Why do so many here dislike Dean?

[WI_DEM]

Just wondering. He is a mainstream democrat. He was against the war and proven to be correct. He energized the Democratic party, even Kerry said this. He raised raised a great deal of money thru his committee DFA and spread it to many candidates during the campaign and the net result was about half of them won. He campaigned hard for Kerry both on television and in several states. He has been consisent in his criticism of George W. Bush.

But yet he is so controvercial. Many people love him but also there is a bunch who dislike him. It doesn't make much sense given what he has done in the last couple of years.

[GRLMGC]

1. Oh man

I started a thread on this awhile ago and I totally regret doing it. Prepare for a long ass thread :)

[WI_DEM]

5. oh, oh

sorry I missed that.

[ogradda]

7. did it get flamed?

ouch i try to avoid those. maybe it's late enough it won't happen with this one :)

[GRLMGC]

8. Yes it did

I disowned it after awhile.

[Bucky]

124. It's not that complicated. Dean called my candidate "Republican"

Dean wasn't my choice, but I respected him immensely for energizing the party. But the fact is that he attacked Democrats for party divisiveness, then turned around and called Wes Clark "basically a Republican" with absolutely nothing to back that up. Hypocricy always loses you points with me.

[bush_is_wacko]

164. Wesley Clark

Is in fact much closer to the right than any other candidate that ran. Calling him a Republican was probably a bit over the top, but I'm not sure that would have been a bad thing in this particular election, if he would have been the nominee. Clark may have brought more Repubs over to our side. I really need to study up more on clark, i only did a minimal of research on him, because I had never heard much about him before and I was pretty sure the party was going to nominate, Kerry or Dean, previous to Deans rally cry (which I thought was great, I had no idea the repukes could spin that sooooo badly!))

[Crunchy Frog]

172. You admit that you only did minimal research on Clark

and yet you then state that he was much closer to the right than any other candidate that ran. I sort of appreciate people who bother to do a little research on something before making sweeping statements on it. Funny, both George McGovern and Michael Moore thought that he was a progressive.

Actually, from everything I was able to gather, Howard Dean was considerably to the right of Wes Clark. Wes Clark simply had a greater ability to appeal to a wider cross section of the political spectrum. He was able to speak in a language that more conservative people could understand about why core Democratic values are better than Republican values.

I appreciate your interest in studying up more on Clark. If you're serious about it, here is a good place to start. http://clark04.com/issues/

[Debs]

188. Certainly

Joe Liberman was farther to the right than Westley Clarke, But Dean was my second choice. Overall I liked him

[Crunchy Frog]

193. I like Dean too

and for most of the pre-primary season, he was my second choice. He was, however, somewhat to the right of Wes Clark. Joe Lieberman was far to the right of either of them.

[WI_DEM]

224. actually John Kerry did that first.

[Mojambo]

2. I don't know

And I've kind of come to the conclusion that I really don't care.

Dean one of the few members of the Democratic party that I genuinely respect. If the Democratic leadership wants to run away from him, they are running away from me.

[Eloriel]

42. Kinda my sentiments too

From what I can see here at DU, the people who dislike Dean so much are the people who believe things written or said ABOUT him, which is pretty stupid IMO. There are those who don't like his brash style, but the majority I've observed are simply ill-informed and damned proud of it.

[calimary]

53. Well, I'm pretty informed, and I love Howard Dean and I'm also

DAMNED PROUD OF IT, Eloriel. I'm with you wholeheartedly!

And making NO apologies whatsoever.

And that "brash style"? One of MANY things I happen to LOVE about him.

In fact, I may put my Dean for America sticker back in the rear window of my car. I took it out when Kerry became the nominee, but I never threw it out.

[Kahuna]

157. Or maybe it's things we actually heard him say with our own ears..

You continue to insist that people don't like Dean because of how the media portrayed him. That's a bunch of garbage and you know it.

[IStriker]

101. I'll second that.

I do not understand why the party and the press decided he should be deep sixed in favor of Kerry, the loser. I feel the same as you do. He is one of the very few Democrats left (of the contemporary crew) that I still have respect for and the party must want rid of me if they want rid of him.

[DemBones DemBones]

126. It sounds as if you care more for Dean than the party.

I've never felt that way about any individual Democrat, and that highlights one of the problems with Dean: cultish followers.

[gaia_gardener]

176. Or perhaps

some of us have recognized ourselves in Dean. He stood for the things we valued most and if the democrat party moves away from him, they are moving away from those values and they are moving away from us.

I'm not going to blindly follow the dem party no matter where it goes. If it goes more "centrist", well, then it's too right. We've moved "centrist" so many times that the "center" is now far to the right of what it was even back in the 70s. The more we move center, the more the right moves right.

As it is, I support the dem party more as a "the best choice I have right now" than a "my party, the best party ever".

[primavera]

228. Quite right

What kind of party would we be if our role was limited to mindless, unquestioning fealty? Then we'd be the Republican Party and just another anti-democratic institution for herding the masses with a thin veneer of democratic legitimacy.

Besides which, the party needs to hear from its members, as it's obviously having a very hard time defining itself these days. Did you notice the polls which showed that the majority of shrub supporters were pro-shrub while the majority of Kerry supporters were anti-shrub? We keep trying to throttle dissent and drive the party towards ever more nebulous positions in order to seduce the center, yet where is it getting us? We're not even managing to hold our key constituencies, much less make inroads into Repuke domains. If moderate centrist positions are so crucial to electoral success, why aren't they achieving the electoral successes they promise?

Analysts agree that at least one thing Dean had going for him was that he electrified listeners. What voters were electrified by Kerry and his kinda for the war, kinda against the war, kinda for gay marriage, kinda against gay marriage, kinda in favor of immigration reform, kinda against it positions? Don't get me wrong, I liked Kerry and was impressed by his depth of understanding, his knowledge of the facts, and I thought that his more nuanced approach had merits, but, from a strictly messaging point of view, I think it made for a weaker presentation which left many less sophisticated voters wondering where exactly Kerry stood and what his vision was.

Until somebody comes up with a more unifying "I have a dream" kind of message and can present it with passion and conviction, we're going to remain a minority party that sends voters to sleep. Whatever else might have been said about Dean, he didn't send voters to sleep.

For nearly a decade, the DLC/centrists have been watering down party positions on the grounds that electoral success hinges upon having the most meek, mild, milquetoast positions possible and the party is now weaker than it's been at any time since the Great Depression. I say they've had their chance and it's time we went back to our traditional core values that not only allowed us to proudly support our party and its candidates, but actually won elections for us.

[XemaSab]

203. You know

Bush would be a totally impotent president if the Dems decided to not go along with his shit.

I think Dean's right to castigate them for being enablers of a radical program that most democrat voters are totally opposed to.

[ogradda]

3. i like him

but he does seem to arouse some antipathy in certain people. actually, i don't think he's even very far left.

[Forever Free]

4. I HEAR YA BROTHER

I think everyone just bought into the media spin that Dean was some crazy hippie ultra-liberal peacenik. And that's just flat out wrong. Its just another example of the Republican echo chamber in the news. Dean is most definitely a New Democrat. Just look at what he accomplished in Vermont. He was a fiscal hawk, but a social liberal (i.e. legalized civil unions). As Newsweek pointed out, the National Rifle Association endorsed him for governor. As they put it, "Dean is essentially a New Democrat who happened to be against the war." (and rightly so, might I add.)

So I am proud to say that I am a strong and enthusiastic supporter of Governor Dean (General Clark too). I have no apologies.

[Erika]

9. I thought Dean was Great

and donated to him. The MSM and Cable News marginalized him as an extremist.

[jesusq]

202. Dean is a prophet...

and we always kill our prophets. Remember all the heat he took for saying he wanted to be the candidate of southern men with confederate flags in their pickups? Or that the issue of whether the confederate flag should flown at the SC state capital? He said it was a states rights issue, which was where he stood on guns and other wedge issues. He warned us not to let the republicans turn this race into a referendum on god, guns and gays, but did we listen? Noooo.

I love Howard, but I have one problem with him. He is the only human on the planet (today) that I give the democratic party the ENEMA it needs, but I see no indication that he will do it. He seems to have lost his taste for controversy.

The Dean Revolution could be so much more than just figuring out how to raise campaign funds on the Internet.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

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

[WI_DEM]

10. Senator from Arizona?

well, some people think he is a maverick like Senator McCain, but he is definitely not a republican. The ex-gov of Vermont, Howard Dean.

[Melodybe]

12. I love the man, if the DNC insists on vilifying him they are going to

loose me and my support. The Lieberization of the democratic party makes me ill. If Joe Lieberman is the voice of the democratic party then they can count me out.

Dean and Gore are the only two democrats that have openly discussed voting fraud and problems in the media somewhat consistently.

His grassroots is actually gaining a base, my republican father in law who voted for the ass-clown, said that he liked Dean and Dean was the only democrat he could ever vote for.

Dean is the reason I became politically active and the reason I came to DU, for that I will always be thankful.

Also he is literally the cleanest politician I have ever come across, after a bunch of haters posted a bunch of crap on Dean during the primaries I took it upon myself to do some research into his years as governor. Every decision he made that some disliked, environmental stuff, etc, etc, etc could be understood once you looked at the big picture.

Oh yeah and unlike some Democrats Dean has actually given Bev Harris the time of day.

[calimary]

57. One of the things that struck me, early in the campaign, was a MeetUp

for Dean that was about to be canceled for lack of quota (four people) - only to wind up with TEN people. And that was REALLY early - like early in 2003 - February, I think. One of those ten people was a transplanted Vermonter who'd lived in that state during the time Dean was its governor. He was quite the liberal and shared all of my views, and he had NOTHING but good things to say about his former governor. He LOVED the guy. Couldn't say enough nice things about him. Thought he'd been great for Vermont and would be terrific for the other 49 states, too. Thought he was the greatest thing since WD40 AND sliced bread AND Reese's peanut butter cups.

If that isn't enough of a testimonial for ya, I don't know what is. Sure convinced me. And then when I looked into him, myself, I convinced myself about him all over again.

And I STILL feel the same way. And even the iffy (on the surface) stuff like his stand on guns - nothing I couldn't live with VERY easily.

[Kahuna]

242. More threats. This is part of the problem. Most people..

don't react favorable to threats.

[jrthin]

24. Some may say McCain

is a maverick; I'd say he's an opportunist.

[bush_is_wacko]

169. You're probably right

But I do think McCain goes home every time he has to support Bush and floggs himself! He seems to have a hard time pulling nice words out of his mouth when he is speaking about Bush. I loved the SNL cartoon taht ran the weekend before the elections. It represents my feelings exactly. After what Bush said about his Vietnam service during the first election primaries I can't beleive he won't flip over to our side! He seems much more aligned to it. I don't think Repubs like him near as much as we think they do either.

[Debs]

189. McCain is my Senator

And the two are not mutally exclusive

[dorktv]

28. Dean was not from AZ. :) I wish he was thought

It sucks that we only have two cool Dems in this state in high office.

[frustrated_lefty]

11. In a nutshell:

Dean was governor of Vermont for roughly 6 terms. Depending on your view, he did a phenomenal lot of good there regarding numerous issues.

Problem was, he was viewed by many as a "non-centrist" candidate, too flammable, too vociferous in his condemnation of the Bush regime. After the infamous "scream" was played on air 30 billion times, he was considered dead meat. The centrists prevailed and we are where we are, for good or bad.

The "Deaniacs," as we were so lovingly known, were hurt, angry and frustrated. The folks favoring other candidates were a bit offended by "Deaniac" tendency to reject centrist leanings....with the exception of Kucinich supporters.

Essentially, Dean is a non-centrist. It becomes a long and torrid tale, one better left to its demise by now, me-thinks.

[Melodybe]

13. The scream was manufactured Bull Shit and we all know it

I hate that so many bought the media hype.

[Clark2008]

33. As a Clarkie I notice something about Dean's and Clark's

treatment by the lame-stream media.

Both were beloved grassroots candidates. Both were clean. Both were energizing to their bases.

But both were treated very poorly in the media. Dean was placed under such a microscope that a scream that wasn't in any way as badly executed to an also screaming crowd of supporters was turned into a joke. No human could withstand that much media scrutiny.

With Clark, after he returned from testifying in Milosevic's trial, the press just ignored him. Totally. He was never mentioned by the talking heads in conversation, even when he was polling first, second or third in all the early primary states (save Iowa, a caucus state, where he did not participate). In fact, despite winning Oklahoma, the media never once covered his appearances there and only spoke of a speeding ticket his driver received there.

Pathetic coverage, really. And it sucked. That's when it finally smacked me upside the head how bad the whores in the corporate media really are.

[Siyahamba]

86. Yeeeaah!!!

I like his enthusiasm.

[barb162]

159. yes in light of the dumbass things Bush has done in public, how

can anyone criticize Dean?

I like Dean; he energized the party

[bush_is_wacko]

166. How right you are

It sickens me to think representing energy and love for your country is now fodder for the Repubs. I hope the dems are working on some Bushism commercials for the next election. I can't believe how bad they spun that one action!

[NewJeffCT]

25. the Dean Scream

I will preface this by saying that I was not a Dean supporter, but I appreciate how he energized a lot of Democrats & how he is trying to build our party from the local levels.

