to do? He said he wanted to work with a nonprofit organization that was doing a lot to help people. Then he looked at me and said “I just thought it was time I gave something back.”

That young man, who's given so much for America, and yet still asks to give more, is typical of the men and women of the United States armed forces. Our country has shed more blood for the freedom of other people than all the other countries in the world combined. We are steeped in the tradition of honor and sacrifice for the greater good. We are proud of this heritage. I believe that Americans are once again ready to achieve this greater good: which is nothing less than the security, prosperity, and unity of our country.

That’s the belief that this campaign is based upon. I appreciate your support of this cause and any contribution you’re able to give. I’ll try to make you proud that you did it.


And another:

"I thank God for my mother's savings, the church scholarship, and the government loans that were the only way this Teamster's son could go to college. I want every child to have the chances I had, to go as far as their dreams and hard work can carry them.

"I'm not going to say what's fashionable in our politics -- that I'm a Washington outsider, that I couldn't find the nation's capitol on a map, that I have no experience in the highest levels of government. I do, and I think experience matters. It's what our nation needs right now.

"I'm not the political flavor of the month. I'm not the flashiest candidate around. But the fight for working families is in my bones. It's where I come from; it's been my life's work.

"With your help, we can take that fight to the most powerful office in the history of humankind. We can build an America where we grow together, instead of being pulled apart - where our economy's strong, because all our families are secure - where nobody's left out or left behind."


Most politicians say essentially the same things and it's really not so much what you say, but how you say it that determines whether or not you pass the authenticity test and are able to build a political movement to propel you to victory. People have to believe that you really mean what your saying. Following the contrived model of running a campaign like a Broadway theater production can only take you so far. The people want Shakespeare.

No Cheating. Do you know who they are? First person wins an all expenses paid tour of the Lounge ;-)

I hope you enjoyed my thoughts on political rhetoric and why Dean and Obama were so successful in achieving their goals. :hi:
Refresh | +7 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-02-11 06:21 AM
Response to Original message
1. Nice post. Enjoyed it a lot.
The similarities are pretty big, however, I think Dean's message was stronger in 2004 than Obama's in 2008. Obama's message wasn't necessary as we were tired of Bush-esque politics. The "rise of the Tea Party" was a purely media fiction (absolutely propagandistic), and it's unfortunate that it happened. Whether the American people will learn from that, I don't know. I think it's only a matter of time before we do, but we'll see.

I think Obama would've been fine without the "across the isle" rhetoric. American's wanted an historic election away from Bush's incessant policies. They got it for the most part.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
ellisonz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-02-11 06:40 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Thank you.
The political environment in 2008 was different than in 2004 when there was an incumbent to be dethroned. Moreover, people want to be told that you're going to have a big tent and work with the other side to get things done even if you know they're not that likely to cooperate. The whole idea that you can deliver the opposition on a silver platter on policy is a platitude and provocation that doesn't reflect the reality of needing 60 votes in the Senate.

"I still want to be the candidate for guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks. We can't beat George Bush unless we appeal to a broad cross-section of Democrats."

-Howard Dean

He caught a lot of flak for that, but it's true. Everyone deserves a chance to "come to Jesus," and telling them that they are not welcome in the process is counterproductive with nothing really lost politically. It's like splitting in blackjack.

The Tea Party is seen as a success because Democratic voters got complacent in 2010 and stayed home. 2012 will be a different story.

I'm sacking out.

P.S. I'll post who the two rhetorical hams are if no one guesses correctly in 24 hours.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-02-11 07:10 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. I think 2012 will definitely be different.
I think that if properly done that the left can make significant gains if they actually fight instead of have this defeatist "why bother vote" attitude just because the President isn't some sort of loud partisan.

However, I do maintain that we could've got that loud partisan in 2008, but since the "rise of the (fictional) Tea Party" it would've likely backfired bigtime, so it's almost a blessing in disguise that we got a very rational, very smooth, very cool headed person for a President. One who's able to completely play their hand while at the same time getting most of what he wants (people still don't appreciate that his deficit cuts and tax hikes were far bigger than the commission's).

In 2004 you could've never had that partisan, and Dean's yell was definitely (unfairly) described as a partisan wackjob.

