Most of Dean's book is a guide, but there are some things of interest.

[madfloridian]

We knew them, but they are apparently mentioned in passing.

http://www.theledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040909/APA/409091059

SNIP..."In Dean's "You Have The Power," centrist Democrats get much of the blame for allowing right-wing Republicans to rise to national power. Dean also complains that reporters and editors give too much attention to campaign strategy and not enough to the issues...."

SNIP.."Although there is little introspection, the former Vermont governor does offer some insights into what he went through as he segued from the one-time Democratic front-runner with an unrivaled campaign war chest to an also-ran. He describes in one passage the lowest point of the campaign, one he called "a real crisis of faith."

SNIP..."He writes that he learned shortly before the Wisconsin primary that some of his Democratic rivals had created a political action committee with $1 million to attack him before the leadoff Iowa caucuses. He said he found out that former Sen. Robert Torricelli, a New Jersey Democrat who resigned during a campaign finance scandal, had provided $50,000..."

SNIP..."President Clinton was calling Democrats encouraging them to switch allegiances in the months before the Iowa caucuses to retired Gen. Wesley Clark. Dean recounts that one of the people Clinton called was a Dean supporter who described how the former president said that Dean "had forfeited his right to run for president." That was because, Dean writes, he had signed a law creating civil unions for gay and lesbian couples and Clinton believed Dean couldn't be elected as a result....." (That had to have hurt him inside.)

[realFedUp]

1. Howard, you have the power

to still move millions of us. Thank you.

[madfloridian]

2. A lot of us shared his "crisis of faith."

Glad he had Gore to help him through it. I believe many of us have been going through that same state of mind about the state of the party.

[Larkspur]

3. Yep, I too wondered why I was a Democrat after reading about

the Tammeney Hall politics played upon Dean. But then I remembered that I rejoined the party to help candidates, like Dean, to take our party back from the cronys who call themselves Democrats.

[madfloridian]

4. I am sure what I am doing until November, but still in crisis sort of.

We are voting for Kerry, working to get Democrats elected to congress, and then I don't know what we will do. Definitely with Dean and DFA, just not sure about the rest.

[AP]

14. The imperative to win, and the need to make strategic decisions doesn't

stop after November.

You always have to think strategically.

[Cheswick2.0]

24. their strategy sucked and it is showing now

why elect democrats at all if they are going to act like spineless republicans?

[AP]

11. There's two ways to look at that. Clinton was right.

I'm not sure I trust the characterization of Clinton's call coming from someone who was frimly on Dean's side. However, Clinton would have be right if he argued that it was going to be very hard for Dean to win given his support of civil unions.

I think the thing to remember is that a lot of people who really wanted to win in November saw Dean's rise as something that was only going to end in tears if he were the nominee.

[eridani]

17. Civil unions would not make any difference if--

--Dems would go back to doing lunchpail issues first. As Sharpton said, who you are in bed with at night makes much less difference than whether or not you have a job to go to in the morning.

http://www.counterpunch.org/bageant09092004.html

Although my people seem to step on their own dicks (I couldn't think of a female metaphor) every time they get near polling place, it is not entirely because we are drunken inbreds, although it is a contributing factor. The truth is that Dottie would vote for any candidate, black, white, crippled blind or crazy, that she thought would actually help her. I know because I have asked her if she would vote for a president who wanted a nationalized health care program?" "Vote for him? I'd go down on him!" Voter approval doesn't get much stronger than that.

But no candidate, Republican or Democrat, is going to offer nationalized health care, not the genuine article. Of course we expect the Republicans to be pricks, but the Democrats are no better. Guys like John Kerry think they can stay in Washington and BUY progress with the money they take from health care industry lobbyists buying off both parties with campaign contributions. John Kerry does not know anybody in Dottie's class. John Edwards claims to, but he's not very convincing to these people. As Dink puts it, "Neither one of 'em gets me hard." If Dot is lucky, a Democratic pollster might call her, take her political temperature over the phone to be fed into some computer. But that is about as much contact as our system is willing to have with a 300 pound diabetic woman with a small bird and a husband too depressed to get out of his TV chair other than to piss or stumble off to his car washing job.

[AP]

18. I think the point was that civil unions would have been a distraction from

the lunchpail issues.

And if you're picking nationalized health care as the lunchpail issue you want to ride on, I think John Edwards already told us exactly why that wouldn't happen. I believe he asked voters what they thought had changed since Clinton tried health care. He said the problem wasn't that people didn't want it, it was that the economic forces that do want it were way too powerful and well funded and could convince a lot of people that it was evil, and that the people who wanted national health care could not get the resources to convince voters to vote for it right now. I believe the health care industry has gone from 10% of the GDP to over 20% in the last eight years, so they're twice as powerful.

If you listened to him, he had the perfect solution: mandate health care for people to the age of 21. Make it a law, like having to educate peopel. Why? So that insurance companies can't refuse. And Americans always believe in sacrificing for the kids. What's big insurance going to do? Say they're not going to eat a little profit for the kids? No way. So, you force health insurance companies to provide cheap insurance for these people. Edwards promised that that would give democrats time to get the political will and momentum to get national health care within ten years. Know how? By creating a criticall mass of people who suddenly at 21 ask themselves why they don't get to keep having health insurance. Those people will realize that health insurance should be an entitlement because it creates more security, happiness, and wealth in other places where it matters more. Those people would then push their representatives for national health care, and they won't take no for an answer, and the health care industry won't be able to talk them out of it with a billion dollar advertising campaign.

Furthermore, Edwards was going to spend those ten years doing a whole host of things that would reduce the power of big companies, including real CFR, real, progressive corporate taxation, and financing research on cures, rather than treatments.

But, anyway, the point of hoping that Dean wasn't going to be the nominee was that Democrats who wanted to win didn't want to be caught between the rock and hard place of talking only about Dean being a pacifist and a person who wanted to destroy the institutions of marriage, and it was so they could talk about jobs, the economy, and America acting responsibly in the world.