However, the scream took place after he had finished 3rd in Iowa, which was pretty much a death knell for his campaign as it was. The scream was just the last tap of the last nail into the coffin.

And, personally, when I watched it, it seemed more like a high school football coach trying to rally his team after a tough loss.

[stratomagi]

134. The whole centrist thing is BS

Why does Dean have to be a centrist anyway? Is Bush a centrist? No. The whole Idea that our candidate has to be centrist is a rediculous notion made up by the media, who has been helping the Repug's push the political dialogue to the right for years.

What Dean did was do something the other candidates were reluctant to do. What was that? Stand by his position. And the reason he could do that was reguardless of the label given to him because he felt it was the right thing to do and could actually demonstrate why he felt that way!

His only weakness was buckling under the scrutiny the media was giving him as his popularity rose.

I mean lets say you live in happy land and think Bush is a moderate. That would make nixon as liberal as say Ted Kennedy.

I don't think we need a 'centrist' candidate like some people say. We need a candidate that can demonstrate policy positions that are good for the welfare of the country and can be demonstrated to a broad range of people. Thats what Dean's appeal was.

[barb162]

170. the pug controlled media SAYS the dems have to be centrist to

win while the pugs go farther and farther to the right. The same people who say this NEVER explain how Bush won when he was /is so extreme right.

Correct; we don't need or want a centrist candidate, the dems keep making the same mistake trying to please everyone. The pugs don't make that mistake and keep winning. When are the dems going to learn the lesson the pugs learned years ago

[Kahuna]

243. In poll after poll, the MAJORITY of Americans identify themselves..

as centrist or moderate. Yet the progressives continue to insist that a move FURTHER to the left would help the party to grow. I don't see evidence of this. I only see wishful thinking.

[Birthmark]

14. Because...

...the son of a bitch stole my sandwich once. I just know it was him! x(

[dorktv]

29. Um...That was me actually.

[LittleClarkie]

15. Dean killed my brother, that's why!

Eh, I don't hate Dean. I kind of like him. He's an oddball. I saw him on MTP in October, and liked the way he spoke. Smile was kind of odd, mind you, almost as if he pasted it on. But still he was interesting.

I just have a feeling of having him sort of shoved down my throat. It's the "Accept Dean as DLC or I'm leaving the party" threads that get me. The "Dean is our last hope" threads.

He wasn't my first choice. He wasn't my second choice. But if he would have won the primaries I'd have backed him and tried to find a reason to like him, same as I did Kerry. Y'all can see how successful I was in that regard (ended up just loving the guy).

If I have to, I'm sure I'll manage to find a reason to like Hillary if need be. If this election showed anything, it's not enough to be against the other candidate. You need to also be FOR our candidate. Otherwise how can you convince anyone else to vote for him.

I could post the same kind of thread saying "Why does everyone hate Kerry" but I know why. I just don't agree.

So no, I don't hate Dean. I look forward to seeing what he will do in the future. Perhaps his supporters will have learned more about the process in 4 years. I was told by a campaign worker who'd been around since the primaries that the Dean people were long on enthusiasm but lacking in any real idea as to how to campaign properly. Don't know if that's the truth, but it would explain a few things.

[Melodybe]

16. It was the truth, Dean had the worst PR people

of any candidate ever!

I couldn't believe they were so clueless.

[whirlygigspin]

Leiberman Love!

I love those,

"I like Dean" --"stop trying to shove Dean down our throats" reactions

...it's like he keeps trying to crash someone's party in Georgetown
"...oooh ahhh, how revolting, how pedestrian."

Dean is a left wing radical maniac...bla bla bla, and keep losing elections,pass the gin,
at least you'll keep winning the popularity contests in the Congressional cocktail circuit.

Leiberman forever!

[RafterMan]

20. That kind of binary absolutism

is as unappealing in Dean supporters as it is in Bush supporters.

And people have to start a thread to ask this question?

[LittleClarkie]

75. Leiberman Love?

Yes, that's probably the single most annoying thing for me.

I've often repeated that Democrat ugly ain't any more attractive than Republican ugly. Dissent against one's candidate, even if espressed in reasonable, constructive ways becomes "Why do you hate my candidate?"

"Binary absolutism"-- I like that. My response was in the gray somewhere, and was pushed into the black, as if I was saying something I wasn't. I don't resent Dean's intrusion. I'm certainly not some sniffy elitist crying out "Who let the riff raff into our party." (Hell, how elitist could I be. I'm in Milwaukee for pity's sake).

The inability to admit that perhaps there are a few things needing fixing or that perhaps, maybe, it was remotely possible that the things that needed fixing in Dean's campaign were the reason he lost, not some plot or dirty tricks.

(Meanwhile, "Leiberman Love?" Where the hell did that come from?)

It has little to do with gate-crashing, really. I jokingly referred to myself as a Kerry Krishna once, but it's that kind of hard-sell that tends to turn me off.

I'm new too. This was my first real election -- the first time I was paying proper attention. I picked Clark, then Kerry. I will support him, regardless of whether someone else approves. I will not insist that if he is not accepted, all is lost however. And I don't appreciate being told I'm in "denial" or how absolutely lousy my candidate is. Candor should not be an excuse for rolling over other people you don't agree with.

Eh, nice little rambling post. Make some sense of it, if you dare.

[MuseRider]

77. Not rambling.

Very well said and you expressed the concern of many of us. I am not as able to articulate it so thanks.

[Crunchy Frog]

106. You summed up alot of my own feelings

in that rambling post, as did RafterMan. There's a tendency on the part of a small number of Dean supporters to dismiss people who supported someone else. They're not real Democrats. They're just DLC centrists who are afraid of real change. We're the only true progressives/grassroots/whatever. They're just reacting to what the media told them, ie can't form their own opinions.

There is an inability to accept the possibility that someone who is genuintely progressive might legitimately support a different candidate, or find that someone else resonates with them more than Dean does.

That "Lieberman forever!" line is a prime example of the sort of attitude that turns some people off. In case anyone is interested, I am a passionate Clark supporter. I am a liberal, not a centrist. And as far as Lieberman goes, I've made it very clear in past posts that he is the one candidate whom I would not have voted for had he gotten the nomination.

I don't appreciate being marginalized and dismissed in this way. It is a form of elitism.

Just for the record, I think this attitude only applies to a relatively small proportion of Dean supporters, but some of them can be quite vocal, and that tends to create a negative association in some people's minds. I also freely acknowledge the existence of some really obnoxious Clark supporters.

[stratomagi]

135. Agreed

Kerry was my second choice as far as the original candidates went. I liked Dean, wouldn't call myself a "Deaniac," but I liked him. When Kerry was nominated I had my reservations about him but I found things that I did like about him and rallied around those points.

I don't think any candidate will perfectly fit all of my ideals, in fact I know that isn't possible, so I try to find the candidate that best suits my interests. If that candidate is unavailable I find the next best candidate, and rally around them.

I think thats why liberals/progressives chose to rally around who they did, we're not all the same, and don't all share the same interests, but I doubt that reason only makes some of us less progressive than others. I mean my dad liked Dean and he's a moderate.

On the other hand I absolutely despise Leiberman. Sorry, thats the way it is.

[janx]

73. You crack me up!

...it's like he keeps trying to crash someone's party in Georgetown
"...oooh ahhh, how revolting, how pedestrian."

!!!!!!

[bush_is_wacko]

167. Leiberman?

He may be a really intelligent guy. In fact, he is a really intelligent guy, but his voice! He is not a commanding presence. In fact, I have heard more Leiberman whining style jokes tahn I have herad Kerry flip-flop jokes.

[Debs]

190. If Leiberman really wants to run for President

He should do so as a republican

[necso]

17. I think that some of the animosity here

is actually directed at certain Dean supporters. And with direct personal attacks being forbidden, attacking Dean is the next best thing. It certainly gets plenty of his supporters rather riled up.

Personally, I like Dean more and more. -- But I am not quite ready to jump on the bandwagon.

On a broader scale, I think that I have detected an element of "populism" in certain of Dean's statements (I read recently -- and approvingly -- where he spoke against "free trade" in its current form -- but I would have liked to see a little talk of the implications of "national security" on "free trade" too ) -- and this worries many "establishment" politicians besides scaring the hell out of the neocons, who need the "Joe Twelve-pack" types (a "Homerism") to continue to vote against their own best interests.

And Dean supporters would know a lot better than me if I am reading too much into Dean's statements. I did not pay too much attention to him in the primaries as I was a very early Clark supporter. However, I have recently followed a number of Dean threads.

And, in any case, I believe that my first assertion has some basis.

The whole bashing thing, moreover, is pointless except as an irritant to other posters.

[Eloriel]

65. He's VERY populist, and always has been

I was a Dean supporter from fairly early on -- late 2002, I think, but most certainly very early 2003. I was already a supporter by the time of the wonderful, bracing California speech: "I want my country back!!"

I will say, though, that he grew a lot during the campaign and it was one thing and one thing only that caused that: he LISTENED to the people, and they educated him. As a result, he became a little more liberal (and for my money, based on what he DID in VT, he was always progressive).

There's one thing about Dean that I would like people to understand. When he says something, he means it. So when you read one of his speeches (and the June 23, 2003 Announcement Speech is one of my personal faves), or hear him say high-minded things, he MEANS it. It's not just pretty rhetoric or campaign propaganda. He actually did (and does) want to give political power BACK to The People, and people who were paying attention to him during the primaries could have seen evidence of that in the way he behaved, as well as in his words.

That's why he had to be stopped, and stop him they did (DNC/DLC/Kerry/Gephardt/and some of their rowdy friends, with a little help from Edwards and Kucinich).

I could go on and on about Dean, because I'm a diehard Deaniac (or "Dean Democrat" is perhaps the better term), and always will be. But I won't -- other fish to fry today.

[arewenotdemo]

18. I love him

And would love to see a Clark/Dean ticket in 2008.

Maybe Howard could have done what Kerry couldn't this time, but I doubt it. Anyways, I voted Dean in VA primary.

[w13rd0]

19. I voted for Dean in the Missouri primary...

...and contributed to his campaign. I'm also a monthly contributor to DFA. Dean appeals to me, an Independent, in a way that most of Republicans and Democrats do not.

[calimary]

60. I voted for Dean in the California primary, even though Kerry was

pretty much a done deal by then. Didn't matter to me. I know who I still preferred. And yes I went over wholeheartedly to the Kerry camp after that. So deeply that it's gonna take me months to pay off my credit card for all the donations I made to him. Never been out this much money after a campaign before, but then again, I never gave this much during a campaign before, and most of it went to John Kerry after Dean had to fold. So nobody can accuse me of holding a grudge against Kerry while I kept a candle in the window for Dean. I gave Kerry my ALL. But GOD I wish Dean had been our guy. True, maybe the media would have continued to try to eviscerate him - mainly because they didn't understand him. But for all the moments during those debates when bush (or cheney, too, for that matter) said stuff that was simply crap and BEGGED to be knocked down and set straight and Kerry and/or Edwards passed on the opportunity - Dean would NOT have done so. And his rapid-response team was GREAT! There wouldn't have been silence for days and days and days after the swifties got started - in Dean's case, if the bad guys had thrown something comparable at him. Believe me - Dean wouldn't have let that go untreated, and allow it to metastacize the way Kerry and that vigilant, shrewd, "eagle-eyed" Mary Beth "don't worry, it'll fade" Cahill did. (GRIMACE!)

[Lexingtonian]

21. Ah, so young and innocent....

Be glad you weren't on DU during September thru January of a year ago. All Dean All The Time, flamewars that left countrysides burned down to the roots of the grass and salt plowed into the ground.... And if you know what the term 'mau-mauing' means, it was the central characteristic of the 'debate'.

The critique of Dean goes something like this: he found an audience looking for an anti-war bandwagon and hitched himself in front of one. Astute politics in some sense, unwise in others. He was ambivalent about the war during most of 2002, as is proven by some quotations. So to propose that it was all principle- that the correctness of his judgment is beyond question- doesn't work very well. Kerry's votes are misportrayed by comparison- remember that even Massachusetts was polling 65-70% for 'disarming Iraq, by force if necessary' and the like formulations.

The real Dean problem was method. He had tactical method but no strategic insight. His key aide, Joe Trippi, has said recently that Team Dean found it surprisingly easy to find 600,000 people who were willing to show up for demonstrations and other gatherings and give money and create an immense amount of Internet propaganda. Trippi says that the calculation was that 54 million votes would be needed to win the General but he seems to believe their campaign support never strongly broke out of their 600,000 baseline. And in December 2003, when they had to come to a strategy, he says Dean admitted to him and the campaign team that he'd never expected to be considered anything but a protest candidate. The team in turn realized that they had no adequate plan or much foundation on which to run a winning a national campaign. During the six months of hype for them they'd neglected the fundamentals and didn't have the sort of people on board, aka consultants, that really had a very strong sense of the electorate or how to win it.

The controversy emanates from the way Dean campaigned. For one thing, he really used such strong and abusive language about the other Democrats running and so distorted their positions that it created bitterness. Essentially, he ran the Republican recipe for appeal to his crowds- which is the occultic priesthood's method and doesn't adhere to truthfulness. It appeals to will and resentments, and it argues that will converts to power if you conform to the Core Belief, and so the audience feels empowered to the extent that they individually can't bring skepticism to bear on and don't demand integrity of the whole enterprise. Like Republicanism, the movement ran to a large extent on resentment and, to some degree, on contempt of those not as 'inspired'/'empowered' as they felt themselves to be.

So Dean people argued energetically that everyone in the Democratic Party other than themselves was ideologically compromised and to be jettisoned, and everyone not a Dean supporter argued that the Dean peoples' political method was Republicanism in practice. The Dean peoples' argument was a halftruth. Their critics' argument was also a partial truth. What voters in the primaries saw (imho) was a choice between an ideological puritanism with an empowerment doctrine in Dean and ideologically impure attempts at political integrity and realism to the major other candidates.

All practical popular politics involves some embrace of the occultic method of arguing empowerment and its ideological simplifications of the world. Dean overtly brought that back into the Democratic repetoire. He also appealed to middle class white voters- the group that has been most diminished in power and wealth by the Bush Administration's work to transfer wealth and power to its Party and the CEO/plutocrat class.

The 'But' is that the Democratic Party is not presently the party that represents the sectors of American society that are ideologically stuck in pre-Enlightenment or times (defined by occultic and pagan(ized)/naturalistic theist belief systems, i.e. 'conservative' Christianity and Deism). As painful as it has been to become so, the Democratic Party is the one that had to change and now generally represents Enlightenment thinking (abstract, i.e. idealist, theistic belief systems- e.g. 'liberal' Christianity and atheism/agnosticism and Science) and the advances of Modernity (post-theistic belief systems, e.g. humanism(s) and Anthropology). The Democratic Party therefore cannot compete on equal terms for the votes of the people who believe in Nature God religions (anti-gay rights, Creationists), magic and colonialism (the war-mongers and 'supply side'rs and 'free market capitalists'), or agrarian fertility cultism ('pro-life'), and it cannot in the long run abandon the atheists or scientists or feminists or civil rights activists. Howard Dean is not entirely clear on whether he understands this political division or accepts it for what it is- he has a way of getting it very right at times, and yet other times he seems to make naive blunders that suggest he hasn't fully grasped how extensively the country and Democrats and their interests vary from what he knows so well, which seems very much to be Vermont circa 1992 politically.

Kerry has sinned similarly, but the impression has widely been seen as ept or inept attempts to demonstrate ability to bridge the two sides. The distinction is that, despite hazy commitments, his liberal actions seem effortless to him and the conservative ones look labored and deliberate and off tone. Arguably he's a person whose real political thinking is to be careful and preserving of things that are truly important, which are small parts of the big political objects being tossed about, and prone to letting the players kick around the many nonessential parts as they will.

Well, Dean represents a lot of learning that the Party apparatus needs to assimilate fully. The question for us is what he knows about the future and what he wants to do about it. He definitely has strong appeal in semi-rural Northern areas, and he has something to teach about stumping. Maybe the best places for him to go for the Party are the Mountain and Prarie Northwest. Unfortunately, though, the crucial areas for Democratic power nationally are the Ohio Valley and the Southwest.

[McGonigle]

89. Either

you're ideologically compromised, or you're not; there's no halfway.

"So Dean people argued energetically that everyone in the Democratic Party other than themselves was ideologically compromised and to be jettisoned, and everyone not a Dean supporter argued that the Dean peoples' political method was Republicanism in practice. The Dean peoples' argument was a halftruth. Their critics' argument was also a partial truth."

[Crunchy Frog]

138. In other words,

"Your either with us or your with the terrorists".

A perfect example of the kind of binary absolutism that so many people feel turned off by.

[XemaSab]

204. Binary absolutism

Bush sometimes lies. That makes him a liar.

Some Democrats sometimes sell out. That makes them sellouts.

[Crunchy Frog]

213. All politicians, including Dean, sometimes lie.

That makes all politicians, including Dean, liars.

What exactly is your point?

[Kahuna]

208. Who gets to decide??? THAT is the question. You cannot force..

YOUR truth down everybody else's throat. THAT's where you turned off a lot of people. Where did you get the idea that their are absolutes when it comes to ideology? There aren't. Unless you're in a cult and not allowed to think for yourself. Get it now?

[InvisibleBallots]

119. Lexingtonian, very interesting analysis

Your analysis of the "pre Enlightment" views of some factions seems a useful description, and I mostly agree with your critique of Dean. As far as as the politician goes, Dean never impressed me much, but the Dean fans sure know how to organize and raise funds, and we need more like them.

[Kahuna]

207. Bravo! Excellent analysis.

:toast:

[primavera]

230. Great post

Thanks for investing the time and energy into such a thoughtful analysis.

I agree Dean made some mistakes and perhaps appropriately demonstrated that he didn't possess the complexity to navigate the extremely tricky waters in which we now find ourselves as a party. At the same time, I think he underscores the importance of oratory and messaging. I believe that our experience over the last decade demonstrates that the ability to promote a bold vision is the crucial ingredient in electoral success. In this last election, the shrub made inroads even into Democratic strongholds by promoting a message of bold, visionary leadership. Many crossover voters indicated that they actually disagreed with most of the shrub's policies, yet supported him nonetheless because it sounded like he at least had a plan. Moral of the story: we have got stop defining ourselves as the more moderate alternative to Repukes and start setting the agenda rather than simply reacting to the one set by the Repukes to serve their interests. Dean's got a lesson for us to learn in that respect.

[GarySeven]

22. Because he reached out to the South ...

And the Northern liberals on this board have nothing - nothing - but contempt for Southerners because they embrace "rural" values, particularly rights to gun ownership. And they also believe that there would be no racial problem in this country if Southerners had never existed.

There are millions of liberal Southerners; and there are many other people who could be won to the Democratic party if only Northern liberals would remember what liberalism means: letting people live their own lives. If northern liberals would stop alienating the South and embrace the region with all its vexing contradictions, then we could rebuild FDR's coalition. But by castigating us all as backwards yahoos, you divide the liberals in the South from the national party AND undercut our efforts to bring change and advance the cause. We need help, but you refuse to help unless we conform to your lockstep ideology. This makes the Democratic party indistinguishable from the fascist Repugs. We MUST learn that liberalism transcends urban and rural cultures. Until we do, we will forever forfeit any political power over conservatives.

Howard Dean understood that, that's why he must be crucified.

[Lexingtonian]

23. No

Maybe all these 'Northern liberals' you've had the misfortune of communicating can't properly articulate the fundamental critique, only the symptoms of it that particularly pain them. There are plenty of rural Northerners with "rural" values and lots of Northerners who own guns, and there is no doubt racism in the North.

You define liberalism as "letting people live their own lives". Well, that sounds decent but isn't very distinct from Individualism, which Southerners are not short on IME. I don't mean to be preachy in the least, but let me suggest that the definition needs two more words- 'other', to make 'other people', and 'mutually' as a condition for the whole phrase. But there's an awful lot of politics to each of the two words, unfortunately.

Let me try to suggest what it is that itches Northerners about Southerners that they can't scratch. On one level it's simply the hostile way we individually get treated by the stronger members of just about every class of Southerners, and then the way hostility of the kind within Southern society- taking form of violence or scandal- keeps on telling us that some issue we thought settled in at least a very basic way just refuses to be. On another, it's the way the leadership of the South persistently acts against our interests seemingly without much dissent and with a lot of vocal help by their own kind elsewhere in the South- a kind of ceaseless political militancy for stuff that does their narrow selfinterests good, but no one else.

The way these seemingly contradictory things all add up for me is: Southern society still has a political order that is still substantially feudal/aristocratic. The lower classes all fight each other to exhaustion for what little they have/get and effectively the upper crust gets ceded a near-monopoly on power- it crushes what little dissent can be mustered quite handily and gets conformity on the issues it cares about, and it makes certain that the class/group conflict stays well fuelled. This is slowly changing in the cities, I imagine, but I can't see it changing in the countryside in the near future. Under FDR I guess the economic need led to some partisan unity across most of the usual boundary lines, but as soon as prosperity returned the divisions could be afforded again, and so were promptly resharpened and reexploited.

As for Howard Dean, well.... He reminded me of the political positions of Democrats of ~1975-80 in the urban Northeast, which probably got to the rural Northeast (i.e. Vermont) 5-10 years later, and my own semi-tested pragmatic theory is that the South tags its equivalent areas (urban, rural) in the Northeast in developments by about a generation. (Not that I ascribe particular virtue to this, one way or another.) I'll be one of the people who said he wouldn't appeal well enough in urban areas because he decided to not emphasize social justice strongly enough.
As for his comments about trying to appeal to Southern white male voters, I don't believe the first wave of disbelief was one of contempt. It was one of astonishment at his naivite at Southern group politics. He honestly believed rural white Southerners would respond to him politically as rural Northerners did, would identify with and respect his Yankee-ness made of selfreliance and strength and fairmindedness and pragmatism and bit of old-fashionedness and crusty kind of eloquence of few words, and perhaps like the bit of Vermont winter coldness and spring sweetness he reflects. He really seems in the beginning not to have realized what that did to him with black voters all over, perhaps even more strongly in the North than the South. Other Democrats felt the hit with black voters and knew they couldn't let it pass unanswered. Yes, the comment got exploited by some, but in the bigger picture it said that Dean didn't even seem to see clearly how large the Limbaugh/conservative talk radio factor is and with what sets of voters, or that rural people in most of America are not as independent and selfreliant and freethinking as they propose.

[Clark2008]

45. I think some of the hostility comes

from the hostility with which Southerners are portrayed.

In nearly every movie, we're portrayed as country bumpkins, swigging moonshine with no education, no shoes and, apparently, no dentists. It's a pet peeve of mine, considering I'm well-educated, articulate and non-threatening.

And, unfortunately, the Republicans have seen this anger and capitalized on it, pitting the North vs. the South in a "Civil War Redux" manner typical of neo-conservative hatefulness.

You're correct that Dean didn't realize that the Limbaugh/Hannity/Savage machine is deep in the South, simply because no one has challenged it. Dean rarely campaigned down here and, surprisingly, neither did Kerry. Kerry might have had Arkansas, Tennessee and/or Virginia had he offered up a little time. The "classes" of which you speak are starting to realize that years of voting Republican has left them further from the goals of financial independence, self-reliance and proper education they were promised.

The next Democratic candidate for president, no matter where he or she is from had better spend some time - even prior to winning any nomination - down in the South, pointing out to these waiverers just how worse off they are. Believe me, if you want to put a dent in the South, you need to get the "serfs" to rise up. Give them a reason because most of us are too busy working our asses off, supplying supplemental education to our children since our lousy schools won't and biting our tongues in polite conversation to do it on our own.

(Sorry this was bit OT, but I wanted to address this post.)

[MuseRider]

47. Everything you said

could also be said for the Midwest. I agree with you. These people are ripe for a populist movement and we had better figure it out soon.

[paulk]

58. Have you read "What's the Matter with Kansas", yet?

by Thomas Franks - a fascinating discussion on populism and the midwest...

[MuseRider]

67. No and I must read it.

For a while I didn't think I wanted to but the more I hear about it the more I really want to. As soon as I get some time I plan on putting it first on my list.

[Cheswick2.0]

30. good post, I have a question about how to bridge one gap

The NRA gap. I am pro-gun control because I see what is happening to people in the inner cities with all of the gun crime.
Dean said he was for the AWB and would not get rid of sensible gun legislation. I disagree with him that gun control is a states issue because guns are so easily bought in one spot and taken somewhere else.
If we change the platform on gun control, what do we do about the mess in cities and more congested states where they really need our help?

[Clark2008]

38. He did?

I'm in the South and, outside of some students at the University of Tennessee, I don't remember meeting too many of his supporters.

I'm not trying to start a flame war, but I really saw very little evidence that he was well-liked in the South. Sorry.

[Individualist]

44. I'm also in TN

in a strongly republican region, and Dean meetups were held in my area. I knew quite a few people (self included) that liked him.

[Clark2008]

46. You must be near me

I'm in East Tennessee.

I knew people that liked him, but not enough to vote for him because they didn't think he could win the South as a whole.

And, he didn't. He came in, what, fifth or sixth in this state? Can't remember.

As I've said before on this forum, I like Dean. I think he should be the next DNC chair because of his enthusiam, his willingness to challenge the status quo and his fundraising abilities. But I think he has fundamentals that simply will never translate over to the rural South and mid-West. That's all.

[janx]

52. You're right ! I just checked. Democracy for America

has a good amount of support in Tennessee. DFA coalition groups include Democracy for Nashville and Democracy for Tennessee.

DFA Meetups are held regularly in Chatanooga, Johnson City, Knoxville, Memphis, and Nashville.

But one thing DFA needs from Tennessee is a candidate for 2006! Do you know of anyone who is planning to run?

[Individualist]

76. Don't know of anyone right offhand, janx,

but I'm sure with the widespread support Dean has across the state (as noted by meetup locales you listed above), there will probably be at least one candidate. I'm in the Tri-Cities area, heavily repug, so it's doubtful anyone would stand a chance of election in this area. :(

[angrydemocrat]

94. I'm also from the Tri Cities Area

I live in Johnson City now but I lived in Bristol for several years. And yes it is heavily repug so much so it is sickening. And if you are from Tri Cities you also know their is alot of KKK people around these parts to. If you are a democrat around here it is always a major fight with the repukes. The best democrat Tennessee ever had is Al Gore ever since we lost him it has been down hill from there in this crappy state. I have been trying to get my husband to move out of this state and I think he is almost ready to do it. I was born and raised in Orlando Fla. until I was 14 almost 15 when my parents moved back here. But I hate this place always have.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

132. All My Friends In Florida Voted For Kerry...

Should I infer from that Kerry should have carried the state by a huge majority...


Respectfully, your post reminds me of the woman on Manhattan's lower east side who couldn't believe Nixon shellacked McGovern "because all her friends had voted fo him."

[Cheswick2.0]

141. so how are the Kerry meet ups going in Florida?

The fact is that democrats who are not paying attention are just as sheep like as anyone else. After Iowa everyone flocked to the polls and voted for the guy they were told was electable.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

205. I Was Referring To The General Election....

nt

[DemBones DemBones]

147. I was just thinking the same thing. Support at Meetups

in large cities/college towns tells us nothing about widespread support in a state.

I like Dennis Kucinich, who really is an anti-war liberal and from what is generally considered "the North" though it's technically the Midwest. I'm not deluding myself that Kucinich will appeal to people in Georgia. He might, but he'd have to come here and campaign before I'd be convinced of it. I apply the same standard to Howard Dean and all other Dems, including John Kerry, who should have done more campaigning in the South. The Democratic Party has a lot of work to do in the South.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

206. The South Is Hostile Territory To Democrats...

Hell, out of twenty two senate seats we have four....


Out of eleven governor's chairs I believe we have three...


Dean would have done no better than Kerry in the south...


Perhaps no Democrat running in 04 would have...

Maybe clark... Maybe not....

[GarySeven]

136. He at least said that Democrats should reach out to Southerners ..

I agree that he didn't campaign down here; that's not the point. All his K Street advisors told him not to spend much time down here because the electoral politics of 2004 showed clearly that to campaign here was to waste time and resources. At least Dean raised the issue that those advisors and others in the Democratic party heirarchy rejected; and for daring to suggest something like that he was shut down by the circular firing squad.

[InvisibleBallots]

127. I agree Gary Seven

100%

[Kahuna]

210. Bull! It's not because he reached out the the South, and you know it..

It was the WAY he "reached" out to them. He insulted their culture which amounted to mocking them. Then that dixie Jesus tour!!!! That wasn't helpful at all.

[GarySeven]

220. He didn't "insult" our culture ...

he simply mentioned on TV that some of us like the Confederate Flag, which is true. That is what enraged the Northern liberals who insist that we abandon our complicated love for our own past and our rural culture in favor of their urban culture. The mere fact that some of us can be liberal AND embrace the sacrifice of forefathers for misguided, even evil, institutions is a paradox that you yankees refuse to understand. We don't want your understanding; we want your help to destroy conservativism.

[lojasmo]

26. I AM A DEAN DEMOCRAT!

I have always voted democrated because I knew that republicanism was anathemic to my beliefs.

I got involved during the primaries (caucus) for the first time this year because of Governor Dean. I joined the democratic party leadership because of him (mind you, this was after he had quit actively campaigning) I will strive to reform the party because of the differences between him and the four senators that ran this cycle.

[bklyncowgirl]

27. Dean unleashes strong passions.

I give the guy alot of credit for being willing to call a spade a spade. Of course the spades don't like that much if they'd relly prefer to be called "manually operated earth moving implements."

Personally I think that passion in politics is a good thing.

[shawrick]

31. I heard him say on TV that he was a fiscal conservative

Most Democrats online and in the party are liberals, fiscally and otherwise. So there would seem to be a fundamental conflict.

I think that is why he failed to get the nomination.

[janx]

36. Yes, Dean is a fiscal conservative.

Clinton was a fiscal conservative as well.

[shawrick]

37. Well, then that seems to confirm why he is disliked

If he is a conservative, and the party is liberal, then he would be disliked. As for Clinton, I don't care for him myself, being a liberal. Maybe most other Democrats feel the same way.

[Guaranteed]

91. He's a fiscal conservative in that he believes in a balanced budget.

That's real conservatism, not the neo-con bullshit economic philosophy.

[Bombtrack]

179. Dean said alot of things about himself that weren't the truth

In Michael Moore's words "this guys kind of a prick"

I found no primary candidate to be more constantly full of shit than Dean. He reminded me a lot of Bush in that way. Constant and almost pathalogical hypocracy packaged in steady streams of demagoguery.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

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

[janx]

34. Well--

Deaniacs are hardly the only overzealous supporters on this board. I've seen some fairly ridiculous behavior from supporters of other former candidates as well.

[RogueTrooper]

35. A interesting question

Why do the supporters of such a secular candidate act like a revivalist movement?

[Cheswick2.0]

72. LOL

I think the most obnoxious supporters of any candidate were those Kerry supporters who pretended to be for DK so they could attack Dean from the left.

Then there were the real DK supporters who thought that they owned the liberal vote and got all bent out of shape because DK didn't get the support Dean did from the liberal end of the spectrum.

Bitter bitter angry people. They made this place a hell hole during the primaries.

[calimary]

97. We had a few people in some of the local Dem groups who

were almost foaming-at-the-mouth fanatics for ...

Dean?

No.

For Kerry. And they were quite off-putting. Far more in-yer-face and uncompromising than the hardest of hardcore Dean fans. One of them was downright disruptor-ish and almost turned me off Kerry completely before I decided for myself that I probably should be open to taking another look. When I finally jumped aboard the Kerry bandwagon, it was very much in spite of people like these. In fact, I wonder how many others they may have alienated. They were BRUTALLY hardcore - resorting to questioning and attacking those of us who "refused to see the light." One Yahoo group of which I'm part got into some fairly serious turmoil before Kerry became the nominee because of the relentlessness of a few of these people. We'd had differing but very respectful and generally congenial conversations and differences of opinion until these folks joined in, and started pouring gasoline all over everything and striking matches. I'm surprised one of those groups is still together. And none of these people has surfaced since then - just sorta vaporized into thin air. Very weird.

[NoPasaran]

104. I think it's fair to say

I think it's fair to say that all the candidates attracted some people with behavioral problems, at least here on DU. Fortunately most of the people I worked with on the campaign in real life got along together regardless of which candidate they had supported in the primaries.

[Cheswick2.0]

142. that was my experience too

However this board was a different story.

[Julien Sorel]

129. They must have been part of those Republican

groups who wanted Kerry to win in the primaries because they were terrified of Dean. The Republicans, like every right thinking person, knew the public would put more trust in Dean to protect them from terrorism than they would put in Kerry. Since their entire claim for election was going to be about terrorism, they cast about in the Democratic field for the wimpiest looking Democrat they could find -- they guy with the least amount of foreign policy experience and credentials, the guy who had dodged military service -- found him in John Kerry, then relentlessy worked for his nomination.

One of the many reasons Dean is hated is because of his praranoid, dishonest, delusional and not very bright followers. Dean himself will say or do anything to advance his political career, but at least he knows reality when he sees it. The same can't be said about many of the Deanites.

[Cheswick2.0]

143. you can't possibly imagine how disinterested I am in anything

you have to say.

[unfrigginreal]

241. I'm starting a new group, DFD

Dumasses (sic) For Dean. The only prerequisite for joining is that you must be SO Dumb that you don't realize that putting down others is a virtue. Congratulations, you (and many, many, many others) don't qualify.

[Cheswick2.0]

140. I had a run in with a Kerry campaign worker

He attacked a whole bunch of college kids who were working for ACT, calling them unproffessional and accusing them of stealing his volunteers. BTW, he was screaming this and pointing his finger at them in a large classroom in a college campus right before a Dean event. He was pissed because we had rounded up 1000 volunteers that he felt belonged to him.

So I intervened and told him Kerry was our candidate, this was our party, Dean was working for all of us and that we were all americans citizens working for the same purpose so he could back off. If he was unable to agressively recruit volunteers that was not our problem. We were doing out job.
He tried to give me the "I am Joe Bigshot head of the XXX county Kerry for President campaign". To which I wish I had responded that he had no people skills and if Kerry carried the county he could thank us for making him look good and not to worry he'd get that patronage job he was looking for.

These young white guys in suits, with their cell phones, walking around acting important are just insufferable useless appendages on the party.

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

112. Eh

I was a Deaniac and never saw that. My husband and I certainly weren't like that.

Though you could be right--maybe I just didn't run into the right (wrong?) Deaniacs. Most of the ones I knew here in Texas were just excited about him, excited that someone was saying what they wanted to say all along.

:shrug:

Even though I was a Deaniac and still love the guy, I feel like I don't have a dog in this fight. I'm not into ramming people down other people's throats and I've sort of scratched my head at all the Dean threads since the election. But whatever.

[DrGonzoLives]

120. Nothing like a good generalization

It keeps you from having to use your brain, right?

[RetroLounge]

122. Come on ZW, you are generalizing a bit

I am a Dean Supporter, and I don't believe I am an obnoxious asshole.

Except when I am in your lounge threads.

RL

[liberalpragmatist]

39. I Like Dean, and I'm a strong Kerry supporter

I was always a Kerry supporter, although I did like Clark and Edwards a lot too.

I liked Dean a lot as well. Towards December of '03, I really began to embrace the fact that he would be the nominee. Frankly, I even felt that, contrary to what most other Kerry and Clark supporters were saying, Dean could win. I just thought Kerry or Clark would make better presidents.

My problem with Dean isn't with Dean per se - it's with some of his supporters. Much of what Dean says about what ails the party is correct, but I get kind of turned off by the Dean hysteria that is extremely present on the blogosphere and "internets." As if Dean is the be-all and end-all of the Democratic Party. People seem to have latched onto him like a messiah. They relentlessly criticize all the other candidates or slam everybody else in the Democratic Party.

Of course, this isn't true of most Dean supporters. But for a vocal minority, it is. And it gets to my nerves.

[janx]

43. It wasn't messiah worship you were seeing.

The people who supported Dean, especially early on, were full of hope and enthusiasm, not so much because of who Dean was, but because *they were involved in the process.* The whole movement was very much a populist one.

Think about it: before that campaign, did anyone know how to raise large amounts of cash online from ordinary people? Had anyone heard of the term "MeetUp"? Did people use blogs interactively with any campaign?

No, the message of the Dean campaign empowered people and gave them hope. It allowed THEM to be part of the process, for the first time in a long time.

If anything the Democratic party needs more of this, not less.

[madfloridian]

51. Oh, no, not the Messiah worship thingy again!

Are they still pulling that one on us?

[liberalpragmatist]

55. I realize that was the case for most Dean supporters

But there was a very vocal minority who viewed Dean as the be-all-and-all of progressive politics.

I realize that for a majority they were merely enthusiastic about the hope and enthusiasm that Dean offered them. That's fine and laudable. What I got annoyed with was the vocal minority that would insist on tearing everyone else down besides Dean.

[janx]

61. There was a vocal minority supporting just about every

former candidate who behaved the same way. It was noticed more with the Deaniacs because they were successful for so long. Everybody was piling on.

Heck, we had a flame war to end all flame wars just a few days ago on this board that had nothing to do with Dean, DFA, or anything connected with that. It actually got so bad that the thread was not locked, but removed (thank God). At its roots was the same negative, partisan sniping that we saw during the primaries.

So no camp is without its overzealous supporters, unfortunately.

[liberalpragmatist]

85. That's a fair point

Personally, I got annoyed at the most viscious Dean-bashing during the primary season on DU.

Basically, I try to stay out of flame wars. I was really willing to accept any of the candidates, and I thought any of them could've won given the right campaign (although I'm less sure of that now, in hindsight).

Anyway, whatever. You can have the last word if you wish. I really don't want to start a massive back-and-forth something I have no stomach for. I think we're basically in agreement and I don't think that I'd have much of a problem with you personally.

Peace

[Cheswick2.0]

74. yeah because non of the other candidates had supporters tearing others

down. :eyes:

[m berst]

215. agreed

You make very important points here. Dean's contributions were invaluable, and you describe them well. Do you think that those contributions, and the work of his supporters, go unrecognized or are unwelcome in the party?

[Bush was AWOL]

219. Totally agree

[DaveinMD]

40. I don't dislike Dean

I dislike some of his supporters who think he is the only leader in the Party.

[CarbonDate]

41. I liked Dean and voted for him....

...after Clark dropped out, but it was his most zealous supporters who got under my skin. It was as though they refused to acknowledge any other candidate as legitimate.

[madfloridian]

48. Dean Dean Dean Dean......

wonder why?

[FrenchieCat]

49. I liked Dean....But

I just didn't think he had the qualifications needed to win the general election against Bush. A Wartime incumbent President needed an opposition candidate that could rival him in the national security area...Dean had no such background. Also, Dean's tax plan was not pragmatic enough to win a general election. Raising EVERYBODY'S taxes back to preBush tax cuts wasn't not going to attract any additional voters to our ranks.

I also think that many Democrats became resentful of Dean because he was hailed repeatetly as the "frontrunner" by the media before a single vote was ever cast. Even when the polls showed Clark 1 point down from or in a tie with Dean....the media reported all about Dean, and barely mentioned Clark.

Let's just say that the other candidates got "media coverage crumbs" while Dean and mostly only Dean received free media publicity consistently until the Iowa vote. Name recognition was 1/2 of the battle during the primaries. Dean's was the name most mentioned throughout......problem is that his coverage went from all good to all bad. You can say that the media helped built him up and then set him up of the fall.

When the news media pushes your man relentlessly....one has to ask why. Most Dean supporters believed that he earned the coverage through hard work and fundraising....others of us knew better than to trust the manipulative media. When they tell you the sky is blue on the news.....you better believe that it was actually reddish purple the night of their report.

So at the time and in the end....I don't believe that it was about "hating" on Dean...as much as it was "hating" on Bush and wanting to win the election.

[madfloridian]

50. Among other things.

.

[Malikshah]

54. Because folks don't like to admit they were wrong

They castigated Dean, tore him down, and yet he continued to gain support until the end-- They "won" the battle but lost the war.

And they just can not get over it and must find someone else other than themselves to blame.

Just my humble opinion ;)

[Cheswick2.0]

59. I think you've hit the proverbial nail on the head

[Malikshah]

64. Shhhh. Be careful-- there be dragons out there

Sometimes telling the MoreOfTheSameCrowd Conventional Widsomists that they have no clothes results in harangues of the most tiresome kind.

Regardless--I will be on their collective cases just as much as those of the evil empire over the next few years. They will be made to realize that they do not have all the answers. Denigrating Dean isn't a solution.

[Bombtrack]

181. Can't get over what? To blame for what?

Talk about a meaningless cliche'd attack.

[Robeson]

56. I like Dean. Voted for him in the Primaries long after "Our" party...

...leaders, i.e. the DNC and DLC, converted most Dems. into believing he couldn't win as dog catcher for Fargo. And many Dems still buy into that.

Anywho. I'd vote for him again.

[FrenchieCat]

66. Robeson....

If you read my post above (#49), I list actual reasons as to why I, along with many others didn't believe that Dean would beat Bush in the general election.

My thoughts as to why Dean was not the better candidate and wouldn't win had little to do with the DNC, the DLC or Dem Leaders....I actually reached the conclusion all on my lonesome.

I don't believe that Dems "bought" into anything...cause there were more Dems(the Dem masses) who don't even follow what the DNC or the DLC are actually doing and saying...these millions of non activist primary voters do, however, read all of those newspapers and news magazines that said Dean was the one...and they also watched CNN/MSNBC/FOX/ABC/NBC/CBS who said Dean was the one that would win.

I think that Iowa voters have to be given some of the responsibility as they were the ones that deliberated during the caucuses and came up with whom they thought should be the nominee. They were voters afterall....and not media pundits. If they placed Dean third...it must mean that many of them did not think that Dean should be the one.

I was actually surprised that these voters actually went against he media presstitute's Conventional Wisdom of a Dean "win and take all" vision.

[Robeson]

68. Yes, I read your post, I just don't necessarily agree with your opinions.

...and, therefore, felt no need to reply to your points. It was the original post I was responding to, not yours.:)

[lojasmo]

62. None of the bashers joining in, what's up widdat?

Helooooo! Calling all dean-haters! What's up? YOU'RE the ones who know the answer to this! Let's rumble!

[Lady President]

63. I disliked Dean in 2003, but things change

I'm the first to admit that I really disliked Dean during the Primaries. I had anti-Dean sites bookmarked and felt nothing but glee watching the "I have a scream" speech. Since early 2004, I've had time to think about why I didn't like him. Here are my reasons:

1. His Supporters
Dean's supporters were obnoxious to Kerry supporters in 2003. In retrospect this was because many were young and didn't understand that we were all going to have to come together, so it was counterproductive to make enemies with other activists. I was called a DINO, told I was wasting my time, etc. (I'm referring to face-to-face encounters. Flame wars on message boards don't upset me.) I didn't find this with experienced activists. I can now see that some of this was also because I live in Ohio. We were told constantly how important we were and egos got the better of all of us. I think new volunteers were resume building and more "enthusiastic" than necessary. It wasn't Dean's fault, but a lot of rude college students justified their behavior by calling themselves Deaniacs.

2. Trippi vs. Dean
I still don't understand this relationship. I can remember reading that Dean insisted that Trippi not sleep or eat until his work was done, despite Trippi's diabetes. For awhile it seemed like Trippi's work was rewarded by being fired. In all honesty, for quite some time I thought Dean was just plain mean to Trippi. On the other hand it seemed like Trippi didn't understand his role and thought he was the one running for President. There always seemed to be some confusion as to who had control. This made me uncomfortable.

3. Dean's Temperament
I felt that Dean was a bit of loose cannon. On a completely personal level I prefer a more calming demeanor. I think this brought on the energizing/crazy debates we saw last year. I didn't think his personality was right for a Presidential candidate, however I fully support him for DNC Chair. The very things that made me dislike him in 2003 are the things that would make him a great DNC Chair. His reputation would give the leverage to make some bold statements that we need to hear.

[Cheswick2.0]

69. did it ever occure to you that the anti dean sights you book marked

were full of false information and that you have been brain washed?

I thought I had already read the worst mischaracterizations of Dean and DFA...but you have topped them all.

[janx]

70. Hey, at least she's honest about bookmarking the anti-Dean

sites! ;-)

But it does make one wonder...was she the only one doing so? And which sites were these--the freeper ones?

I'm actually laughing about it. I laughed so hard, in fact, that there was nothing I could say in reply, at least at first!

[Lady President]

78. I was being honest

I was honestly answering the original poster's questions and, if you notice, I used the past-tense in my comments. I really disliked Dean, so I sought out other people who were feeling the same way.

If my comments are the worst you've ever read about Dean, then you've been pretty sheltered. The information about Dean and Trippi came from mainstream media, including the CNN Presents episode about the rise and fall of the Dean campaign.

[janx]

79. Were these the townhall.com sites, or what?

When did they appear? I'm curious. I remember the right-wing anti-Dean sites, but I wasn't aware of any Dem ones. (Not that it would surprise me.)

[Lady President]

88. They were easy to find for awhile

I have a new computer since I had them bookmarked, so I don't have the links anymore. I really don't know if the sites were run by Dems., but considering the anti-Deans ads (which I never condoned) in Iowa, I wouldn't be surprised. The "stop Dean" movement was blamed on most of the candidates, as well as the Clintons, at different times. I would imagine that both sides had a few people creating these sites.

I do remember that there was an anti-Dean message board that had over a thousand people that was traced back to supporters of another Dem. candidate.

[janx]

95. I appreciate your candor about this. I seem to remember

some college student from D.C. who had some "stop Dean" gig going at some point.

But the only anti-Dean site I saw was of the freeper variety.

Thanks again.

[madfloridian]

71. You did the anti-Dean the whole way? huh?

him, his supporters, and you threw in Trippi for good measure.

[Lady President]

80. At the time

Yes, those were my feelings at the time. I still think I made the right decision backing Kerry. But, I can see now that emotions were running high in 2003 and that's why I disliked him as much as I did. To repeat myself, I would very much like to see Dean as the DNC Chair.

On the flip side, I think if a lot of people were as honest as I've been, they would admit they had a candidate, or two, they disliked. In 2003 there were dozens of "If (blank) is the nominee, I won't vote for him," threads. I never went that far. I definitely would have voted for Dean had he been the nominee. I disliked Dean, but hate Bush, and I always realized the difference.

[madfloridian]

83. Yes, there are ones I dislike. I just think it poor taste to say so.

I could post a lot about the candidates I did not care for, I consider it poor taste to do so. I just bash them all equally, but I don't get into personalities.

[Lady President]

90. Then a lot of people have poor taste

If you think it's in poor taste to criticize a candidate, then you must skip a lot of threads here. The beauty of this board is having the opportunity to read other peoples opinions about politics and politicians.

I don't understand how you can completely separate a person's platform and their personality. I can't, and I know most others can't either. For example, many posters felt Kerry was too stuffy, which was a legitimate opinion. I happened to like Kerry's button-downed demeanor, but it's not rude if someone else disagrees with me.

[XemaSab]

201. Reasons for disliking Dean....

"1. His Supporters
Dean's supporters were obnoxious to Kerry supporters in 2003."

You know, I don't like Kerry because Kerry and his supporters were obnoxious to Dean and HIS supporters (of which I was one) in New Hampshire.

I know it's not healthy for people in the party to have this attitude, but it's hard to overcome certain impressions.

I went to this rally in Manchester NH surrounding the candidates' debate, and there were a LOT of Dean supporters and HORDES of Kerry supporters (not to mention MANY MANY Clark, Lieberman, Edwards, Kucinich, and other supporters).

Most of the people there were pretty cool, but the Kerry supporters (most of whom were LARGE fire-fighters from Boston) went through the crowd totally denigrating us and our candidate, saying things like "Someday you'll learn how wrong you are," and "It's too bad you have to support such a horrible person," and even worse things. One of Kerry's supporters punched a girl; it was a riot in the making. I was actually *scared* of the Kerry supporters. I don't want huge guys coming up to me being rude; that's not OK.

Also, before election day *someone* called our voters and gave them the wrong polling information, push-polled our voters, and generally ran a very nasty campaign. Probably the same *someone* who ran a really wimpy campaign in the general election.

Before then I had had a fairly positive experience with other campaign workers, and I had a decent amount of respect for the other candidates, but after New Hampshire, I knew I would never be a Kerry supporter beyond voting for him in November.

Furthermore,

"In retrospect this was because many were young and didn't understand that we were all going to have to come together, so it was counterproductive to make enemies with other activists."

My experience of the Dean volunteers is that, yes, many were young and enthusiastic, but there were also many who were older and enthusiatic. I can't say that I've ever been involved with a better group of people. My canvassing group had a writer/editor, an international economist, a physicist, and me (I'd just graduated college with a bachelor's in soil science). Two PhD's. I was the youngest in my group (27), and by far the least educated.

I think we all understood that we would have to come together around the eventual candidate. In Iowa we went out of our way to be friendly to the other volunteers, or at least that's what I saw happening. We'd meet other volunteers out canvassing, and chat with them about where they were from and we'd talk about the need to support the eventual candidate. Very amiable.

However, I think it was bad to have so many strong candidates in the primaries. I think we wanted to beat Bush really badly (duh), and a lot of Democrats felt that only their candidate could do it. We all picked our standard-bearers, and many people who didn't originally support Kerry never really warmed to him. We still voted for him, but held our noses. I have friends who were HARDCORE Kucinich and Clark supporters who are still smarting about it like the Dean supporters are. There are people here talking about putting Edwards up in 2008, not to mention Clark, Dean, and Kerry.

It was a good field of candidates, and any person we put up would have been shredded. They all have things about them that the Republicans would have exploited mercilessly, and I could see things about other candidates that would be FAR WORSE than SBVT.

In retrospect, I love Dean and think he's a very genuine person, but I'm ambivalent about whether he would have made an effective president, and whether he would have done better or worse in the general election against Kerry. It's something I can argue both ways, and I'm not sure he's the guy for 2008. (In summary, Dean would have been more aggressive against Bush, but there was also a lot for Bush to go negative on too). If it's a choice between Hillary and Dean, well I know how I'd vote on that....Dean all the way. But he seems to polarize people, and I can't see him working well with the congress to get legislation passed without having to sell out and lose the support of his base. (I'm not saying he WOULD sell out, I'm saying there's just no other way anything would ever get done with the Vichy dems and Republicans in congress.)

I think he would make an awesome DNC chair. I can't see him going wrong in that position, and maybe after being on a national stage for a while people will feel differently about him and he'll be less polarizing.

Also, thanks for reconsidering your initial dislike of Dean!

(I'm sorry to admit my dislike of Kerry; maybe I'll feel differently after four more years..... :-( )

(Edit changed "healthy for the party" to "healthy for people in the party" and "Democrats felt that only our candidate could do it" to "Democrats felt that only their candidate could do it." Details, details.)

[McGonigle]

209. Your dislike of Kerry

No candidate can be responsible for the behavior of all of his (her someday, I hope) supporters. Kerry is not a thug.

[Julien Sorel]

81. Sorry, I'm just too damn lazy to write a book these days.

[Cheswick2.0]

82. oh come on

you're great at fiction.

[Julien Sorel]

87. LOL

For you to even hint at someone else being good at fiction is like Candy Crowley making a fat joke.

[Cheswick2.0]

137. bitter bitter bitter

:7

It must kill you to have been so wrong during the primaries.

[Kahuna]

191. *Snarf*

:evilgrin:

[WI_DEM]

84. well if many of the responses of this thread is true it isn't Dean, but

his supporters that many people dislike. Of course, there are fervent supporters of candidates everywhere and the Dean supporters, I don't think, are the only ones who went overboard at times.

[janx]

92. One time I had a couple of Clarkies chasing me around

on the board. This was just before or after Kerry chose Edwards as his running mate, and these people thought I had supported Edwards or something. I didn't have a bad word to say about Clark or Edwards; I thought they were both great. But these two followed me from thread to thread with tauntings about Edwards, etc.

And then, recently, somebody--whose name I did not recognize at all--attacked me by saying that I was the very worst poster on the board (and some other things). I had *no* idea what this person was talking about, but s/he alluded to the primaries.

Most people around DU are very dedicated and kind people. Many are so funny that I get addicted to reading the posts. And people always surprise me; I find myself agreeing with people that I assumed I would always disagree with.

This past election was so very important that a lot of people got very charged up about the best way to go, and some got very emotionally invested in their causes/candidates, so much so that alternative views were often seen as threats. People became over-sensitive and made some wild assumptions. That was probably inevitable.

But one thing I must point out about the Deaniacs. Most of them, after all that happened just before and after Iowa, went on and supported the nominee, John Kerry. They canvassed, made phone calls, donated money--whatever it took.

[Guaranteed]

93. It's just an excuse. nt

[madfloridian]

96. Well, we could say that of any candidate.

It's not _____, it's his supporters we don't like.

It's not _____, it's his supporters we don't like.

Trouble is we have been too kind to say it while we get blasted all over the board.

[Cheswick2.0]

144. True....except for Clark

I think his supporters are much better than the candidate.

[Crunchy Frog]

154. I think you have managed to single handedly

become the biggest advertisement against Howard Dean on this board. It seems that almost every one of your posts goes out of its way to try to offend and alienate anyone who supported someone else.

I like the idea of Dean heading the DNC, on the other hand, if his tone and attitude resemble yours, I could see him alienating the majority of Democrats. For that reason, I dearly hope that you are not a reflection of the candidate that you support.

[Cuban_Liberal]

98. I supported someone else, but I liked Dean just fine.

I never quite understood the animosity, either.

:shrug:

[franken-sense]

99. Just a few minor things

I liked him overall, but I heard that he wouldn't support gay marriage and that he was pro gun... is that true?

[WI_DEM]

171. his position on gay marriage is the same as Kerry's & most dems but he was

the first to sign civil unions. As for gun control he believes it is a state issue, but that doesn't mean he supports dismantling things like the Brady Bill.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

100. I think Dean would make a great DNC chair

I posted on some anti-Dean threads, but it wasn't so much from a dislike of him (I would have supported him if he had gotten the nomination), but yes, it was because of the attitudes of some of his supporters, not so much on DU as in my offline life.

I could hardly turn on the TV or pass a newsstand in the summer of 2003 without seeing Dean this and Dean that. I've been voting since 1972, and I've never seen a previously unknown candidate get that much publicity before the caucus season. And yet the supporters claim that "the media destroyed him." Yes, "the scream" was unfair, but as another poster pointed out, it happened after he came in third in Iowa, and a more seasoned candidate would have been prepared for the bad press and known how to recover from it. Before that incident though, he got fantastic press. Far from being ignored or destroyed before Iowa, he was built up. Believe me, Kucinich would have loved to get that kind of a pre-caucus buildup.

I had an acquaintance (someone I couldn't avoid because we were part of the same organization) whose attitude seemed to be that no one had any business supporting any other candidate. I supported Kucinich, and I'm not sorry, but I did have second and third choices. She did not. All she did was badmouth the other candidates. She was unable to articulate a reason why she supported Dean other than that he was antiwar. She didn't even seem to know much about the rest of his policies. But man, no one could say a peep against Dean, even though she was badmouthing everyone else.

I mentioned that my blue collar relatives, staunch Minnesota DFLers all, didn't like Dean because they thought he was a "yuppie." All I got was declarations that yes, Dean did too appeal to blue collar voters.

There was also the whole Iowa thing. I was in Iowa the weekend before the caucuses, and judging from the yard signs and the presence of volunteers, I fully expected Dean to win. Really, and I was fine with that, because Kucinich himself was not expecting to win Iowa. My reaction to the Iowa returns was, "Huh?"

Then there was the whole vote swapping brouhaha. Kucinich and Edwards, who are good friends, agreed that their supporters would help one another out if either one failed to meet the threshold for delegates in a given precinct. The Dean supporters somehow felt that Kucinich was morally obligated to direct his people to support Dean. Yet on issues other than the war, Kucinich and Edwards were closest in policies and emphasis. That's why it was really irritating to face Dean supporters who seemed to think that DK had somehow stabbed Dean in the back through this deal. After all, Dean came in two places ahead of Kucinich.

All through the primary season, I had to put up with people bashing DK, sometimes for really stupid reasons, such as "He has greasy hair." And I, who had actually seen him up close, would patiently explain that no, he did not have greasy hair. I do think that most of us DK supporters did a remarkable job of remaining civil.

Finally, I was annoyed at Dean supporters who talked out of both sides of their mouth. On the one hand, they praised him for being the anti-DLC candidate and the one with the guts to stand up to Bush, but when it was pointed out that there was a disconnect between his firebrand stage presence and his centrist way of governing, they would say, "Oh, well, of course he's really a centrist." That made it hard for me to figure out why he was any better than Kerry in substance as opposed to style, if his policies were so similar, except on the Iraq War.

I think a gutsy person who can talk to centrists is ideal for DNC chair. It would be a refreshing change from the milquetoasts and apologists who have held the post recently.

But I'm sure I'll get flamed for not agreeing that Dean is the only Democrat worth supporting.

[madfloridian]

111. It is a shame you feel that strongly.

I think there is going to be a problem with PDA and DFA organizing with the strong feelings on both sides. Both groups are so worthy, and each has great promise.

But so many Kucinich supporters feel like you do that I don't see how it will work.....frankly.

I don't intend to support groups that don't approve of us. I mention it because it is mainly a Kucinich group.

But then, we have about made our decision to be independent from here on, just support DFA as long as it continues.

I am just too tired of all the machinations of the party. All the things you just put on us really did happen.

Dean had a lot of unions behind him, and he did have the support of a lot of "blue collar" workers here.

So whatever, we have the Clark folks hating us though they were a wee bit used as well, and we have Kucinich and Edwards people despising us.

So why bother anymore.

[DemBones DemBones]

123. It's a shame you didn't read Lydia's post and reply to it. nt

[Lydia Leftcoast]

128. Yeah, DBDB

I don't get what was so offensive about my post.

I had nothing against Dean until I got a noseful of attitude from his supporters, and I was trying to explain that. :shrug:

[Cheswick2.0]

149. what is offensive about your post

that you don't seem to be able to look in the mirror and see your own behavior reflected back.

I'll never forget the screaming hysteria at something Dean said about not supporting the war and forgot to include DK. Long after Dean apologized the people here were still making every post about their manufactured outrage at Dean for that one slip.

Do you think it wasn't obnoxious to claim on every thread that DK was the "MOST LIBERAL" and that we would all support him if we weren't sell outs? Do you really imagine that there were no nasty posts by Kucinich supporters? Maybe you were blind to it, but you had your share of nasty astro-turf.

The biggest problem most people had with Dean was that he was the front runner for so long that every happy positive or congratulatory post about him was salt in the wound. Well sorry about that.

DFA is having monthly meet-ups to encourage grassroots involvement to take back the party from the entrenced party machine. For this we get told we are worshippers and cheer leaders for Dean. The bitterness and inaction on this board is stiffling sometimes, but take a group of people who have been inspired to long term action and that is somehow wrong.

Let me tell you a short story.

There was a conference last summer for an organization called Take Back America. There were three days of Progressive/liberal lectures, trainings etc.. Every liberal icon you can think of was there to speak. It was a veritable hotbed of progressive politics. Dean was given an award for courage in politics. His supporters were there in mass because they had been contacted by him, by Wellstone action, by Progressive majority, by 21st century democrats, by ACT and by Move-on. Most of us are members of all of those groups.

There were also Kucinich people there. They were there to campaign for DK and NO ONE WAS INTERESTED. People were actively avoiding the DK folks handing out literature. People can figure out where the heat is, where the action is happening and that is what was happening in DC that weekend. People were drawn to the momentum of what Dean had done and is continuing to do. DFA groups are learning how to take over the moribund party organizations at the local levels. We are dedicated to taking power back for ordinary people. We are not sitting around with our thumbs stuck, hoping that four years from now the party will have sense to chose a better candidate and fix the message. We aren't focused on drafting Dean for 2008. Good lord who can look that far into the future? We are looking to and TAKING ACTION on what will happen in 2006 at the local and state level.

DK has disapeared back into congress (no doubt to vote for more authoritarian legislation). I really think that is the cruxt of the continuing hostility on DU. DFA members are still involved and enthusiastic and that is pissing people off.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

198. Cheswick, you and I agree on a lot of things, such as

music and liberal Christianity. If you don't like Kucinich, I can live with that. If I or any other Kucinich supporter has gone over the line, I'm sorry.

However, I find the vehemence with which you and madfloridian have taken after anyone who is less than enthusiastic about Dean to be rather unnerving. Far from encouraging me to support Dean, should he choose to run in the primaries in 2008, this puts me off. If he had been the nominee in 2004, I would have voted for him, and if he is the nominee in 2008 (although I agree that it is too early to talk about specific candidates, as I have said on several threads), I will vote for him then, but getting pounced on for expressing reservations about the man will not convince me to feel about him the way you do.

In addition, the Dean supporters are not the only people trying to reinvigorate the Democratic party. Here in Minnesota, several people from the Kucinich campaign are working their way up the state party hierarchy, and almost all of the DK supporters I knew (except for two or three Greens) were out doorknocking on November 2, and helping not only to keep Minnesota blue but also to throw 13 Republican state legislators out of office.

As for DK himself, he's one of the few white Democratic Congresscritters who is NOT silent about the recent voting problems.

[Cheswick2.0]

146. it's a shame you don't support a womans right to choose

[DemBones DemBones]

148. It's a shame you think non sequiturs are valid arguments. nt

[Cheswick2.0]

150. maybe...but is is still a shame you don't support womens rights

[DemBones DemBones]

158. I support women's rights but don't think they include

killing your own children in the womb for convenience. I'm disgusted that sisterhood has devolved into an insistence on the "right" to abort at any time for any reason. We women can and should be better than this.

[PassingFair]

185. Maybe "we women" don't need too...

...what with YOU making all the decisions for us and all...

[Cheswick2.0]

145. I really don't understand why this is so confusing to you

Dean can be a centrist fiscally, a liberal socially and still be anti DLC. You can be a centrist and not believe it is a good idea for Democrats to depend on corporations. You can be a centrist and believe in the power of Grassroots populism as opposed to coporate board room politics.

Dean's record on choice was far superior to DK's. In many ways his social positions were more liberal. Don't forget DKs incomprehensible votes for the flag burning ammendment and for a law allowing children as young as 13 to be tried as adults. He is part of the authoritarian left. Dean is part of the libertarian left as am I. That is why I didn't support DK.

You can also be a liberal and not think DK was the end all and be all of liberal politics. I found his flip flop on abortion less than convincing. I got tired as hell of people insisting that if we only understood that he was the "most liberal" that we would see the error of our ways and back him. If you want to run are real liberal candidate, run McKinny, Jackson Lee or Waters.

[Toucano]

102. I don't care for the man.

He irritates me. I don't like the way he looks, I don't like the way he sounds, I don't think he says anything particularly new or interesting. He's more than a bit of an ass, IMO.

His political success and failure were both spectacular, though. He's got to get credit for that at least. I respect him a lot for what he accomplished.

Dean was the match that lit the lantern. But who holds on to the match once the lantern is lit?

On edit: punctuation.

[freedom for all]

103. i like him

because he seems like a fighter.. he seems to stand up for what he believes in even if its unpopular like the war...of course i could be wrong cause i have never researched him that much..

[lojasmo]

173. He is the BOOK of matches

Without it, you're screwed when the lantern blows out (like Nov. second)

[Toucano]

183. Well someone forgot to "Close Cover Before Striking" way back in Iowa

The stink of "Loser" is very difficult to wash away in American politics.

Ultimately, time will decide if he cleans up good enough for prime time again.

[lojasmo]

211. Who's the most recent or notable loser? N/T

[Toucano]

221. You're suggesting John Kerry is the most recent loser?

If John Kerry had only won Massachusettes, your point might be relevent since Dean only won Vermont.

But it's true Kerry has the loser stink on him. It isn't nearly as strong and foul as Dean's. Even so, I suspect Kerry will serve out his days in the Senate and not make another national run.


Dean performed so pooly in the primaries, I'm not convinced he wasn't just a media invention.

[lojasmo]

222. Kerry performed so poorly in the generals....

I feel the same way about him as you do about dean.

[Toucano]

229. But that's untrue.

Kerry didn't perform poorly in the general election.

Kerry got more votes than Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan. He "lost" by 3%.

Dean had ENORMOUS press and TONS of MONEY.

Yet he only won a single primary in his home state. He didn't lose by 3% either. Kerry got 60.5% of primary votes. Dean got 5.2%. Like the good doctor or not, that's a spectacular failure of Dean's campaign.

Bill Bradley got 20% in the 2000 primaries, and Gore was a foregone conclusion.

There were plenty of losers, but none had raised such high expectations as Dean, nor spent as much money.

Edit: typo

[lojasmo]

231. Kerry LOST to an AWOL chimp.

For that to happen to the most "electable" candidate is inexcusable. He should have cleaned Bush's clock, and failed miserably to do so.

Do a little research into what dean was up against before and after Iowa. If you can't figure it out, PM me, I'll give you the 411

[Toucano]

232. What he was "up against?"

I appreciate the kind offer, but I prefer to conduct this discussion in the public forum.