Democrats are typically defeatists, I don't know why, I think there was a study about this, about leftist defeatism, but I'm not sure where I read this before. I think it almost comes down to a Messiah complex, only instead of wanting a religious figure we want a political figure to fix everything. The Republicans are strong in that vein because they already have their religious figure and their faith (despite the innate hypocrisy displayed by Republicans on that count), so their politician becomes rather than a savior, someone who they can do business with. But that's certainly stretching it a bit and I admit I'm musing here and don't particularly think this is a useful route for discussion. Just something that's crossed my mind over the years after having been a Deanic and certainly having had experienced that Messiah complex with Dean, myself. (He's still a really fantastic guy!)
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
ellisonz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-02-11 01:35 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. The whole yell thing was a complete distortion designed to keep him from coming back in NH.
He didn't even say anything incorrect, he was just the victim of a media attack on his excitement at coming in 3rd in Iowa when no one even expected him to place in the Top 3 before his breakout in the fall. In 2002, 90% of the Democratic Party couldn't even have told you who Howard Dean was. John Edwards and John Kerry didn't have the problem of being seen as a nobody outside challenger.

Poll: Dean's New Hampshire lead increases
HOWARD DEAN
December 04, 2003

Howard Dean has increased his already sizable lead in New Hampshire, according to a poll released Thursday.The survey by American Research Group found that Dean had 45 percent of the potential vote among respondents, far ahead of second-place John Kerry, whose support was at 13 percent.

Dean's support was 7 percentage points higher than a poll released November 20.

Kerry has dropped 4 percentage points since that poll.

A good number of the potential voters questioned -- 15 percent -- said they remained undecided.

http://articles.cnn.com/2003-12-04/politics/elec04.prez.new.hampshire.poll_1_american-research-group-new-hampshire-howard-dean?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS


They feared Dean because by standing up and contrasting himself from Bush while still appearing welcoming to the average voter he had the potential to beat Bush handily. No one could accuse Dean of flip-flopping on the issues or not having a firm stance, although they tried desperately to find anything to latch on to.

Elections against incumbents are precisely the time you want to contrast yourself against the other party in bold lettering; open elections are when you want to play down the contrast and present a big-tent philosophy. Pretty simple when you think about it.

I'm the grandson of Polish Jews, I don't believe in the "Messiah" and I certainly don't believe in a political figure fixing anything; it take to of us to change a light bulb. Q. How many Polacks does it take to change a light bulb? A. Three — one to hold the light bulb and two to turn the ladder.

C'mon Josh, not even a wager as to who mystery candidates 1. and 2. are?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-02-11 07:36 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. The thing I admired most was the 50 state strategy.
I thought that a candidate that could avoid putting himself on a pedestal and who focused on the entire process was the best choice.

As far as 1 and 2, I know 2 is Gephardt (Teamster's son, dead giveaway), but I don't know about 1. I'm thinking 2008 candidate, but I only followed Obama and Hillary very closely during that time (if you remember the epic primary debates you'd remember me!). The reference to world wars implies at least an older candidate, so it leaves out Edwards.

You got me. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
ellisonz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-02-11 07:46 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. Gephardt is correct.
The other is Fred Thompson in 2004. Folksy, out-of-touch melodramatic, and money grubbing - need a reverse mortgage?

The beauty of it is that it forces them to play defense everywhere

Be extremely subtle, even to the point of formlessness. Be extremely mysterious, even to the point of soundlessness. Thereby you can be the director of the opponent's fate.

-Sun Tzu

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Bluenorthwest Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-02-11 08:25 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. It is one thing to seek votes from Republicans while running
another to keep 'reaching out' to the losing side, giving them standing as if they had won, the People made the choice to send the GOP packing, the President spent 3 years telling me they are honest and his friends and he did not deliver any results from that ideological focus on 'reaching across the aisle'. It is different to keep 'reaching out' campaign style while governing with an opposition Party involved. They lost, and that seems to upset dear Mr President. Does not upset me, or other Democratic voters. At all.
Also so sick of 'Democratic voters stayed home'. Much of the country had record level turn out. And elected Democrats. Entire regions did so. Sorry to fuss the meme, facts are facts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
ellisonz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-02-11 01:20 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Would you care to back up your facts with sources?
1.
Young Voter Turnout Fell 60% from 2008 to 2010; Dems Won't Win in 2012 If the Trend Continues
John Nichols on November 16, 2010 - 9:10am ET

Everyone knows that young voters were less enthused about the 2010 midterm elections than they were about the 2008 presidential election, when their votes powered Barack Obama to a landslide victory and gave Democrats big boosts in Congressional contests. But detailed studies of the election reveal that the decline in voting by Americans aged 18 to 29 was actually more serious than initially imagined.