[eridani]

19. And what if you kept hitting the lunchpail issues hard?

And diverted the civil union question every time it came up to "How will stopping gay people from having civil unions bring back outsourced jobs? How will it get you health care?"

Hey, I think Edwards is a perfectly fine VP candidate, but he and Kerry are all wet about health insurance. Kids, once past infancy, are an even healthier demographic than employed adults, which is why insurance companies wouldn't mind covering them. But, dammit, this whole idea of singling out healthy demographics for coverage and doing your damndest to exclude sick people, or people who are likely to get sick, IS THE WHOLE PROBLEM WITH PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE. It's like having a fire department that refuses to work in the census tracts proven most likely to have fires. It defeats the entire idea of insurance, which is to spread risk. The whole purpose of private insurance is to take money from healthy people and keep as much of it as possible away from sick people, which is a moral and ethical abomination. (And yes, healthy people should be forced to have health insurance for the same reason they are forced to pay property taxes to maintain the fire department. No discounts are allowed for not having a fire, and none should be allowed for staying healthy.)

Edwards is right about the power of the insurance industry, but countering it with young people who grow out of it is the worst possible strategy. 21 year olds think they are immortal, they won't notice their insurance is gone (and probably never will never notice having had it in the first place), and will most likely choose as their insurance plan the option of not getting sick. And guess what? 95% of the time that will out work just fine for them. No, the most powerful advocates of universal health care are the sick, and those people in or approaching the age demographics most likely to have health problems.

According to the Pew Foundation, 89% of Democrats and 51% of Republicans prefer universal health care to the Bush tax cuts. If we can't organize those people to get it, shoeleather against money, then what in bleeding hell is wrong with us?!?!? What could change from 1993 is a president who quits being a wuss and says "Health care for EVERYONE, NOW!!"

Dean, Kucinich, or any other candidate who chose to keep diverting any question to the lunchbucket issues could win that way. Not a single candidate running, including Kerry and Edwards, is immune to the Rethug smear machine, as everyone ought to know by now.

[AP]

20. Hitting on that lunchpail issue would be in this form:

let's set aside the issue of marriage for a moment, and just say for now that the president of the US of A, who only has control over the Federal gov't, should ensure that married people and same-sex couples have all the same rights. Ie, every right that the Fed Gov't confers on married people should be conferred on same sex couples and to not do so would be discrimination.

Who said that? In the primaries, Kerry and Edwards both said that.

To shift that discussion from one about rights and helping people work and live effiiciently to one about the conservative insititutions of marriage and relgion was always a bad idea, and Dean's actions in VT had ensured that that was the only place he could go.

I'll say it again: Kerry and Edwards do want to talk about the lunchpail issues in a clear, effective and forceful way. Dean NEVER was going to be able to do that because he became to entwined on one end in a discussion about marriage and religion (rather than rights in the workplace and in society) and at the other end about America not being strong abroad.

I think your criticism is all wrong about health insurance. Many young people are accutely aware of the implications of health insurance. Many wear glasses, go to the dentist, take medications. Those who don't do make decisions about employment based on insurance. They would definitely speak up.

[eridani]

22. Almost no health care plans have real coverage for vision and dental

Besides which, I have had a long history of working in health care activist organizations. There are some young people involved, but the membership bases are heavily skewed toward older people. Think about it. Who agitates for a stoplight at a crosswalk near a school more intensely? Someone who had a kid get run over, or people whose kids are grown? Old and/or sick people worry about health more than young and healthy people, period.

The problem Dean would have had is one of framing--the Repukes are going to go after him on civil unions, but so what? All the candidates had some other problem like that--for Kerry it was his antiwar testimony in 1971. The point is to take the initiative back, and none of the candidates really had more advantages than the other in that respect.

[AP]

23. Again, the point is that if you say we, as a society, are making...

...a sacrifice or a concession for the kids, (1) people will get on board, as they always do, (2) insurance companies won't be able to say no or they'll look like ghouls. "We're doing it for the kids! Sound familiar? Insurance companies will also know that it's not going to cost them too much, so they won't really fight it.

I actually think the age that was going to be the cut off at first was 25. That takes you through your job search years when you're really thinking about these things and when you'll appreciate the flexibility and you'll realize that you probably generated more income tax revenue for the gov't by being able to chase the best job without worrying about benfits stopping and starting months later.

I really think there will come a critical mass of people who will wonder what the big deal is about not going on beyond 21 or 25 or whatever the year is.

Edwards also wanted to help people at the top end of the age bracket by gradually increasing coverage for old people. That's great, but it has to be done gradually because it IS expensive.

I see no other way to transition: it gives time to take some politcal power away from health care and it gets people to appreciate the social value of health care as an entitlement. The very reason you say that it can't be done is why it has to be done that way. You want the full impact felt yesterday. Well, because the full impact is so huge, that's why there's so much resistance to having it happen that way. We can either fight for 50 years for Kucnich's version and get nothing for the 50 years we're fighting, or we can chip away today, get a few things that actually make a difference in people's lives today, and then build up the will to get it done the right way in 10-15 years.

One more thing:

It is so naive to think "Civil unions. so what. They all had problems." Dean would have been killed on that issue alone. Haven't you been paying attention to the set up for the last year? They were playing this up to be a major issue. It would have been HUGE had Dean been the nominee.

[Cheswick2.0]

25. no, he was wrong and he was an Asshole

for doing what he did. He almost singlehandedly ruined it for Gore and then whined about not being trotted out like a trophy at every Gore campaign stop. Now he decides what democrats deserve support.
Fuck him.

[AP]

30. Gore ran a terrible campaign, and he only has himself and Karenina to...

...blame.

[Cheswick2.0]

32. bullshit

Gore won the race and has the democratic party to blame for not backing him up in the recount. The talk of him refusing help is nothing but bullshit.

[AP]

34. Who didn't back Gore up? Jackson and Sharpton whom Gore told...

...to forget about it? Clinton, to whom Gore wouldn't even talk?

[loyalsister]

68. Flip side

One of our best candidates just lost a primary because he didn't oppose the bigot Amendment in Missouri strongly enough. I'm not so sure Clinton was on target. There are a lot of people who are on the sidelines who think they know what's happening but, if you're actually in the trenches talking to people, you see a different story.
Even if the Democrat were to win, it would be a hollow victory. She is running for Lt. Gov and her job is to run the Senate. Not a job a person can do easily without experience. The Republicans would probably love to have her because they could run over her.

[SharonAnn]

48. Me too. Regardless of this election's outcome, I'm committed

to working on building a stronger, more real Democratic Party.

We've got some very sclerotic "leaders" here in Tennessee.

[janx]

49. Well he sure managed to educate people about politics.

You can bet that after this election there's going to be a call for some serious reform.

[madfloridian]

62. Amen.

Yes, there will be.

[Ripley]

5. Clinton is an asshole.

I can't believe he did that! That's the first I heard about his call. Dean was ahead of his time signing that bill and he did it at personal risk.

Why do Democrats beat up on each other almost as much as Repukes?

[Rich Hunt]

8. actually

The question is: why do some Democrats beat up on a whole lot of other Democrats?

[Eloriel]

9. That wasn't all -- Clinton was behind Clark entering the race

and the whole purpose was to stop Dean.

[Ripley]

10. I did hear that one.

But it seems like he dropped Clark pretty quickly after he got in. I know politics is hardball, but dirty tricks within their own party is pretty self-defeating no?

[Eloriel]

12. IF he dropped Clark, it was only because

Clark did so poorly once out of the gate. Or perhaps he wanted to continue to "appear" neutral.

[AP]

13. I think the only reason Clark ran was to give the anti-war Dems someone

besides Dean (and Kucinich) and to cover Kerry's back from Edwards in the south.

I don't think Clinton or anyone thought Clark had a realistic shot at the nomination.

[Cheswick2.0]

27. Exactly AP.. it was nothing but dirty tricks

adn self destructive of the party to boot.

[napi21]

16. Bill Clinton is the leader of the party...stll!

We all know that candidates aren't really chosen by the public, they're chosen by the Party. Remember McCain in 2000? I don't understand exactly they do this, but both partys do. With shrub, I think they wanted him because he was manueravible, and would do whatever they wanted, McCain was a rebel and would do what he thougt best for the country.

I suppose it was a similar thing with Dean. He also is a rebel and no party wants that!

[janx]

47. SShhh! You're not supposed to know that!

Not too long ago, I saw a quote from Dean saying that things could have been worse and that candidates used to be chosen by guys smoking cigars in back rooms.

;-)

[Cheswick2.0]

26. Yes and Clark knew it which he admited on Charley Rose

While I think Clark was sincere in wanting to win the nomination, I no longer why such viocious Clark astro-turf showed up here and quickly disapeared when he dropped out.

PS... I am not talking about the regular DUers who sincerely supported Clark, or the new people who showed up and stuck around.

[robbedvoter]

41. Glad Dean opened a fresh can of mediawhores shit and you reminded me

some of the reasons that may keep me home of November 2 (I was just talking myself back into the BS - forgetting how ugly you are)
P.S. I have the video + transcript of that show and fail to see any "admission" Clinton did shit for Clark - while Gore told everyone primaries were over.
:puke:
PS So it was Clinton/Clark's fault that Dean lost in Iowa then? Interesting, idiotic and destructive. If he had any brain in his head, your hero would have waited to throw his stinkbombs AFTER November 2nd. His timing always sucked.
meanwhile, Clark's "astroturfers" gave him numerous standing ovations in Boston. Geez, maybe they actually existed?

[sparrowhawk]

42. Clark NEVER said any such thing ...

He received advice and support from Clinton but so did most (if not all) of the other candidates, including Dean.
By the way, this is the most VICIOUS thread I've seen on DU in a long time.

[janx]

46. Was it Clinton? Or was it the people who to this day feel that

they "made" Clinton? ;-)

[wyldwolf]

54. How dare he! How dare ANYONE seek the nomination other than Dean!

:eyes:

[Rich Hunt]

6. bless that man

Lotta people got to read this.

[Eloriel]

7. And people argued with us about Clinton's involvement in

sinking Dean.

I'm glad to know that Dean knows the truth about these things. He's far more forgiving a person than I, but then his main aim has always been defeating Bush.

[AP]

15. Clinton's main aim is defeating Bush too.

If Clinton sincerely felt that Dean wasn't going to win a general election, he had every right to make those calls and share his opinion. And I can't think of any other Dem who would have a better sense of what it takes for a Dem to win nationally in a climate like today's.

[Cheswick2.0]

28. Clinton's main aim was anti democracy

and that is the difference.

[AP]

29. It was winning the general election.

It's not really anti-democratic to have lots of people run. And it would have sucked to have let the media pick a candidate they knew couldn't win the general election.

[Cheswick2.0]

31. It is anti democratic to manipulate the primary

[AP]

35. The media was manipulating the primary in Dean's favor. So Clinton can't

suggest a few more candidates get in to offset the media BS?

And since when is having more choice undemocratic?

I wish Clark dropped out so that Edwards had a better chance on Southern Super Tuesday, but I don't fool myself into thinking that Kerry was always going to be the first choice of most voters.

And I think Clark getting into the race merely put things in greater relief and ensured a smoother transition towards the inevitable conclusion.

[unfrigginreal]

36. What a ridiculous statement

the media was intent on bringing Dean down from the beginning. You don't remember aghast anchors questioning how such an "extreme liberal" was getting so much support? It's a joke to suggest the media wanted to do anything other than tear Dean down.

Clinton played the primaries to get the candidate that he wanted and we're now seeing the results.

[madfloridian]

38. That has been my point.

There was more, but I won't revisit that now.

[GodHelpUsAll2]

40. I agree

It would have completely sucked big moose wangs to have Dean as the nominee and have the right beating him up over that nasty little civil union bill. What the hell was Dean thinking when he did that? Thank God we have a nominee that is out there talking about the issues and not having to defend his past actions.

Oh...........wait a minute.........

[wyldwolf]

58. How dare he! How dare ANYONE seek the nomination other than Dean!

How DARE he!

(John Stewart imitation of Zell Miller)

[unfrigginreal]

21. That's some disturbing info about Clinton

I do remember the many discussions about Clinton supporting Clark just to bring Dean down. I never fully believed it because I was such a big fan of Clinton. I don't doubt it now if Dean says it.

I suspect that Clinton got exactly who he wanted as our nominee because one thing is certain, Clinton's a genius at playing the game of politics.

[janx]

44. Wow! Same here! I never believed that Clinton, specifically,

was behind it. I'd like to read the book and see for myself what Dean says--in context.

[Cheswick2.0]

33. no matter what anyone says, what Clinton did was wrong

that is my opinion and it is not going to change. He has garaunteed I will never support his wife for President.
He should get out of politics and do something useful since he has no freaking clue anymore about what is right for this country.
This is 2004 not 1992 and Kerry/Edwards are no Clinton/Gore. The DLC has to go, they have taken one victory in 92 and turned it into a good way to loose power ever since. Clueless bunch of Dolts they are.

[madfloridian]

37. Kick because Ivan made me do it.

:kick:

[madfloridian]

39. And there is this little revelation he spoke of at Brown.

http://www.projo.com/extra/election/content/projo_20040910_dean10.361305.html

SNIP:.."In Dean's You Have The Power, centrist Democrats get much of the blame for allowing right-wing Republicans to rise to national power. Dean also complains that reporters and editors give too much attention to campaign strategy and not enough to the issues.

The 188-page book, published by Simon & Schuster, is due to be released Sept. 27. The Associated Press said it obtained a copy at a pre-release book-signing.

Dean said yesterday that the book also includes an anecdote in which then-Texas Gov. George W. Bush told Dean that he "hated" Christian conservatives so politically prominent in Texas."

[Cha]

80. Isn't that an interesting revelation?

"Dean said yesterday that the book also includes an anecdote in which then-Texas Gov. George W. Bush told Dean that he "hated" Christian conservatives so politically prominent in Texas."

[madfloridian]

94. And it is being totally ignored so they can slam Dean.

No one is reading it at all. Just ignoring it. It could be very interesting to see how that would play with Bush's TX bunch. You think?

No one is noticing it.

[janx]

99. There are probably all kinds of tidbits in there!

I can't wait to read it!

[janx]

100. I want an advance review copy now! I can't wait!

.

[madfloridian]

113. I can not figure why no one else finds that interesting.

:shrug:

Here is what the Kos poster copied from the book.

SNIP...DEAN..."I hadn't started out a Bush basher. In fact, I'd been predisposed to like George Bush. I knew him personally and had dealt with him professionally when we were both governors. He'd always been charming and hospitable to me and my family, both in the Governor's Mansion in Texas and at the White House. He'd always been more than upright in the business dealings between our states, keeping his word when he had no legal obligation to do so. What I knew of his record in Texas bespoke a moderate man who was willing to put pragmatism before ideology, to raise taxes when necessary to equalize state education spending, and to take some heat from the right wing of his party for doing so. ("I hate those people," he'd once snarled at me when I ribbed him at a White House governors' gathering about some trouble he was having in Texas with the Christian Coalition.)"

[robbedvoter]

43. Too bad Clark cannot respond - being busy attacking Bush and all

and Clinton recovering from surgery.
But if you want to go back to the promoting of the judgementally impaired, be my guest.
Only a dufus publishes a tell all book about the primaries on September 27. Apparently Nader ain't the only one starving for attention.

[janx]

45. Awww....!

Dean describes a middle-of-the-night cell-phone conversation in which Dean questioned why he was a Democrat.

The conversation was with Al Gore, who had endorsed Dean months before. It helped calm him, Dean writes, when the former vice president helped him deal with his anger and concentrate on getting out of the race after Wisconsin.

Dean describes how close he felt he had been to winning the nomination and then the devastation of losing it in a matter of weeks. Only Gore could help him regain perspective, Dean says, because of Gore's experiences in the extended recount of the Florida vote in 2000.

[madfloridian]

50. Dean does not appear to be critical of Clark, shows admiration for Clinton

in a review I read at the blog. In the OP above, he was stating facts, not being ugly.

Apparently he speaks of Clinton and the genius he shows as a politician. I gather he is saying this:

(paraphrasing)that the Democrats' strategy of moving toward the center worked not because it was successful policy, but because Clinton's "magnetism, charisma and personal appeal" made it work. I have heard him say that on TV....saying that the right of center was not working....it was the personality behind it.

I gather he is quite open and honest about his own mistakes, and one person said he seemed to be "becoming his own man".

I gather the main blame is reserved for the media, and I got the impression he named names and really went after the press. I don't have my copy yet, so going by what others say.

Now, as to the issue of his book coming out now, I have my opinions on it....others have theirs. Mine is that two books besides Trippi's are coming out. There have been articles by former staffers which put Dean in a bad light at times. Everyone is kissing and telling, and I feel he has a right.

NOW, I think the main reason may be his critique of the media....I understand it is powerful and he may have burned a few bridges.
Perhaps he has been infuriated at the media coverage of Kerry/Edwards. He has said it at speeches. Maybe he feels it might have an impact and help in some way. He does not criticize Kerry in the book, I gather, and I think the media stuff he has may play a part.

Get mad, get angry, whatever. Remember how many times we were told here that politics is ugly, get over yourselves? I do. Whatever the reason, it is his right.

And another thing, maybe the party stuff needs to come out a little. There have been some instances of some Democrats being ineffective in defending Kerry on TV, and Dean is NOT one of them. He has been a strong advocate for Kerry on TV and on his speaking tours.

[janx]

51. What party stuff?

?

Edit: You mean the facts about what happened? Hey, the more truth the better. The American people can handle it. The more they know, the better equipped they are to vote. So I think you're right, if that's what you're referring to.

[wyldwolf]

52. hmmm... these grapes taste kind of sour...

..."In Dean's "You Have The Power," centrist Democrats get much of the blame for allowing right-wing Republicans to rise to national power. Dean also complains that reporters and editors give too much attention to campaign strategy and not enough to the issues...."

Funny... Dean is a centrist democrat...

..."He writes that he learned shortly before the Wisconsin primary that some of his Democratic rivals had created a political action committee with $1 million to attack him before the leadoff Iowa caucuses. He said he found out that former Sen. Robert Torricelli, a New Jersey Democrat who resigned during a campaign finance scandal, had provided $50,000..."

You mean Dean (and his followers) weren't prepared for the reality of politics? The others in the primaries should have rolled over for him?

I also recall a few "dirty tricks" Dean was involved with, including planning to bring in non-Iowa residents to boost Dean's support at the caucuses.

..."President Clinton was calling Democrats encouraging them to switch allegiances in the months before the Iowa caucuses to retired Gen. Wesley Clark. Dean recounts that one of the people Clinton called was a Dean supporter who described how the former president said that Dean "had forfeited his right to run for president." That was because, Dean writes, he had signed a law creating civil unions for gay and lesbian couples and Clinton believed Dean couldn't be elected as a result....."

Clinton was right.

And Dean is wrong (IMO) for airing his dirty laundry before the election.

Thanks, Howie!

[janx]

53. ?

The book looks fairly optimistic to me. If it educates people to the realities of politics in addition to inspiring them, so much the better, no?

[wyldwolf]

55. it's just more sour grapes fodder

Look at the "interpretations" dean supporters have gathered from it.

And it's funny - the original post here is almost an exact duplicate of one from yesterday (and the originator of this thread participated in THAT one.)

[madfloridian]

57. Uh Uh, this IS the thread I started yesterday. I am the OP.

This thread was started yesterday, not today. I am an American and I can interpret things as I wish.

I saw where this was called a Clark-bashing thread in the deer in the headlights thread. That is not true. Others here may have, but I did not.

Remember, this is America. I may interpret as I wish.

[wyldwolf]

60. I'm referring to this thread...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x794217

Remember - no one has said you can't interpret however you want to interpret, so you can't take the "you're infringing on my rights" song and dance.

The point of both threads is to once again whine about Dean's failed candidacy and open doors for Clark and Clinton bashing.

[madfloridian]

61. I did not do that. I did not post the other thread either.

I was actually quite appalled on the other thread about the headlights how Edwards was being bashed. Now that is just wrong. Talk about bashing.

I do not bash, I have not bashed, and I will not bash. Dean has a right to release his book. It really goes after the media's role in this campaign, so perhaps you had better reserve judgement. I hear he names media names.

[wyldwolf]

67. I didn't say you posted the other thread

I said you posted in it.

And I didn't say you bashed anyone, now did I?

[janx]

63. That's OK. We all bring interpretations into the mix around here.

And the Dean phenomenon will ultimately be very good for American politics overall.

I've learned more about American politics in the last few years than in all years previous combined because of Dean.

He states some facts about what happened. A lot of people were wondering which media rumors were true. It's very interesting to gain some hindsight after all of this time.

[madfloridian]

56. Perhaps you did not read this. I will repost.

Dean does not appear to be critical of Clark, shows admiration for Clinton in a review I read at the blog. In the OP above, he was stating facts, not being ugly.

Apparently he speaks of Clinton and the genius he shows as a politician. I gather he is saying this:

(paraphrasing)that the Democrats' strategy of moving toward the center worked not because it was successful policy, but because Clinton's "magnetism, charisma and personal appeal" made it work. I have heard him say that on TV....saying that the right of center was not working....it was the personality behind it.

I gather he is quite open and honest about his own mistakes, and one person said he seemed to be "becoming his own man".

I gather the main blame is reserved for the media, and I got the impression he named names and really went after the press. I don't have my copy yet, so going by what others say.

Now, as to the issue of his book coming out now, I have my opinions on it....others have theirs. Mine is that two books besides Trippi's are coming out. There have been articles by former staffers which put Dean in a bad light at times. Everyone is kissing and telling, and I feel he has a right.

NOW, I think the main reason may be his critique of the media....I understand it is powerful and he may have burned a few bridges.
Perhaps he has been infuriated at the media coverage of Kerry/Edwards. He has said it at speeches. Maybe he feels it might have an impact and help in some way. He does not criticize Kerry in the book, I gather, and I think the media stuff he has may play a part.

Get mad, get angry, whatever. Remember how many times we were told here that politics is ugly, get over yourselves? I do. Whatever the reason, it is his right.

And another thing, maybe the party stuff needs to come out a little. There have been some instances of some Democrats being ineffective in defending Kerry on TV, and Dean is NOT one of them. He has been a strong advocate for Kerry on TV and on his speaking tours.

And you are wrong....no one knows what issues would have played what way. They are not exactly NOT blasting the candidate, are they. They would attack anyone. You should not say so definitely the Clinton was right on that. Heck, did you see my post about the Dean/Rubin thing? Rubin told Dean to hush about NAFTA and outsourcing. I would rather Dean kept his soul and become his own man and LOSE than to win on issues that hurt the people.

[wyldwolf]

65. Of course I read it

Dean does not appear to be critical of Clark, shows admiration for Clinton in a review I read at the blog. In the OP above, he was stating facts, not being ugly.

I've not said or implied he was being critical of Clark. However, he is placing some blame on his failed candidacy on Clinton which is, in effect, criticism.

No one denies he is stating facts (or facts as he sees them) but rather his timing is suspect. Let's air the dirty laundry before the election! If I can't be president, no democrat can. Hey America! Centrist democrats are no good! (even though I'm a centrist democrat! shhhhh...

And another thing, maybe the party stuff needs to come out a little.

Why?

There have been some instances of some Democrats being ineffective in defending Kerry on TV,

Who?

And you are wrong....no one knows what issues would have played what way....You should not say so definitely the Clinton was right on that.

Yeah, right. In an election year where the GOP is making gay unions an issue, the American public is overwhelmingly against gay marriage, and there is little difference between gay marriage and civil unions in many minds, I can see Dean winning THAT debate.

[madfloridian]

66. Well, let's see now.

We have a decorated Vietnam veteran with a great record running as our candidate. Now who would have thunk they would make fun of that?
They will go after any issue, any person. They have no shame.

Dean would have been no worse off because of the civil unions.

[wyldwolf]

69. the American people are not overwhelmingly against veterans

If Dean had been the nominee, he would have been murdered on the issue of gay unions and marriage.

[madfloridian]

70. That is your opinion. I have my own. Was Clark against them?

I never thought about the issue really. I was raised Southern Baptist, only recently left that church because they supported the war as a holy war.

So I did not pay attention. I disagree with you on that.

[wyldwolf]

73. We're not discussing Clark, we're discussing Dean

So I did not pay attention. I disagree with you on that.

You disagree that polls show Americans are overwhelmingly against Gay marriage and only cooly receptive to civil unions simply because you did not pay attention?

[madfloridian]

76. Huh?

Of course this is about all our candidates. It has to be. If you leave one group behind, then your are failing, your party is failing.

[wyldwolf]

81. You asked if Clark was against them. Completely irrelevant question

We're discussing DEAN'S book, DEAN'S stance on Gay marriage/civil unions, and if DEAN would have suffered for it (as Clinton supposedly said) as the nominee.

[madfloridian]

86. Not irrelevant if Clinton said to vote for Clark not Dean.

Then it would become meaningful.

[wyldwolf]

91. still would be irrelevant 1. We're not discussing Clark..

2. Clark never signed civil union legislation

[janx]

82. Dean signed the civil unions bill, not a gay marriage bill,

though I'll bet he would have liked to.

So we might want to stick to civil unions for the sake of consistency.

It is curious that something like that would be a detriment for a Democrat--or for any politician.

[robbedvoter]

87. then said: "I am as upset as everyone else" (that bill was passed)

He signed the bill because he had no choice - then he used it to pretend he was some civil right hero. I doubt very much Clinton disliked him for that. My guess would have been the reason to distrust him was that letter Dean wrote to him urging him to gho it alone in Kosovo, stop negotiating with NATO. Scary bad judgement, matching the one of publishing a book lihe this a month before the election.
That today is September 12 and are discussing primaries is a monument to Dean's lack of judgement.

[janx]

96. Well you may be discussing the primaries, but I'm not.

I'm attempting to discuss the upcoming book. It's important. And you are very wrong about that civil unions bill--but that really has little to do with the book.

What's wrong with publishing a book about democracy a month before an election?

[robbedvoter]

101. The book is about what bugged dean in the primary. Don't you think

other candidates have books like this in them (on the desk?) Why do you think they hold their horses a few more weeks? The book contains baseless accusations against people who cannot defend themselves - at least not now (Clinton, Clark). You tell me how this is "about democracy".
My first reaction reading this thread was: "F* it, I'm not voting at all"
WTG, Howie!

[madfloridian]

102. I have posted twice that it is mostly about media and names names.

of the media. There is nothing wrong with releasing a book when you wish.

Dean never bashes Kerry, he stands up for him. You are really angry.

[robbedvoter]

106. Of course, not Kerry - he may win. Yes, I am angry.

This whole process ripped my heart off. I just want it over with.

[janx]

109. I'm sorry, RV.

:hug:

But it won't be long now. The election will happen soon.

[janx]

103. The book is, from what I gather, one about the political process

and how our democracy works. The fact that there are factual anecdotes included doesn't mean that the whole book consists of those--and they are, after all, facts pertaining to the political process. From the reviews I've read so far, it's a fairly optimistic book.

It might be wiser to wait until the book is actually available before passing judgment, don't you think?

[robbedvoter]

108. The process is still unfolding. Never one to need perspective, your guy

not that this bothered you.
Who needs to read about this "process' on September 27?

[janx]

112. I think you might be making some unwarranted assumptions.

Are you assuming that this book will be harmful to Democrats?

[janx]

71. They're not overwhelmingly against gays, either.

C'mon, wyldwolf. The only people who are against civil unions are those who wouldn't vote for a Dem under any circumstance anyway.

But this is all in the past. The interesting part is that we are learning how the political process worked this time around.

There's nothing we can do to change what happened. We can only learn from it.

[wyldwolf]

72. The polls state otherwise, my friend

But to clarify, I've not said or implied Americans are against gays, only gay marriage.

[janx]

75. Really? That's never been my impression.

Which polls? This surprises me.

[wyldwolf]

78. Examples

Pew Research Center/Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life survey conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International. Aug. 5-10, 2004. N=1,512 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.
"Do you strongly favor, favor, oppose, or strongly oppose allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally?"

8/5-10/04

Favor: 29%
Oppose: 60%
Unsure: 11%

http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm

[madfloridian]

83. Find one on civil unions. That is what we were discussing.

That poll is about marriage. Dean does not approve of marriage, I don't think any of our candidates do.

[wyldwolf]

85. As I've repeatedly said in this thread and the other

Americans are overwhelmingly against gay marriage, only cooly receptive to civil unions, but the GOP has muddied the difference.

CBS News Poll. May 20-23, 2004. Nationwide:

"Which comes closest to your view? Gay couples should be allowed to legally marry. OR, Gay couples should be allowed to form civil unions but not legally marry. OR There should be no legal recognition of a gay couple's relationship." N=1,113 adults, MoE ± 3 (for all adults)

Legal
Marriage 28%

Civil Unions 29%

No Legal
Recognition 40%

[madfloridian]

77. I don't remember polls that said that.

I remember fundamentalist preachers who said that a lot, though. Which polls?

[wyldwolf]

79. Gallup, Pew, CNN, etc.

http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm

[madfloridian]

84. Here are the results for civil unions! Any comments?

"Do you strongly favor, favor, oppose, or strongly oppose allowing gay and lesbian couples to enter into legal agreements with each other that would give them many of the same rights as married couples?"

.

Favor Oppose Unsure
% % %
8/5-10/04 48 45 7
7/04 49 43 8
3/04 49 44 7
10/03 45 47 8

Actually more lean toward favoring than not.

[wyldwolf]

88. only the comments I've already made

As I've repeatedly said in this thread and the other...Americans are overwhelmingly against gay marriage, only cooly receptive to civil unions, but the GOP has muddied the difference.

CBS News Poll. May 20-23, 2004. Nationwide:

"Which comes closest to your view? Gay couples should be allowed to legally marry. OR, Gay couples should be allowed to form civil unions but not legally marry. OR There should be no legal recognition of a gay couple's relationship." N=1,113 adults, MoE ± 3 (for all adults)

Legal
Marriage 28%

Civil Unions 29%

No Legal
Recognition 40%


A full 40% don't feel their should be legal recognition for either gay marriage OR civil unions.

[janx]

89. I noticed that too. ?

:shrug:

Hell, even Coors Brewery has benefits for same-sex couples--and Pete Coors is running for U.S. Senate as a Republican.

[wyldwolf]

92. posts 84 and 85

[janx]

93. Is it slowly starting to sink into your head, as it is to mine,

that this probably wasn't about civil unions at all? ;-)

[madfloridian]

95. Yes, it has already sunk in.

:hi:

[janx]

97. I cannot WAIT

to read that book!

[madfloridian]

74. The interesting part

was actually a lot more than just learning the process, Janx. You know my hubby and I will vote for Kerry and we donated to him.

However, the inspiration so many had was NOT just from learning about politics. It was thinking we could make a difference in the country.

We found out we could not do that yet. But you are right, I stay in touch with grassroots candidates from all over the country. I have never done that before.

But what we did learn is that the party is not about us. It is about corporations and what they want. It is not what we want.

[Julien Sorel]

59. You miss the point.

You mean Dean (and his followers) weren't prepared for the reality of politics? The others in the primaries should have rolled over for him?

They had a triple top secret super dooper ultra elite plan for "fighting back" that they didn't want to reveal before the general election. When the Americans for Jobs, Healthcare and Progressive Values ads started airing, they elected to save their brilliant plan for the election but, alas! never made it that far.

[madfloridian]

64. This is just politics, after all. Don't get so upset.

.

[Eloriel]

90. At least stop spreading the goddamned LIES

I also recall a few "dirty tricks" Dean was involved with, including planning to bring in non-Iowa residents to boost Dean's support at the caucuses.

That was a lie ginned up against him, and you're spreading it. I would like to think that kind of thing is beneath you, but you keep making me think otherwise.

As for Dean being a centrist Democrat, I don't think he is anymore (if he ever was). I think he was in VT, where "liberal" has a distinctly different flavor that mainstream liberal on the national stage. And I also think he got MORE liberal as the campaign wore on. He listened to his supporters like no other candidate I've ever seen, and the campaign changed him -- something he said early on (June 23, to be exact).

..."He writes that he learned shortly before the Wisconsin primary that some of his Democratic rivals had created a political action committee with $1 million to attack him before the leadoff Iowa caucuses. He said he found out that former Sen. Robert Torricelli, a New Jersey Democrat who resigned during a campaign finance scandal, had provided $50,000..."

You mean Dean (and his followers) weren't prepared for the reality of politics? The others in the primaries should have rolled over for him?

Shame on you for supporting the filthy dirty tricks of that Osama bin Laden ad. Shame on you. Shame on you also for constructing a straw man on this issue: expecting his opponents not to engage in the kind of dirty tricks of the Osama bin Laden ad (and SO much more that went on behind the scenes) is NOT the same as expecting them to "roll over for him." Ever heard of playing fair, by the rules, honorably, with integrity? Apparently not -- and that makes YOU part of the problem. As long as people accept this shit (instead of fighting it vigorously), it will keep happening. And some day it'll happen to YOUR candidate, whether at the hands of his/her own party or the other party.

This attitude makes me seriously sick. :puke:

[wyldwolf]

98. talk about "Goddamned lies"

That was a lie ginned up against him

You have PROOF that was a lie? So Dean speaks the truth but the Gephardt campaign lies?

Always been the problem with Dean supporters - they can dish it out but they can't take it.

Shame on you for supporting the filthy dirty tricks of that Osama bin Laden ad. Shame on you.

Yep! Completely unprepared for the reality of politics. I never supported anything like it (talk about strawman) but I do understand the reality of politics, unlike some people.

:puke:

The problem is "reactionary one candidate or nobody" folks like you.

[Eloriel]

114. Uh, yeah. I've never seen Dean lie OR do anything underhanded

Ever. I can't say the same thing about Gephardt AT ALL. Further, there is a fascinating article (or several) you might be able to find in the alternative weekly in St. Louis about Gephardt's longtime associate, employee and "consultant" (with her own firm) named Joyce Abouzzi. The Osama ad has Abouzzi's M.O. written all over it.

Always been the problem with Dean supporters - they can dish it out but they can't take it.


No REASON to take what ain't true, dude.

Shame on you for supporting the filthy dirty tricks of that Osama bin Laden ad. Shame on you.

Yep! Completely unprepared for the reality of politics. I never supported anything like it (talk about strawman) but I do understand the reality of politics, unlike some people.


Oh, now you're adding intellectual dishonesty. When you shrug off dirty tricks within your own party as just "the reality of politics," you are most certainly defending the practices.

The problem is "reactionary one candidate or nobody" folks like you.

:wtf:

Guess what. Little surprise for ya. This is STILL the United States of America, and I'm a citizen, which means I get to support or NOT support whoever I want to. Yet another straw man, 'cause no one said anything about "my candidate or nobody" in this discussion.

OTOH, if you've got your knickers in a wad because I LOATHE Kerry, then GOOD. I loathe him. I think he's disgusting, weak and pathetic. I think he made a deal with the devil himself (or several deals, actually) -- esp. with his IWR vote -- and has NO moral standing about ANYthing. And all of that is quite aside from the FACT that he's where he is at least in part because of the dirty tricks he and his campaign engaged in against MY candidate.

Oh, I'll vote for his sorry ass. But NO ONE can make me LIKE him, RESPECT him or lift a finger OTHER than voting for him. No one.

And another thing -- all those fools who think that our troubles will be over if only Kerry gets into the White House have SURELY had a little too much of the koolaid, because even if he's a really GOOD president (unlikely, IMO), a Democratic administration will only be a pleasant respite from the horrors we're facing. And yet all the Dem sheeple, including far too many quivering-in-their-boots DUers, will lull themselves back into complacency under a Kerry administration, and the Bush Crime Family and neocon destroyers will come roaring back just like they did after Clinton.

[Julien Sorel]

116. Short memories.

Clark was a Republican "10 days ago," in September after Clark announced his candidacy and a panicking Dean saw his internal polls.

He said on January 14, "Now look, I like General Clark, but I know he is a Republican," as Clark was eating into Dean in New Hampshire.

Dean went on an HBO series which had Begala and Carville as consultants. Carville came up with some lines for Dean's character to use in the series; Dean went out and used them for his campaign and claimed they were his own invention.

Dean said he was "never for" raising the retirement age of social security, until someone dug up an old MTP interview where he supported just that.

Dean claimed Jimmy Carter invited him to go to church with him. Both Carter and his son said Dean called Carter and invited himself.




That's pretty much off the top of my head; I'm sure a search would yield all sorts of interesting statements from the good doctor. But we won't call them "lies;" we'll call them "verbal accidents," or "slips of the brain." Anything but lies, because Howard Dean is a straight shooter who would never lie.

More energy wasted on people who won't let go and look to the future.

[unfrigginreal]

118. History will judge who was forward looking

and who was drawing their last gasp.

[Julien Sorel]

119. History has a way of doing that.

Thank God.

[wyldwolf]

117. funny

Uh, yeah. I've never seen Dean lie OR do anything underhanded

Well, I haven't really seen ANY politician dirty their hands that way - they always get someone to do it for them... like...

1. Howard Dean campaign Coosa River Basin Initiative Executive Director Mitch Lawson has been fired after prodding around on enemy ground.

Lawson, and Dean-supporting accomplice Mark Evans, are accused of trying to get information about Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry’s campaign in his Iowa office by misrepresenting themselves as average voters, said Sarah Leonard, a spokeswoman for Dean’s Iowa campaign.

2. A day after Rep. Richard Gephardt's staff accused Howard Dean's campaign of planning fraud in Iowa, Wesley Clark's supporters put New Hampshire voters on alert on Friday to "dirty phone tricks" being orchestrated by a rival -- but unnamed -- campaign.

ARG said on its Web site that in recent days, some older citizens registered as undeclared voters had received calls from a campaign informing them that they would not be allowed to vote in the Democratic primary because they missed the deadline to register.

"One respondent discovered, however, that when she told the caller that she was thinking about voting for Howard Dean, the caller told her that she would be eligible to vote," ARG said.

more?

Oh, now you're adding intellectual dishonesty. When you shrug off dirty tricks within your own party as just "the reality of politics," you are most certainly defending the practices.

Perhaps I should just pretend MY guy doesn't do them? No, wait - that is what YOU are doing!

Guess what. Little surprise for ya. This is STILL the United States of America, and I'm a citizen, which means I get to support or NOT support whoever I want to. Yet another straw man, 'cause no one said anything about "my candidate or nobody" in this discussion.

Ah, yes. Typical reaction from a Dean supporter. Essentially your cring about people knocking Dean after you've knocked someone else. You want to say what you want and when someone disagrees, you whine about "this ia America and blah blah.

And another misuse of the term "strawman."

Oh, I'll vote for his sorry ass. But NO ONE can make me LIKE him, RESPECT him or lift a finger OTHER than voting for him. No one.

And another thing -- all those fools who think that our troubles will be over if only Kerry gets into the White House have SURELY had a little too much of the koolaid, because even if he's a really GOOD president (unlikely, IMO), a Democratic administration will only be a pleasant respite from the horrors we're facing. And yet all the Dem sheeple, including far too many quivering-in-their-boots DUers, will lull themselves back into complacency under a Kerry administration, and the Bush Crime Family and neocon destroyers will come roaring back just like they did after Clinton.

Gonna do the Howard Dean scream now?

[Guaranteed]

104. That's all you ever say when Dean comes up.

I don't know why you hate him so much, considering the hole that he dug us out of.

[janx]

105. He's still digging, from what I've read about this book. n/t

[madfloridian]

107. And he, and WE, are going to keep on digging.

He was the first to say it loudly enough to be heard....that our leader was not invulnerable.

[wyldwolf]

110. two points

That's all you ever say when Dean comes up

Provide some source material for that statement.

And...

I've never implied that I hate Dean but "Sour grapes" is very appropriate concerning Dean but especially to his more hard core "Nobody but Dean" followers.

What hole did he dig us out of?

[Cheswick2.0]

111. Nobody but Dean?

Where are those people posting, because they aren't here at DU.
REally, you should be grateful the man, despite Kerry dirty campaing tactics Dean is the best surrogate Kerry has out there.
IMO Kerry doesn't deserve it. But luckily for him for him Bush is a nightmare.

The hole Dean dug us out of is the one Kerry is frantically trying to put us back in to as far as I can tell... the one where we are all supposed to be kinder gentler brownshirt corporate war hawks.
Kerry may very well win dispite the idiotic DLC pull on him. But if he does it will be because Dean Gore and to some extent Clark made it safe to criticize bush.

[Julien Sorel]

115. The ban list here is full of them.

There are people posting in this very thread who stated they were nobody but Dean, but apparantly decided to keep their posting priveleges, so they make snide comments about Kerry instead of out and out attacks. But I think most people know who they are.

Of course, the fact that the vast majority of the "Why does Kerry suck/I'm a chicken little" type threads are started by Dean people and egged on by Dean people isn't indicative of the NBD attitude. Not at all.

Somewhere around here there's a fuckleheaded Deanite who has a bastardized John Kenneth Galbraith quotation in their sigline describing Kerry as "unpalatable." Of course, there's not a hint of the NBD attitude in that. Not a hint.