He was up against an ENORMOUS number of voters who said, "no, but thanks anyway."

You've typified what I find so remarkable about the rabid Dean fanatics and that's their inability to view the man with even an ounce of objectivity.

Dean's fanatics are second only to Dubya's fanatics when it comes to ignoring reality.

Primary votes for John Kerry: 9,239,066.
Primary votes for Howard Dean: 796,367.

Which one failed miserably? If Kerry's a miserable failure (as you claim), then what do you call the guy who's ass the miserable failure kicks? Maybe "abject loser"?

Is there a name for the brand of mind control Dean practices? ;)

[lojasmo]

235. My eyes are wide open on dean

Here's what happened before and after Iowa (I should cut and past this onto my notepad)

In the weeks before Iowa dean stated that he was going to reinstate the fairness doctrine (google, websites, news)

Shortly after that they dug up a 7 month old quote where Dean said that southern whites with gun racks and confederate flags on their trucks were best served by the democratic party. He was vilified by gep, kerry, and edwards, and it got major play on the news for weeks.

Then they dug up a TWO YEAR OLD QUOTE where dean said the caucus system was antiquated, and actually caused the people to forgo the primaries, leading to a corporate owned primary system. The usual suspects painted that as a quote about the IOWA primaries, and it got TONS of play in Iowa prior to the primaries.

Also the Dean/Bin Laden commercial put together by former Kerry and Gephardt staffers was neither truthful, nor fair.

Then Dean lost Iowa and "the scream" (which was pulled directly off the soundboard when Dean was actually speaking to thousands of screaming supporters) was played SIX HUNDRED TIMES on national news between IA and NH. Hannity, Rush, Coulter, and all those asswipes took it and ran, calling dean unstable, a hothead, angry, etc (see what great company you're in?)

Then, as you know, Dean lost NH, and it was basically done.

So basically dean was up against the RNC, the DLC, Rove, Kerry, Gep, Edwards, Clark, etc. etc. Plus the big 9 media conglomarates were gunning for him too.

I can tell you this, though. ABB is done. Never again will I vote for a democrat who got kneepads for bush during either of his terms. I'm specifically talking about

The Iraq War Resolution
No Child Left Behind
and the USAPatriot act.

I will NEVER AGAIN vote for Kerry, Edwards, Clinton, Gephardt, or any of those other toads who are supposed to stand as OPPOSITION to the republican agenda.

Dean may have lost big in the primaries, but he motivated THOUSANDS of people to get involved with the democratic party at a local level. That is the kind of phenomenon that Kerry could never inspire, in my opinion.

[Toucano]

239. Do you think Bush and Rove wouldn't have

dug up those things?

Clinton survived the Gennifer Flowers leak and still went on to win the nomination.

Primaries are supposed to be trying. It's the whole heat/kitchen thing. Dean's reputation for being a hot head preceeded the "I Have a Scream" speech. It was just used to reinforce a negative opinion people already had formed.

It's very easy for a candidate to say he would have voted this way or that on this issue or that issue when he isn't required to cast a vote.

How strong is your connection to Dean?

If he became a Green, would you follow?
If he became a Republican, would you follow?

[lojasmo]

240. "those things" were non-issues

I am a green, so yeah, if dean became a green, I'd be thrilled.

I will NEVER be a republican.

Dean did bring me into the democratic party, though I've always voted a straight democratic ticket.

Dean brought me to the primaries (caucus) for the first time in my life, even though he had dropped by then.

[dorktv]

216. In politics anything can happen.

[scarletwoman]

105. I never disliked him, I just didn't get what was so great about him.

He simply didn't impress me, although his fervent supporters sure did -- negatively. I just don't respond well to "true believers" of any stripe.

I wish Dean and DFA well, I hope both he and his organization can effect some positive change. I am considering supporting Dean for DNC chair, although I'd like to see what other candidates shake out before I commit.

Otherwise, what Lydia_Leftcoast posted above pretty much goes for me as well.

sw

[JHBowden]

107. Clarkies.

I said it before, and I'll say it again. :evilgrin:

[madfloridian]

108. WI-Dem, you left the door open . Why?

Since you did, let's keep it up so everyone can get it all out about how bad we are.

:shrug:

This is so sad. It never ends here anymore. Never.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

109. We're not talking about YOU, madfloridian

:-)

[madfloridian]

110. Well, I take it personally.

I have no idea who folks are talking about. I always felt when the election was over that those of us who were upset with the party about the war would not be necessary anymore.

We were Democrats, we stayed, we donated to and supported Kerry. We worked hard for him locally and supported him.

I don't know who is being talked about. I just know it is odd for it to go on and on. There are things some of us know and could post, but it would be too divisive still.

Sorry, I won't come out and say I don't like people....I was raised better than that.

For it to go on some much tells me something....the election is over and no need for Dean folks to stay around. I think that is what is being said.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

113. I really don't know why you're taking it personally

You aren't Howard Dean, and you aren't any of the people I was referring to.

:shrug:

[madfloridian]

114. It is personal. We worked our butts off for Dean, then Kerry and party.

I just hate to see Kucinich folks doing this with the DFA PDA partnering at meet-up coming up next week. I don't see how it can work with all this going on.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

115. Huh?

Whatever is going on with DFA and whoever the other alphabet organization is, I don't know anything about it.

:shrug:

[ckramer]

116. Dean was fine until that famous scream

In fact, that morning the sound bite from NPR crept me up along the rumor suggesting that he was insane after the lost of the primary battle...next thing you know it was all
over on FOX news...

Funny his recent Yahoo ad is still doing (or making fun of) that silly scream thing. What is he thinking?

[AngryAmish]

117. his breath?

I do not understand the vitriol directed to the man.

[chyjo]

118. I disliked him in the primaries

for the same reason I would like him to head the DNC. He is good at sniping, which extremely annoyed me when he attacked candidates I liked (Edwards, Kerry, Gephardt-- though I didnt think he was a good candidate), however I am very much in favor of him being the bloodhound in charge of our campaigns nationally.

[DemBones DemBones]

125. Good points -- what made him an ass in the primaries could

work well for a DNC chair. I'm not sure he's a good choice for chair, though, since he is often abrasive. The DNC chair shouldn't alienate voters.

[Cheswick2.0]

151. he wasn't nearly the ass DK has been his whole career

voting against women

[lwin]

121. I didn't like him before Iowa, and I still don't...

Sorry, that is just the truth. I decided against him long before Iowa. It wasn't that his message was all wrong, it was the way he delivered it. He comes across as unable to control his temper, which frankly, I've had enough of the past four years with Chimpy. He's combative and abrasive, and that's just with the people that share most of his values! Dean is very much a "my way or the highway" type of guy.

It's also his supporters. As someone else said earlier, it's the shoved down my throat, "Accept Dean as DLC or I'm leaving the party" "Dean is our last hope" attitude.

I also noticed that the Dean people were the very first to start with the recriminations after we lost the election, blaming Kerry & Edwards for everything under the sun. As if we weren't all miserable enough, they had to start a lynch mob looking for someone to hang.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

130. I Don't Dislike Dean...

I have been consistent....


I don't think Dean or Hillary Clinton are particularly attractive candidates for president or to lead the party....


If my motivation was ideological logically I would like one and not the other since they supposedly represent different wings of the party...


We need a candidate who can reach enough red state folks without sacrificing our core principles- a concern for the little guy and respect for everybody's civil rights...

And sadly that person isn't Howard Dean, Hillary Clinton, or even John Kerry...

[baba]

131. Much of the criticism...

...seems to come from the left-people saying Dean is too centrist. I remember a few of my more leftist friends supporting Kucinich over Dean back in 2003.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

133. I Want A Winner....

I'm not that hung up on labels as long as the candidate is largely pro choice, pro civil rights, pro affirmative action, and in favor of a responsible foreign policy and able to communicate these positions effectively...

[Cheswick2.0]

152. all of those thing you list

Dean was...pro-choice (without the bullshit moralizing of Kerry explaining that he was "personally opposed blah blah blah), pro civil rights, pro-afirmative action and his foriegn policy was superior to most of the other candidates becuase he knew and was able to say that the war was wrong and the the world was not safer without Saddamm. In fact the world is much less safe now. Dean was right.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

155. One Can Have The Best Intentions

but without the ability to get a plurality or majority of Americans to vote for him or her those intentions will remain unfulfilled....

[DemBones DemBones]

153. Kucinich is the one I actually agree with but I can support others.

Dean being "too centrist" is not my problem with him.

[m berst]

139. question for Dean supporters

I supported Clark. When he and Howard dropped out I voted for Dennis. I never had a critical word to say about Dean, and admire and respect him tremendously.

We ran a Clark board starting a year ago or so, and then invited in Howard and Dennis supporters after their campaigns ended, and Greens and Nader supporters as well. We had one rule - no arguing over candidates, and we Clarkies were good about it - we didn't want the supporters of the other candidates to have to hear about "our guy" and no one argued about Clark.

Everybody else followed this rule, too, except Howard's supporters. They really struggled to get on the program, and were so overbearing with their posts about him at first that it almost drove the rest of us bonkers. Eventually, they got in the spirit, but the subject still erupts once in a while.

I don't mean this as a criticism, I really want to understand it. My question is why are Howard's supporters the most strongly attached to their candidate?

Clark has some unbelievable loyalty from his supporters and people were just weeping and crushed when he failed. Dennis' supporters went through a rough patch as well at the end. But they all seemed to pick themselves up and could welcome the Dean supporters, yet for the Dean supporters their candidate is still today a touchy subject.

[Cheswick2.0]

156. I doubt that your perceptions are all accurate

Dean supporters are still active with DFA. I can't imagine why they were posting on some yahoo message board with Clark and Dk people.

[m berst]

161. hey Cheswick

Some Yahoo board? I don't know what you mean. We have been running a high quality customized board based on the phpbb siftware for over a year, and I think we had the cream of the crop at one time from the various campaigns.

I think that they were posting with us because it was one place that had no flaming and attacks and because it was more homey and low key, and because we always catered to the members various needs, from blogs, to polls, to private boards for work groups, etc.

I didn't intend to antagonize any Dean supporters with my post. I am genuinely curious to get some input from Dean supporters. It seems to me from our board as well as DU that Howard has gotten a more intense and sustained loyalty and protectiveness from his supporters than the other candidates did.

If I am asking it in such a way that implies disrespect to Howard or his supporters, it is not intentional.

on edit - yes, my perceptions are probably all screwed up, that is why I am asking. :-)

[Cheswick2.0]

175. serious imput

I think your perceptions are jaded. How can I disagree with your assesment of something that happened on another board I have not read? Come on, really.

My perceptions are that Dean supporters were no different than any other's except for the fact that the "Stop Dean" movement here and else where was very real and we had to live with it.

BTW, your candidate was part of it. He knew exactly what Clinton wanted of him.

[m berst]

194. I never did or said anything against Dean

I would certainly not say anything to you about Howard like what you say here about Clark -

"BTW, your candidate was part of it. He knew exactly what Clinton wanted of him."

That Clark was a puppet of Clinton came from the RNC, and I never saw any "stop Dean" sentiment or actions in the Clark campaign.

And I am really not trying to fight or argue here, but here I am defending Clark.

I mentioned out experiences on another board solely to establish a background for comparisons. I am not criticizing Dean supporters or Dean.

[Crunchy Frog]

162. I've seen the board

and there are a number of Dean supporters posting on it. From what I saw, his observations are largely accurate. It is not a Yahoo board either, by the way.

I don't think that posting on a message board precludes being involved in DFA. If that were the case, then what are you doing posting on here?

[Cheswick2.0]

174. I am sorry but I think this is the usual bullshit

more attacks on Dean supporters...ho hum

[Crunchy Frog]

180. What, you think the existance of the board

is the "usual bullshit"? You think it doesn't exist? It's something made up for the purpose of attacking Dean supporters? I know, I know, the universe revolves around Dean and everything in it is either about supporting Dean or attacking Dean. Anything that exists that doesn't fit that profile must be something made up by the Enemies of Dean.

Here's the link to the board if you want to check it out.

http://www.thegeneralconversation.com/board/

I doubt that you will though because it might conflict with your version of reality.

Since I myself am a member of the reality based community, I actually back up my points up with evidence, and look at things myself, rather than dismissing anything that might conflict with my predetermined conclusions. That probably only means that I'm some evil DLC plant who was sent to this board for the purpose of destroying Dean. The universe does revolve around him you know.

[janx]

163. I think the resurgence of Dean threads is happening because

of the DNC matter. It's an interesting development. But Dean's not running for anything, and frankly, those people who supported him in the primaries (by and large) are most interested now in seeing Democracy for America succeed, because DFA holds the possibility of actually letting the people elect their representatives and providing the opportunity to rebuild the Democratic party and the political landscape in general (since about half of the people who are involved with DFA aren't registered Democrats).

I have no interest in revisiting the primaries. But if you see some strong support from those supporters now, it's probably because of the DFA situation. Anybody who runs for office can apply for support from DFA--no matter how local, no matter what party. So the support is not so much for Howard Dean as much as it is for building sane, representative government. Again, I remind you: Howard Dean is not running for anything at this point.

The primaries have been over for quite some time. It's time to look at 2006.

[m berst]

168. yes the DNC matter and DFA

Both of those keep Howard in the forefront.

I want to say again that I admire Howard tremendously, and I don't mean to be critical of his supporters in any way. I think it is a good thing that people are loyal to him. It seems different than the loyalty people had for other candidates. For example, a mild criticism of Dennis on his board when he was running, or criticism of Clark on the Clark board would not get a strong reaction. Even Kerry you have to bash pretty hard before people come to his defense. But the loyalty to Howard seems just phenomenal to me in comparison.

[janx]

187. I'm going to pass on discussing the primaries.

No, thanks! ;-)

[m berst]

192. primaries?

I didn't mention anything about the primaries, you mentioned the subject.

[janx]

196. Your post #139 initiated the subject. I have already stated

that I have no interest in discussing it. I know you mean well, but talking about "Dean supporters," "Clark supporters," "Kerry supporters," etc. is of no relevance now.

Cheers.

[m berst]

214. ok I see

Yes, I see now what you mean.

[bush_is_wacko]

160. Actually, I really like Dean

Unfortunately, I think he shot himself in the foot when he got a little riled up at that appearance. However, silly it may seem, the idiot Repubs now have permanent fodder against him. Can you imagine listening to that rally cry 100's of times over a 6 month period of time? Given the dirty tactics of the repub party, they will find some way to preface that war cry w/ some never said statement regarding abortion, stem-cell, research, etc. etc...

Kerry, Dean, Liebermann, Clinton, Clark, should all be working on crunching numbers and presenting a well thought out and well explained mission statement for getting democratic exposure in the media ASAP. The longer the Democratic view can be exposed to the public, the more information they receive through 30 second sound bites on the media and or interviews on 20/20 etc. the better chance we have in the future. Really they ought to be reading the stuff on this site daily. there is always a lot of good information and conjecture posted on this site.

[Jon8503]

165. Not Me --- Still support Dean.

The problem is that Dean is not part of the democratic machine. I support him completely and he could not have done any worse than the democratic machine canidate we got.

Also, does anyone know what happened to the $17 million plus that Kerry left sitting in his campaign chest?

[juajen]

177. I've been watching this thread grow in number of posts

I'm not even sure why it was initiated if not to get all of us to brag on Dean. So, again, I love Dean and want him to have whatever post he wants because he is competent and a great democrat. So there. Will all of you just shut up now and work on something that is constructive.

[Bombtrack]

178. He based his entire campaign on lying about and smearing all of his

opponents. He also freaking flushed all the money he bilked out of his misguided supporters down the toilet.

[wyldwolf]

182. A personal story and a comment

I'm a member of a Dem organization that has enjoyed substantial growth over the past year.

During the primaries, we invited reps from all the candidate's campaigns to come to a meeting on alternate nights and speak.

They were all very gracious and brought with them people who ultimately stayed on and joined our organization.

Howard Dean's reps came to a meeting right before Wesley Clark's people did, so when the Clark people came, there were many new members from the Dean support group.

Immediately after the "Clark" meeting, the chairperson of our organization recieved a letter chastizing us for having anyone BUT Dean's reps at the meetings, and were especially critical of us welcoming Clark's people in.

At the next meeting, the topic came up and I've never heard so much vitriol spewed about other democrats than what I heard coming from Dean supporters. When one in particular was challenged concerning Dean's record on a particular issue, the woman went nuts. I honestly thought she would get physically abusive to someone.

It is said posting on an internet forum like DU emboldens people to act in such a way that they wouldn't do in person and we all know we saw some very vicious exchanges on DU during the primary season - many of which I was involved in.

But to see such a spectacle in "real life" was astounding.

Josh Marshall once wrote:

There is an awfully distressing tendency among a minority of Dean supporters to serve up no end of lacerating comments about other candidates and then to react with a sort of stunned and outraged shock when anyone criticizes their guy. It's the flip side of seeing the race in such heroic, if not messianic dimensions.

The primary is actually not concluded yet. And, pace John Calvin, I assume the outcome is not predetermined. So it is still permitted to criticize Mr. Dean and not be an enemy of democracy.

...and I, and many others, found this to be true. Even the thread title testies to this.

Is it so hard to believe one can like Dean, yet still question his policies and dislike those that seem to worship him like he was some messiah?

But the question was, why do so many here dislike Dean?

Well, I LIKE Howard Dean. He is my kind of centrist democrat. What I do dislike is this minority of very vocal and hypocritical Dean supporters who think it is perfectly acceptable to trash anything and anybody but plays the wounded animal when the tables get turned. They held him up as the second coming - creating such a "liberal" myth around him that no one even recognized the REAL Howard Dean. They are what turned me off to Dean.

And I believe this small minority is what turned America off to Howard Dean.

Ironic that those who loved him best eventually sunk him.

[Her Blondness]

184. He never appealed to me on any level

In the beginning, I was a Wesley Clark girl.

I couldn't see Dean winning the general election. I thought Dean would go down as just another Dukakis, an easy repug target.

I campaigned early on for Clark, but after the primaries Kerry stole my heart, and now it is broken. :cry:

[Crunchy Frog]

186. I think it's pretty clear from the answers here

that hardly anybody on this board really dislikes Dean, but many people have been turned off by the behavior of a small but vocal minority of his supporters.

For the record, I admire Dean and have alot of respect for the work he is doing. I like most of the Dean supporters on this board, with a small number of exceptions. I did not and do not think that Dean would make a good presidential candidate, and I would not support him for such, although I would vote for him if he were the nominee.

I have seen more posts on here attacking or misrepresenting other candidates than ones attacking Dean. The people on both sides making attacks seem to be very much in the minority however. I've allowed myself to be suckered into responding to some of the attack posts and therefore contributing to the rancor, and for that I apologize.

I'm hoping that we can all move on soon from the primary rancor and begin working on things that all of us believe in.

[JVS]

195. Because they are idiots

:-)

[m berst]

197. this thread

I always supported Dean, and never spoke ill of him. I admire him and always thought that he contributed mightily to the re-awakening of the Democratic party. I supported Clark and never saw why one had to support one candidate to the exclusion of all others. My opposition to Kerry was purely strategic - I questioned if he was the best candidate for the party to run this past election. But I always defended Kerry, and Howard and all of the Democrats when they were attacked or maligned.

After reading this thread, however, I am wondering if Dean may not be a destructive and divisive influence in the party. We had some terrible battles with Kerry supporters last year, but this is something else.

Supposedly people attack Dean, but what I see here are some stunning and bitter attacks on Clark and Dennis (Dennis???) that just appeared out of nowhere.

I think that the "for us or against us" mentality is destructive. I haven't heard attacks on Clark since the right wingers went after him way back when, and Dennis.. I am very surprised to see hostility toward Dennis and his supporters. I hadn't run into that before, except briefly back after Iowa.

I don't know what causes this, and when I asked about that here - politely and respectfully, I thought - I couldn't get an answer, and to my great surprise found myself defending Clark and Kucinich.

So to answer the op, I love Dean and I always have, but I am reconsidering the wisdom of him playing a major role in the party in the future because of the hostility of his supporters toward other Democrats.

During the heat of the primary campaign, many mean spirited things were tossed at all of the candidates, but that has long since healed as nearly as I can tell and I don't hear Clark or Kucinich supporters hurling insults around. Apparently not so for some Dean supporters, so it seems that the animosities are deep and lasting for them. That can't be a good thing for the party IMHO.

[mogster]

199. Well...

I like Dean for his modern approach and ability to see the advantage of the internet.

I like Kerry because of his tendency to pick on the establishment's noses and the willingness to fight for his country AND asking questions about it afterwards.

I like Wes Clarke because you'll never see the Abu Ghraib in the eyes of that man.

There's a lot of interesting personalities in the Democrat party today, and they can energize different demographical groups within the party.

[m berst]

218. indeed

Earlier on the thread I tried to talk about this, but it is still difficult. The different candidates brought in very different groups of supporters. I see that as a matter of different paths to the same destination, with the different groups bringing with them their own unique strengths and viewpoints. There really was a unique feel to each community - the Dean, Clark, Kucinich and Kerry people. There is strength in that diversity, and it is a shame that loyalty to candidates has caused dissension and rancor in the larger community.

I loved the Dean community for its passion and intelligence and outspokenness, the Clark community for its diversity, and the Kucinich community for its eccentricity. Generalizations, of course. The Kerry people I never understood or related to very well.

I believe that the ultimate power is in the community, not in any one leader.

Perhaps because Dean and his supporters were so far ahead of the game, the rest of us all seem like latecomers and interlopers. That would be understandable. While it was Clark who drew me in to a new level of political involvement, that led me to an understanding and appreciation for Dean than I would never had gotten otherwise. Oh, I would have volunteered and voted as usual, but like many of us I had succumbed to the popular idea of putting politics off in its own little niche like a hobby.

I regret that I didn't hear the "Dean music" earlier, but I think that was largely the fault of the very poor coverage that all of the candidates got from the media. It was not until after I had been in the Clark campaign for a while that I really had an opportunity to hear Dean's message. Since then, I have always admired him and supported and defended him.

[norml]

200. I don't dislike Dean. I dislike Dean threads.

Such a lot of fire on this thread! Isn't it both a little too early and a little to late for candidate discussions right now? Dean is doing,and I believe he has done some positive things to help all of us. Why not post links to some of those things?

[fujiyama]

212. Never really had a problem

with him or even for that matter, most of his supporters. In fact I admire how most of his supporters did do their best to get Kerry elected.

I learned about Dean very early on in a TNR article. I found him an interesting candidate, but he never really did "click" with me. My problem was never with his message and I agreed with him on most issues. It was just his tone that put me off...and I never really felt he could win.

However, what annoyed me was that a small number somehow could never believe he was defeated fairly and that the primaries were "stolen". Now, I'm willing to admit that the DLC didn't want Dean nominated (that was pretty obvious), but I've seen some ridiculous conspiracy theories (i.e. the voting machines in NH primary were rigged and that "dirty tricks" caused Dean to lose IA or that the media was pushing Kerry down people's throats). I think this sort of thinking is harmful, because it is imperative for future grass roots campaigns (which Dean's was at first) to learn from the mistakes of Dean's candidacy especially in not understanding machine politics in the primary process.

Also another problem I saw was that some of his supporters refused to believe that Dean had any flaws and after would not admit that Dean DID make mistakes during the primaries.

These are pretty small things though and aren't really targetted toward anyone in particular. Most of these complaints can be applicable to supporters of other candidates as well. I myself never really got caught in the flamewars and anyone that has read my own posts knows that I've been pretty critical at times of Kerry as well.

At this point, I'm not really interested in reliving the primaries. Dean lost to Kerry and ultimately Kerry lost to Bush. I think we should learn from the process though and reconsider the power of two small states in determining our candidate. I likely would have been saying regardless of whom had won. We also need to learn from the mistakes that Dean and KErry made, in the primaries and general election.

[Bush was AWOL]

217. I didn't realize I disliked him until I started reading DU

and noticing him being crammed down the throats of other Democrats.

[WI_DEM]

223. but is that his fault?

after all I notice the same thing is done by other candidate supporters here as well at times.

[Cheswick2.0]

234. and no other candidates supporters did that?

I don't think so.

[lojasmo]

237. So do you dislike Kerry now too? N/T

[Freddie Stubbs]

225. His complete silence on the stolen election?

;)

[Snivi Yllom]

226. because Dean is "unelectable"

unlike John Kerry

Did you know John Kerry was in Vietnam too?

[Julien Sorel]

227. All these posts blaming Dean's supporters for being asswipes,

but absolving Dean of responsibility for it.

Where did that stuff come from? Dean himself. Dean put himself on the map with a speech to the California Democratic Party in 2003, which started out bashing Democrats, and the bandwagon was on its way. To this day, the biggest bashers of Democrats are the far leftists and the Deanites -- two groups that have a lot of overlap. But Dean cynically tapped into that crap, and I think he did it knowingly.

Hell, in the end Dean might serve a positive purpose, in dragging some of the fringe elements into more mainstream politics. A lot of the most over the top Deanites are far leftists, who now champion "centrism," out of loyalty to Dean. Maybe it's better that such people be bashing Democrats for not being Dean, rather than bashing them for not being Greens.

[lojasmo]

236. I like bashing democrats for being republicans. N/T

[Cheswick2.0]

233. Don't you know? It's not Dean, it's his supporters

because all the other candidates supporters were sweetness and light duing the primary.

[Geek_Girl]

238. I Liked Dean

He wasn't my fist choice but I do like his energy and his vision. I hope that he becomes chair of the DNC. I also like Wes Clark, he should have been our candidate for 2000 and he should be our candidate for 2008. My only concern about Wes Clark is he seems a little thin skinned and green about politics. He's going to have roll up his sleeves and get in the muck and fight, if he wants the nomination.

[greenohio]

244. I thought this was locked, must have been another Dean discussion.

In short, Deans supporters counter argument anything negative about Dean, even though it may be true. If you say he is a moderate, they claim he is a liberal. If you claim he is a liberal, they claim he is a moderate. Then they argue Dean is above labels. Many of his supporters were really upset with the primaries and believe there was a conspiracy (DLC-other leadership) to keep him down. The bitterness is exemplified in conversations like this one.

They also like to alert to get posts deleted.