In 2008, polls showed that young people were overwhelmingly supportive of Obama and the Democrats. And they turned out in droves. According to the research group CIRCLE—The Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning and Engagement—which tracks civic engagement among young voters, 51 percent of 18- to-19-year-olds voted that year.

In 2010, polls showed that young people were still supportive of Obama and the Democrats. But only 20.9 percent of them bothered to vote.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/156470/young-voter-turnout-fell-60-2008-2010-dems-wont-win-2012-if-trend-continues


And another:

December 29, 2010 at 2:02 PM EDT
Midterm Results Reveal Problems for Democrats in Key Communities

By: Dante Chinni

Yes, Iowa and New Hampshire are more than a year away, but for presidential hopefuls the political calculations are already well underway. For many they started the Wednesday after Election Day 2008. Tapping into the American electoral zeitgeist is no easy task however and a Patchwork Nation analysis of the vote in 2008 versus 2010 shows just how much the landscape has changed. Both were big change wave elections, but we do not yet know if 2012 will be as charged a political environment.

The Democrats lost ground in all of Patchwork Nation's county types in the 2010 House vote compared to the vote in 2008 -- including the reliably "blue" big city Industrial Metropolis and Campus and Career locales. But most troubling for President Obama and the members of his party would have to be the numbers from the wealthy, largely suburban Monied Burbs.

The vote in the Burbs is typically close, but it swung heavily to the Democrats in 2008, when Democratic House candidates won there by 11 percentage points. Those same Burb counties were arguably why Barack Obama won the presidency in 2008 - as we note in the book "Our Patchwork Nation."

In 2010, that margin not only disappeared, the swinging Burbs swung to the GOP. Republican House candidates won the total vote from the Monied Burbs in the midterms - 50 percent to 47 percent. The Burbs -- with 286 counties and 69 million people -- are key to Mr. Obama's chances for reelection and the GOP's hopes of unseating him. The 2010 results seem to show they are very much in play and suggest 2008 may be have been an aberration.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2010/12/midterm-results-reveal-problems-for-democrats-in-key-communities.html


You're entitled to your opinion, but I'll listen to the political statisticians. Besides, what ulterior motives could the Nation and PBS have in publicizing such a "meme"? Moreover, mid-term elections almost never result in net gains for the incumbent party. If he didn't get anything done, why do you think the GOP reaction has been so extreme? Obviously, they feel very threatened by the Presidency of Barack Obama.

2. It's not necessarily supposed to win the legislative battle - you generally have to do that at the ballot box. What it is designed to do is win elections, and we won big in 2008. In such a polarized environment, you're not going to get opposition lawmakers to vote against their Party. It wouldn't matter if Dennis Kucinich himself was President, they're not going to do it.

3. President Obama has gotten a lot done whether you like to admit it or not: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/rulings/promise-kept/

Any guess as to the two rhetorical hams are above?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
ellisonz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-02-11 05:20 PM
Response to Original message
7. Anybody - care to wager a guess.
Edited on Fri Dec-02-11 05:20 PM by ellisonz
Hint: The two represent both parties, and one is from 2004 and the other 2008. They both flopped big time.

And no cheating :o
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Enrique Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-02-11 07:42 PM
Response to Original message
9. most candidates sound the same to me
no, I couldn't reliable tell Howard Dean from Barack Obama. If you threw in John Kerry, John Edwards, Joe Lieberman, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton and a bunch more I still wouldn't be able to tell.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
ellisonz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-02-11 07:47 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. Fred Thompson and Richard Gephardt.
Bland :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Dec 21st 2024, 10:40 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC